Thinking of getting another AR while they are cheap

[syntaxerrorsix]

I'm in the build it yourself club. This was right at $350 after transfer.



I spent $50 on an upper and lower vice block and maybe $20 on punches. Already owned a torque wrench (and carry handle)

Knowing that I can stock up on stripped lowers for ~$30 takes any concern out of the possibility of future price spikes. Ic an just roll my own.

 

[kwg020]

Personally, I would just get some lowers and stick them back. My problem is I'm 65 years old. If the government stops the sale of AR's today it will be 40 years before the current supply of AR's is used up, lost stolen or confiscated and the value would significantly increase. But, if I were 40 years younger I would fill a closet with them.
kwg

 

[AlexanderA]

Personally, I would just get some lowers and stick them back. My problem is I'm 65 years old. If the government stops the sale of AR's today it will be 40 years before the current supply of AR's is used up, lost stolen or confiscated and the value would significantly increase. But, if I were 40 years younger I would fill a closet with them.

Exactly. This is why "bans" of AR's are meaningless unless they are accompanied by "mandatory buybacks" or confiscations. The antigunners are slowly waking up to that fact, and that is why some candidates are now advocating "mandatory buybacks." But the smart ones know that it's a "bridge too far" politically.

A freeze on production (that is, an AWB with grandfathering) would follow the prototype of the Hughes Amendment moratorium on new machine guns. And we saw that that eventually led to a tremendous spike in prices. But the difference is that there were less than 200,000 grandfathered machine guns, whereas existing AR's number in the millions. You are correct that it would be 40 years (or more) before we saw a huge price runup due to rarity. But don't overlook the psychological impact of such a ban. It would cause the mother of all panics, at least initially.

 

[Balrog]

If they ban AR's, why wouldnt they also ban production of new uppers?

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

If they ban AR's, why wouldnt they also ban production of new uppers?

They aren't regulated or have serial numbers.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

They aren't regulated or have serial numbers.

I doubt if that would stop them should they decide to impose/enforce a ban...

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

I doubt if that would stop them should they decide to impose/enforce a ban...

Uppers are not firearms. Not any more likely than banning umbrellas.

 

[Balrog]

Uppers are not firearms. Not any more likely than banning umbrellas.

Didn't they just ban bump stocks, which also are not considered firearms? I don't think its any different.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

Uppers are not firearms. Not any more likely than banning umbrellas.

True, for now...
But then in the recent past, a "roach clip" wasn't a joint but you could be busted for possessing drug paraphernalia if they really wanted to arrest you.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

Didn't they just ban bump stocks, which also are not considered firearms? I don't think its any different.

The poorly misconstrued "reasoning" from Sessions was that bump stocks converted semiauto rifles to full auto which IS in fact already legislated by way of the NFA.

Pretty certain they won't be able to ban barrels and receivers using the same bunk interpretation. If they did they'd have to ban ALL barrels.

Seems unlikely.

 

[Skylerbone]

Pretty certain they won't be able to ban barrels and receivers using the same bunk interpretation. If they did they'd have to ban ALL barrels.

They can and have banned specific configurations and features of uppers and lowers. This also included a hard date for preban configuration; if your stripped lower was not finished with preban features before the law was inacted then it was not legal to configure it after that date. This, in affect dissolved the AR marketplace and was the reason so many of us middle age guys didn’t grow up shooting gas guns.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

They can and have banned specific configurations and features of uppers and lowers. This also included a hard date for preban configuration; if your stripped lower was not finished with preban features before the law was inacted then it was not legal to configure it after that date. This, in affect dissolved the AR marketplace and was the reason so many of us middle age guys didn’t grow up shooting gas guns.

They did not however limit, the upper receiver or the barrel. They banned configuration with certain additional parts such as bayonet lugs and other useful but unnecessary parts in combination.

Lowers are a completely different matter as they are firearms with serial numbers.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

Lowers are a completely different matter as they are firearms with serial numbers.

Are those 80% lowers, the ones that still need machining to make them work, numbered as well?
Never seen one myself.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

Are those 80% lowers, the ones that still need machining to make them work, numbered as well?
Never seen one myself.

To the best of my knowledge no. I've not made one myself either.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

To the best of my knowledge no. I've not made one myself either.

I guess that explains why they can be sent directly to you while the other ones have to clear a back ground check.
Interesting...

 

[Mosin Bubba]

Regulating uppers isn't quite as low-hanging of fruit as bump stocks or pistol braces, but it wouldn't be too difficult. All they'd have to do is say "one upper per firearm" and mandate that all new AR rifles manufacturered after XX/YYYY have the front pivot pin welded in place.

50 years from now, I think the trend of assembling mail-order AR15s at home will look about as quaint as mail-ordering catalog rifles with no background checks in the 1960s looks today.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

^^^
I didn't hit "Like" cause I liked the idea but because it is truly possible...

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

^^^
I didn't hit "Like" cause I liked the idea but because it is truly possible...

Sure, anything is possible. Just not likely in my opinion. It's simply to broad to be applied to just AR's. They'd have to go "all in" and that simply isn't politically expedient. Ask Bill Clinton.

 

[taliv]

A LOT has changed since Bill Clinton.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

A LOT has changed since Bill Clinton.

The Democrats lost approximately 50 years worth of control... It was a CLEAR loser politically.

ETA - 8 Democratic Senators lost their races and 54 Democratic House members...

 

[Mosin Bubba]

As odd as it sounds, the biggest place the pro-gun side has won in the last 30 years has been at the federal level with legislation and courts. Assault weapons bans looked like a fait accompli after Britain, Australia, and even the state of California passed their own in the 80s and 90s - now they're becoming something of a political third rail. The Heller ruling made blanket bans like semi-autos or handguns near impossible, unless a similarly major Supreme Court case overturns it later. At the state level, CCW rights have only expanded as "packers" have proven to be remarkably responsible thus far.

I think the place we have to watch out for is with executive branch rulings made by an anti-gun administration, and with future state-level legislation. ATF rulings and executive orders usually lack the scope of legislation, but they can be created pretty much by fiat and are very difficult to overturn in courts. An anti-gun administration that knew what it was doing could put a couple of them in the right places and make life difficult for us.

And state-level gun control is easier to get passed than federal-level gun control, while economic factors are continuing to pack Americans into a smaller and smaller group of cities. Ironic how the telecom revolution was supposed to let us work from anywhere, and yet it centralized us more than 20th century manufacturing plants ever did... Anyway, by 2040, 70% of Americans will live in only 15 states. If most of those states have gun control, then half of America will lose their gun rights without a single federal law being passed. And that makes AWBs, ammo control and other fun legislation much easier in a generation, when it becomes less "let's ban ARs for everyone right now" and more "well, everyone else is already doing it..."

EOs - we can't do much about those other than vote in presidential elections. I think state laws need to be the battleground we stay looking at. Apologies for the political sidetrack but I think it's important to take stock of where we're at and where we're going.

 

[Balrog]

Even if they don't figure out to ban uppers, the availability of uppers is likely to go way down, and prices will go way up, if AR's are banned

 

[taliv]

The Democrats lost approximately 50 years worth of control... It was a CLEAR loser politically.

ETA - 8 Democratic Senators lost their races and 54 Democratic House members...

i don't know how you figure that, but more importantly, the vast millennials didn't even exist then, and now they are all voting age. they don't remember that and see to think banning guns is a winning political platform. so relying on an election that happened before they were born to be a deterrent seems pretty sketchy

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

i don't know how you figure that, but more importantly, the vast millennials didn't even exist then, and now they are all voting age. they don't remember that and see to think banning guns is a winning political platform. so relying on an election that happened before they were born to be a deterrent seems pretty sketchy

Figure what? The numbers are public record.

ICYMI https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/us/politics/assault-weapons-ban.html



ETA... Millennials may be voting but they aren't the ones in office or running and the vast majority of those folks were certainly around for the AWB. They know it's political suicide.

 

[taliv]

figure 50 years? the awb was 1994. it's 2019 today. obama was elected in 2008, and dems have controlled the house and senate since then, so doesn't even look like 20 years.