Hey all, I'm new to posting, but been reading this forum for the past 4 years. I'm sure that doesnt really matter, but you'll live.

Alright, here's the question. I wasn't old enough in 1994 to be effected by the assault weapons ban, so I was hoping that some of the older and wiser people here, who were part of the 2a community before and during the awb, could help shine some light on perhaps the nuances of the time and how that bill got passed? Do you all think it could happen again, regardless of who wins in November? And if so, would now be a good time to grab some full capacity mags? Thank you all in advance. I look forward to discussing this.

From Wikipedia:

Efforts to create restrictions on "assault weapons" at the federal government level intensified in 1989 after 34 children and a teacher were shot and five children killed in Stockton, Calif. with a semi-automatic AK-47 rifle. The Luby's shooting in October 1991, which left 23 people dead and 27 wounded, was another factor. The July 1993 101 California Street shooting also contributed to passage of the ban. The shooter killed eight people and wounded six. Two of the three firearms he used were TEC-9 semi-automatic handguns with Hellfire triggers. The ban tried to address public concerns about mass shootings by restricting firearms that met the criteria for what it defined as a "semiautomatic assault weapon," as well as magazines that met the criteria for what it defined as a "large capacity ammunition feeding device."

The AWB expired after 10 years, due to the sunset provision. I think most people have realized that it had little effect on reducing gun crime, especially when it comes to magazine capacity.

Since I owned revolvers and no rifles at the time, it really didn't have an impact on me personally. I still don't own long guns, but I support the freedom of any American wanting to do so. I've migrated away from revolvers to semi-autos now, and I think mag capacity limits are a joke. An experienced shooter can swap magazines in a matter of seconds, so the difference in 10 versus 16 or 17 is ridiculous.

One only has to look at places like Chicago, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the land, and yet has one of the highest incidences of gun crime and violence, to realize that gun restrictions and bans don't work.

The worst part wasn't the gun ban - it just banned cosmetic features that were easily worked around. The > 10 capacity magazine ban was worse, but there were plenty of pre 94 magazines available, so still not crippling.

The worst part of it was the waiting period. Thanks to that, and the NRA caving on the issue, we are now stuck with NICS. Now, no one can buy a firearm from a licensed dealer without permission from .gov, so our 'right' is now merely a 'privilege'.

As to how it was passed, John Kaisich bears a lot of responsibility. He ran around twisting arms getting republican support for it. It wouldn't have passed without his help. There wasn't enough democrat support to pass it by themselves.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

In addition, I think it's worth noting that at the time, there was a liberal Democrat in the White House. We've continued to have shootings, and the current liberal Democrat hasn't been able to advance gun control or bans. Perhaps because we've had a strong Republican Congress, and up until now, a Supreme Court that didn't support gun bans or restrictions to a large degree.

This could all change with the incoming administration, depending on who wins. Despite the characterization from some politicians (like the current Resident in the WH) that Americans don't care about gun violence any more, that isn't true...I think most Americans are smarter than most politicians, and realize that banning guns doesn't work. Wasn't it the liberal governor of NY who came up with the idea of banning 32 oz sodas to fight obesity?

While I think there are some liberals who truly are dumb when it comes to guns, and anything else for that matter, I think others are very smart and have an invidious agenda. Disarming the masses is straight out of the communist manifesto, and a necessary step to eliminating freedom.

Nothing over 10 rounds could be made or imported. Anything over 10 rounds was grandfathered in. New guns that were the same as old versions came with 10 round mags.

"Hi cap" mags prices skyrocketed

No pistol grips, bayonets or muzzle brakes on new rifles.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Interesting about Kasich, I didn't know that. Do you think a similar federal capacity ban could be enacted today? I hope not, but I feel like the political climate of today may be condusive to it.

To answer your other question, mags have never been cheaper. They do not go bad . It you foresee a future need, a purchase today is not a bad idea.

Also, this is the quiet before the storm, ammo and reloading components are all available today. I had to wait 30 months to be able to buy primers and Unique powder. 22s were never hard to find, just 3 times the price I was used to paying.

Muzzle breaks were allowed, but not flash hiders.

One 'evil feature' was ok, more than 1 was not. A rifle could not have both a pistol grip and a flash hider. Most just eliminated the flash hider. A muzzle brake was ok as long as it also wasn't designed to be a flash hider.

Another silly thing about the flash hider - the ignorant thought it was a device to conceal muzzle flash. It wasn't, its purpose was to redirect the gas so the shooter wasn't blinded by the flash at night. It did nothing to 'conceal' the flash.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

I'm probably going to pick some extras up.

Could it happen again? Certainly, though I wouldn't expect it to get passed in the first 100 days. They would need to sweep a lot of Republicans out of the House and Senate in 2016 and more yet in 2018. Possible, not even improbable, but it would take some time to get a true AWB made law of the land again.

I wouldn't expect it to be AWB 2.0 either. The folks who like these sorts of things learned from the last one, just like we did. I'd expect less "loopholes", as they like to call them, and more outright efforts to eliminate classes of guns ie: semi auto magazine fed center fire rifles or whatnot. And no, I don't think some self righteous 2A supporters pointing out they'd also be banning a wooden-stocked BAR in .243 for would dissuade them if they were riding the coat tails of a Sandy Hook type tragedy.

One candidate has already said the Exec order route would be pursued if elected, so I'd expect at some point the golden age of ordering 1000 rds of ammo online "Scot free" will go away. Wouldn't be shocked if that person worked at making maintaining online venues like Armslist or Gunbroker too onerous to persist. Heck, the Exec branch could easily go after ammo "hoarders" via storage regulations, Hazmat and registration too.

I'd imagine that if the person wins who I think will win, we will at the very least see much more stuff attempted to frustrate those people who do more shooting than just sighting in a deer gun and maybe half a box of duck shells every Fall.

I'm not even sure they want our guns so much as they want us to become irrelevant and to fade away into history. If we all had 50 AR-15s and 50,000 rds of ammo in the basement, they'd be fine with that as long as we were too scared or ashamed to even whisper to anyone we had it, much less go out and shoot openly at a range.

Great insight, I appreciate it. I think you're right, it really does seem that they want to make it so taboo that the community "disappears"

I just remember all rifles not having anything

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

The term "assault weapon".......DOES NOT EXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!.......It was a term coined by the anti-gunners in 1968........Stop using it!!!!!!.....A gun by itself never has and not "assaulted" any thing or anyone.......The "assaulter" is the person using it!!!!!!!!
Prior to "slick's" awb most all of had stuff and added to it before the ban took place.....Still using some of that stuff acquired in 94.......Good stuff does not easily wear out...........

__________________
S&W Accumulator

If one proposal is enacted (requiring a background check to buy ammo) then it will be more difficult and expensive to buy ammo. I'm quite sure that you couldn't order it online, unless it was shipped to a FFL and they would do the 4473.

No that was the party swapper Bloomberg (NYC Mayor) that tried that. Your probably aware he is spending tons of his own money promoting gun control! Of course the present governor of NY is a heavy duty proponent of gun control. He is the one that pushed through our "Safe Act" in the middle of the night.

I understand It would be easy to confuse the two!

__________________
14 S&W Revs none with locks!

Keep one thing in mind here:
Your children and/or grandchildren are being indoctrinated regularly in the public schools on the evils of firearms. The NEA, Teachers Union, is one of the most anti-gun far left organizations in this Country and they have control over public school curiculum.
This along with the de-emphasis on teaching subjects such as History and Civics has and will continue to dumb down the younger generation in regards to what has made this Country great.
Don't believe it? Tune in some time to Watters World on FOX News when Jesse Wattters is interviewing students regarding our form of Government. Their ignorance will amaze and probably upset you.
Jim

Idiots of a feather DO flap together...

The 1994 AWB was a lot more complicated than Clinton being in the white house, and in many respects it was a bi-partisan deal, and one that had it's roots in prior Republican administrations.

1) Both Ronald Reagan and G.H.W Bush supported the bill. Reagan lobbied hard for the bill and was instrumental in getting at least 2 congressman to change their votes, resulting in it passing the house 216 to 214.

Both Reagan and Bush also supported the Brady Bill, which was passed in 1993.

And don't forget that Reagan signed the FOPA in 1986, including the 11th insertion of the ban on production of civilian full auto weapons.

2) The AWB of 1994 directly led to the loss of 54 Democratic seats in the house of representatives. This meant they went from having an 82 seat majority to a 26 seat minority. The democrats had controlled the house from 1955 to 1994, and they have never really recovered from that 1994 beating as 2007 to 20011 have been the only years since 1994 with a Democratic majority in the house.

The AWB came at an incredibly high price for the democrats and while they will spout campaign promises, I don't think they've forgotten the costs of that ban.

3) The NRA caved on the issue, and in essence sold the black rifle crowd down the river for some vague promises to protect hunting rights. The NRA took a beating over that as well, and I doubt they'll repeat that mistake either.

----

And to the OP's question, I don't think we've got the same political environment today, even if the republicans take a beating this year. But on the other hand, the occasional mass shooting being linked to the "war on terror" by the media ends up being something that scares voters and can drum up support for bans - and that's not something that was in play in 1994.

Question asked and answered.

It is pretty obvious this thread will evolve into much political discussion, so we're done here.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett