what legislation expires this weekend relative to availability of AK-47's?

I know this topic engenders powerful feelings. However, please save those for a different forum, as I am in search of some factual information. Some legislation is due to expire this weekend. Something in that legislation, according to most of what I see, will no longer “keep AK-47’s off the street.” Now, I understand the relative short reach of gun laws and their limitations. However, I want to know this: When this legislation expires, will it be easier for anyone to purchase AK-47’s, or any other assault-type weapons? What, precisely, expires? Thank you. xo C.

I believe that it’s actually possibly to buy AK-47s (as you’re from Chicago, I distinctly recall seeing one in the pawn shop that used to be under the Belmost el station and I’ve seen them for sale in other gun stores), but having one that was capable of firing fully-automatic (defintion of which, in Chicago when I looked it up last, was I think more than one bullet by one “operation of the trigger”).

I think that the assault rifle ban was the one that was coming up for review (IIRC the NRA beat that one down as far as it would go which ended up being that there would be a review period and then, depending on how many people weren’t gunned down on the street like they supposedly were being, then they’d either make the law permanent or repeal it). I’m sure someone with actual details will be along shortly.

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 contains provisions that ban the manufacture, transfer, or possession of certain assault weapons or high capacity magazines. That law defines an assault weapon as (a) being one of nine fairly specific types (i.e., an AR-15; a Kalashnikov of any model from Norinco, Mitchell, or Poly; revolving cylinder shotguns, etc); (b) having a certain number of certain characteristics (i.e., a bayonet mount; pistol grip, etc); © not being one of a list of assault-like weapons that was manufactured before the law went into effect (i.e., various M-1s, Ruger Mini 14, Browning BAR Mark II).

You’ll sometimes hear references to “post-ban” assault weapons. This means that those firearms would have been banned by this act, but they were modified to conform with it (by removing a bayonet lug, for example).

A full text is here, search for “110101” for the beginning of the title on the ban. Link.

You’ll note that Section 110105 of the act states that the ban will go into effect the moment the bill is signed into law, and expire 10 years later. So, all that stuff I described in paragraph one? It will be removed from the books on September 13, 2004. It will no longer be a crime to manufacture, transfer, or possess such weapons.

I hope this is the type of answer you were looking for.

Note that actual Ak-47’s (the full auto/selectable semi-auto military weapon) have always been very heavily regulated under the 1934 National Firearms Act. Semi-automatic weapons that look like the Ak-47, as well as other semi-automatic rifles possessing certain scary-looking cosmetic features were what was regulated under the 1994 law.

I was under the impression there was no national barrier to possession. You just can’t manufacture new ones. I can go buy a pre-ban easily(at least in this state), but it’ll cost me a lot more then a post-ban would.

[IMHO]
The law was patently ridiculous and should sunset.

I’m glossing over many details, but it basically comes down to this: If you have a semi-auto AR-15 or AK-47 or SKS or FAL (or any semi-auto rifle with removable magazine) built or imported after 1994, the law says you can have a pistol grip. Or flash hider. Or folding/collapsing stock. Or bayonet lug. Or grenade launcher. But here’s the kicker: you can only have one of these.

Most military-pattern rifles come standard with a pistol grip. This means you can’t have a flash hider, collapsing stock, bayonet lug, or grenade launcher.

The last two are pretty silly. So practically-speaking it really comes down to this: If you have a standard military-pattern rifle (meaning a semi-auto rifle with removable magazine and pistol grip), then you can’t have a collapsing stock or flash hider.

Many of these rifles can’t accept a collapsing stock. But all can accept a flash hider. And a flash hider is pretty nice when you’re shooting in low-light conditions.

So when you strip away all the B.S. and esoteric stuff, it basically comes down to this: If you have a semi-auto rifle with removable magazine and pistol grip, you can’t have a flash hider.

So there you have it… all this talk about “AK-47s flooding the streets” is a bunch of nonsense, and (for the most part) the sunset simply means that I’ll be allowed to put a flash hider on my FAL. Big deal.
[/IMHO]

But what about all the drive-by bayonetings??? :eek: :eek: Won’t somebody PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! :frowning:

The law is written very clearly. The entire ban on assault weapons expires. See my link above.

As for the wisdom of the ban, I’m sure there will be a thread in GD sooner or later.

I think what HPL meant was this section:

…which allowed for possession provided…well, what it says. And HPL was spot-on, in fact. Not only were pre-ban weapons not prohibited, they could be transfered at-will, depending upon the controlling State and local legislation.

…stupid wrong button. What I’m saying is both of you are correct as far as I can see.

And don’t forget that there exists a plethora (yes, a plethora. In some cases we’re talking millions of available magazines.) of high capacity magazines (we’re talking everything from 13 round pistol clips to 100 round “banana clips”), revolving shotguns and “assault rifles” that remained available for purchase during the ban. These are referred to as “Pre-ban” items and they command quite a premium. There was almost no point where these things were “not” available. You just couldn’t make new ones or import ones made after October of 03. Silly, yes?

The interesting thing is that folks on both sides of the isle believe the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 is a stupid law.

The pro-freedom crowd simply wants the law to go away. They correctly point out that the law (for the most part) only addresses cosmetic characteristics, and has little to do with power or lethality. They also point to evidence that the law did nothing to reduce crime.

The anti-gunners also wants the law to go away for the same reasons. They admit it was ineffective. But unlike the pro-freedom crowd, the anti-gunners want a new law that is much stricter than the AWB of 1994…

Oh, right. I misunderstood. And I agree with your post, which clarified things nicely.

Whether both sides think this in their heart-of-hearts is unknowable, but on March 2, 2004, the Senate voted 52-47 to approve an amendment to extend the assault weapons ban for ten years.

This amendment was offered to a gun liability bill that was then voted down, 8-90, after the NRA withdrew its support from it, primarily because of the assault weapons ban being added. (Broadly speaking, the gun liability bill would have exempted gun manufacturers from lawsuits because of their guns being used in crimes.) So, in the very least, it has been demonstrated that there is support in the Senate for extension of the ban.

Cite.

AFAIK revolving shotguns like the Striker 12 were classified as destructive devices, putting them in a different legal catagory that includes hand grenades and artillery.

Note that imported military pattern weapons also have to conform to an additional law enacted in '89. The prohibitions are similar but not the same as the '94 law and includes items such as bipods. Imported status is defined has having a specified number of parts (10 IIRC) of a given list which includes (but is not limited to) reciever, trunnion block, barrel, gas piston, operating rod, bolt carrier, bolt, buttstock, grip, handguard, trigger components, magazine body, magazine follower, magazine floorplate and some others. There is a cottage industry in manufacturing US parts to bring weapons to a domestic status so they must then only conform to the '94 law.