So it looks as if the assault weapons ban is going to expire next Monday. I’m certainly looking forward to it. In my opinion it was poorly worded and mainly outlawed cosmetic features.
My brother in Iraq needs a high capacity replacement clip for his Army purchased after-market M92 clip since it causes the gun to jam, and I need high capacity clips for my USP .45 and my Glock 9mm. Anyone else looking forward to making a few purchases on Monday?
When did the ban start? Does it go back to the “The Brady Bill”? If so, too bad the new regs didn’t roll into effect on the day Reagan died to attempt to remind this country of its conscience. Also, along these lines, I must ask…just how much munitions does it take to go deer hunting, anyhow? …M.R. tricky critters, ain’t they? 
- Jinx
It’s a completely useless law. I’m glad to see it go.
I love assault weapons… M14/M1A, FAL, AR-10, H&K 91, AR-15, SKS, AK-47. I love 'em all, though I must admit I have a particular fondness for full-size main battle rifles (7.62 x 51 / .308). I currently have a metric FAL. It’s a “post ban,” which means it has a muzzle brake instead of a flashhider. After this Monday I’ll be allowed to install a flashider, but the damn brake was welded to the barrel. I don’t think I can get it off without screwing up the barrel threads. 
I’m also in the process of building another FAL using a new Imbel receiver and new Imbel barrel. (It’s for my son. He’s only 15 months old. Of course, by the time he’s old enough to shoot, the rifle will probably be banned. :mad: ) Anyway, this rifle will have a threaded barrel and flash hider. 
I just pray the Nazis in congress won’t pass another AWB. :mad: Not that I would ever give up my rifles. I’ll just have to be more discrete…
Does this mean that pistol grips will be re-allowed on autoloaders? What about the bayonette lug? (To be fair, have there been any fixed-bayonette attacks since the law went into effect?)
Also to be fair, didn’t the gun lobby force so many changes to the bill that it became
Snipped from the OP;
So brags a card-carrying NRA member friend of mine.
AANAA-GN (I Am Not An Anti-Gun Nut).
That *should say;
Ah Ahm Naught Ahn Ahnti-Guhn Nuht.
Thank goodness this country will finally be safe from the criminals who took over from the defenseless citizenry after this ban went into effect.
What?
I was asking seriously, BTW.
To answer your question Johnny, yes. This thread in GD lists some of the provisions that will go away.
Thanks for the link, BF.
I used to have an FN-LAR (civilian version of the FAL). I sold it when I moved to L.A. in 1986 so that I could get the “downpayment” on my apartment. Why not? I could always replace it later. I didn’t buy an AR-180 (I like it because it’s so butt-ugly), an HK-90-something (civilian version of the MP-5), or an Uzi Carbine because I could always add them to my collection when I had more money, right? :smack:
I’d still like to get those rifles, even though I haven’t been shooting in years. I’ve no worries about a socio-economic collapse, and none of my guns are for self-defense. They’re just interesting machines. I’ve recently discovered that there is a rifle range near me, so I may have to do my part to help the economy by shooting up some expensive ammo. Or maybe I’ll wait for a friend to visit. She says she likes to shoot. Of course, that will be around Christmastime; so it will be pretty darned cold for shooting. Might have to find a warmer activity. 
:dubious:
Were there any bayonette charges before the law ws enacted?
you can have hubbys AK when they pry it out of my hands [damn that thing is fun to play with
Honest question for you: why do you say that you “need” high capacity clips?
“Want” I can understand, but “need?”
I need a main battle rifle (e.g. FAL). I consider it a necessary tool for protecting my liberty. I also need 20-round magazines. They increase my rifle’s firepower and handiness, thus making it a more effective tool.
You should check your state laws as well. IIRC, only California enacted a ban that included pistol grips - the 94 assault weapons ban allowed pistol grips as long as it didn’t include any of the other listed features - bayo lug, flash hider, collapsible stock, and I forget the last.
I know that here in Massachusetts, the expiration of the federal ban is meaningless, since the state enacted a permanent version of the federal ban 6 years ago. The only advantage is that pre-bans should drop in price, since they’ll be a glut on the market in the rest of the country.
I have to ask, and I ask out of genuine curiousity, how is a main battle rifle going to help you defend your liberty? And against whom?
(The way I see it, if the US government, along with the military, decides it wants to take away your liberty, nothing short of a carrier battle group is going to help you. And I’m not sure who else you’d be worrying about…)
A battle rifle is the best tool to have when engaged in “conflict.” And if I find myself in armed conflict, I want the best tool. History has also shown that groups of civilian riflemen can successfully defeat a conventional army using techniques of guerilla warfare. Will it work in our case? I don’t know. And it doesn’t really matter; I figure being dead is better than being a slave.
That’s true. It isn’t because changes were made, but rather, because the term “assault weapon” is an absolutely meaningless term. Assault weapon means “Something that looks scary to the legislator who is trying to ban it”. The guns the ban affected are functionally similar to any common semi-auto hunting rifle. The difference? “Assault weapons” looked scarier, even if they functioned the same.
So how do you ban guns that look scarier? Well, you place a ban on cosmetic features. That’s what the AWB was. Apparently a gun with a bayonet lug and pistol grip is vastly more dangerous than one without those features.
Yeah, that’s what Mike said.
My own take was that one side wanted wet noodles, and the other side wanted tactical nuke. We wind up somewhere between really sharp pointy sticks and full-auto 20mm.
Ain’t democracy great!
I think it’s an example of the irrationality of the most vocal of anti-gun advocates out there. They want to hinder gun ownership so much that they’ll consider it a victory if they pass irrational, ineffective laws that do nothing but ban scary looking things. It also goes to show they’ll take whatever they can push through in terms of legislation - rather than whatever “common sense” mantra they go by.
While this has to be the dumbest add-on to the AWB, I was thrilled to find out it was in there. It showed how meaningless the ban was and almost guaranteed it wouldn’t survive a re-vote.
I think I’ll break out the Jimmy Buffet CD and listen to “Come Monday” again.