ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN

[OLDNAVYMCPO]

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was a ten year ban passed by congress on Sept 13, 1994 with a narrow 52 to 48 vote. It expired on Sept 13, 2004 in accordance with its sunset provision.

In my opinion it was a silly law passed by do-gooders who were totally ignorant of firearms or gun crimes. Most provisions of the ban were cosmetic and essentially contributed nothing to the "deadliness" of a firearm.

The ban had no measurable effect on violence or gun crime rates. Just another silly law to limit your freedoms and choices while providing a feel good emotion for the insecure among us.

It effected me to no extent whatsoever.

How were you or your choices effected.

 

[GT_80]

It affects me because our Attorney general thought she knew better than others what the ban meant and now all semi auto AR15's, AK47's and several others are completely illegal to buy in Massachusetts. You can still buy a Mini 14, Mini 30, or 9mm carbine rifles because they don't LOOK like a scary black rifle.. Stupidest ban ever.

 

[Scorpion520AZ]

I have vivid memories of that time period. About 5 years into the ban I took advantage of the capitalist market and sold three rifles for stupid-silly prices, 3 times the prices I had paid for them in the pre-ban era.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people believe gun laws will stop a person who has already decided to commit murder.

 

[mdhillbilly1]

It affects me because our Attorney general thought she knew better than others what the ban meant and now all semi auto AR15's, AK47's and several others are completely illegal to buy in Massachusetts. You can still buy a Mini 14, Mini 30, or 9mm carbine rifles because they don't LOOK like a scary black rifle.. Stupidest ban ever.

I wish that I could purchase them. We do not have to register long guns in Maryland. We can purchase any long gun from any state and bring it home, as long as the firearm was sold before that date to us. I know many people do it and get the seller to backdate the bill of sale as long as it was after they purchased it and was made before our ban was made. I was told this by a lawyer that deals with firearms cases. We still can purchase AR-it's without a flash hider. They banned the sale of AK-47, but could keep it and get it repaired.

Sent from my LG-H830 using Tapatalk

 

[LoboGunLeather]

Prior to the AWB a brand new Mini-14 was just over $200 at WalMart. After the ban a well used Mini-14 would bring $500-plus. GI surplus M16 magazines were available for $5 to $8 before the AWB, then went up to $60-plus. Pre-ban AR-15's went from about $500 to over $1000, just about overnight.

Fortunately, I had two Mini-14's, two AR's, a FAL, a Norinco folding-stock AK, and several dozen 30-round mags, all of which had come to me in various trades at modest expense. Walking a couple of gun shows resulted in people following me around, bidding up and up and up. I was into Profit City quicker than who-da-thunk-it, and I don't recall ever having to set a price myself, just wait until the bidding topped out.

People were so goofy about pre-ban military-style and "large capacity" stuff that it was pretty easy to pick up good S&W revolvers for very attractive prices. I stocked up on Model 10's, 12's, 13's, 15's, 19's, 64's, 65's, 66's, etc while the buying public was going nuts over Glocks and other stuff. I have tripled my money on many of those.

Yes, the AWB affected me personally, turning chump change into stacks of folding money.

 

[jack the toad]

How were you or your choices effected.

Still have one AR and a few various magazines marked; "LE Only".

 

[mdhillbilly1]

Still have one AR and a few various magazines marked; "LE Only".

I would love to pick up some S&W at gun shows but their is questions in the law if anyone owned handgun before the laws changed that you do not need to go thru the full training just the finger prints. My are already in the database from working on military base before I was disabled. I would love to pickup a AR-15, but I think they must be registered as I need to verify on that.

Sent from my LG-H830 using Tapatalk

 

[ParadiseRoad]

...I own four semi auto rifles that I probably wouldn't have without the "do gooders" promoting them...but as usual...the do gooders plan accomplished the exact opposite of their intent...

 

[johngalt]

The law was passed 23 years ago and expired 13 years ago. I'm done agonizing over it.

 

[JayFramer]

Thanks for the history lesson... glad it's HISTORY! Let's fight to keep it that way!

 

[ExcitableBoy]

I'll second Lobo's experience:

I picked up a Mini-14 and a Mini-30 at the same gun show years ago, at $450 for the pair, and turned them into three nice S&W revolvers and three steel semi-autos in .45 ACP and 9mm during the start of "The Big Scare". Same thing with a Maadi AK.

Someone else's panic became my delight.

"There's a sucker born every minute."

 

[Golddollar]

Back during that time I was too poor to buy any rifle I couldn't hunt with in PA. This time around I made sure to get my AR-15 the week before the 2016 election so I could show I had it before the election in case Hillary got voted in.

 

[BigDog48]

Interesting though that if you have a pre ban upper with threads for a flash hider, you cant legally assemble it with a “post ban” lower to make a whole rifle.

 

[Fishslayer]

The law was passed 23 years ago and expired 13 years ago. I'm done agonizing over it.

We're still living with it in Kalifornistan. In fact, it's gotten a lot worse.

 

[rickflst]

The law was passed 23 years ago and expired 13 years ago. I'm done agonizing over it.

Unfortunately in some states it is still very much on.

At the whim of an AG

 

[Arik]

None. I was legally able to buy rifles in 1998 and before I knew what's what and why it was 2004.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[BAM-BAM]

Lobo..... was right on.... while others chased the hi-cap magazines.... Glock mags were going for $100 around here........ I scored some nice cheap revolvers and single stacks....... most notably 3913s/14/ NLs and Beretta 92 Type Ms.

I had a buddy who owned a police supply house and going into the ban he had bins of AR, Smith,Glock and Beretta hi-cap mags...... he'd sell me at "Dept pricing"..... so I had a "nice" stash..............

 

[Lee's Landing Billy]

Still have one AR and a few various magazines marked; "LE Only".

There's been a lot of conversation about these LE mags at our weekly get togethers. Since we have some LEs that shoot here we have asked them about it. Conscious is, why give them an opportunity to rummage around in your stuff.
It may indeed be a moot point, but indeed why have a piece of equipment in your possession that CAN cause problems? [I have several]. I never put them in my vehicles.

 

[HOUSTON RICK]

I vaguely recall buying a 32 round 9 mm magazine which under the fine print was legal as it was not sold with a firearm.

 

[Frank46]

Had and still have a Beretta 92fs and shortly before the ban could only find two Beretta 15 round magazines for it. After the ban there was as many as you could wish for, but at a price. Ar mags before the ban were like potato chips as many as you wanted, different sizes. After the ban you think they were made of gold. About the only cheap ar 30 round mags you could find were the Israeli Orlites. Even then they went for $15 apiece. The guys who shot the Para wide body 45's with the double stack mags shoot up in price. I shot my 45's with the single stack mags. Way cheaper and far more available. Frank

 

[italiansport]

Keep ONE THING in mind here. The anti's don't want an "Assault Weapons" ban, they don't want a large capacity magazine ban, they don't even want Universal Registration. Their real goal is the outright confiscation and destruction of all firearms in private individuals possession. All the previous steps are solely to reach that goal and as soon as the get one step completed like an "Assault Rifle" ban they'll go right on to the next step. We are in a lifelong battle to maintain our 2nd Amendment rights and there may be lulls such as now but the anti's will be right back at it as soon as they think further restrictions are feasible!
Jim

 

[digiroc]

Back during that time I was too poor to buy any rifle I couldn't hunt with in PA. This time around I made sure to get my AR-15 the week before the 2016 election so I could show I had it before the election in case Hillary got voted in.

I bought off on the Media predictions of a Hillary win and started buying "assault rifles" in anticipation of a re-instated ban.

So now I've got 3 AR's and a Sig MCX in 300BLK and enjoy them as much as my Ruger Mini-30.

digiroc

 

[fordson]

Keep ONE THING in mind here. The anti's don't want an "Assault Weapons" ban, they don't was a large capacity magazine ban, they don't even want universal registration. Their real goal is the outright confiscation and destruction of all firearms in private individuals possession. All the previous steps are solely to reach that goal and as soon as the get one step completed like an "assault rifle" ban they'll go right on to the next step. We are in a lifelong battle to maintain our 2nd Amendment right and there may be lulls such as now be the anti's will be right back at it as soon as they think further restrictions are feasible!
Jim

Agree...... there will be another Dem (read Liberal) administration and Congress and as soon as that happens........ I don't want to think about it......

 

[rwt1405]

The law was passed 23 years ago and expired 13 years ago. I'm done agonizing over it.

I agree with this, to a point.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
-George Santayana

 

[M29since14]

Any law, passed by those elected to serve us, who are entrusted with and duty bound to protect our rights and freedoms, that in any form contravenes those rights and freedoms, affects me. Whether it affects my particular interests directly or not, it opens the door for more treachery of the same kind. I believe what Italiansport has already said.

 

[the ringo kid]

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was a ten year ban passed by congress on Sept 13, 1994 with a narrow 52 to 48 vote. It expired on Sept 13, 2004 in accordance with its sunset provision.

In my opinion it was a silly law passed by do-gooders who were totally ignorant of firearms or gun crimes. Most provisions of the ban were cosmetic and essentially contributed nothing to the "deadliness" of a firearm.

The ban had no measurable effect on violence or gun crime rates. Just another silly law to limit your freedoms and choices while providing a feel good emotion for the insecure among us.

It effected me to no extent whatsoever.

How were you or your choices effected.

Thanks for keeping us aware of what they will keep trying to do Masterchief-aside from what someone will complain about...

It bothered me to an extent at the time-even though I had no interest in owning that kind of rifle-however, had I wanted one--it pissed me off I couldn't get one thanks to certain politicos who thought they knew better then I did. well--as usual-they THOUGHT wrong...

 

[black1970]

The AWB vote in the Senate was a 50-50 tie with then Vice President Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

 

[richardw]

The problem with the expired ban is that it started the anti assault rifle cAmpaigns that still are waged aily in the US, and which have been successful in some states. MD banned assault rifles few years ago. Its expressed reason for doing so was a desire to end the carnagd such rifles bring about. The case want to Federal Court and a the district judge found it unconstution and without justification. During the trial the plaintiffs presented the State's own statistics to show how flawed the carnage argu,met was. Turned out that in the 10 years before the ban out of about 950 homicides on thirty were committed with rifles. That averaged to 3 per year. In that same period about 350 wer killed with hand guns the remaining 300 wer by knives, blunt weapons and even being beaten to death with fists and feet. The judge ruled against the state.

MD appealed it and last year the D.C. Circuit Court overturned the trial court Zander allowed the ban to stand. Now here is the clincher. The decision in the appeal clearly stated that while the statistical evidence was not compelling it was allowing the ban because it was convinced that assault rifle scared people and people had a right to feel safe. The judges never question handguns had not been banned since they accounted for 10 times the deaths over ten years. One fudge of the panel of three dissented. Two judges did it. Because they felt peopple were frightened.

That is what the tempo of the antis created -- a distorted view of reality. If the original ban had not passed the antis would have had little motivation to proceed.

 

[M29since14]

That's an interesting perspective, but really, I think it gives the ban law possibly more "credit" than it is due. I am no lawyer but I have been told more than once that (at least here in Indiana) in the contemplation of law it is customary for rifles to be considered offensive weapons, whereas handguns are generally considered defensive in character - I presume because of the relative power of a rifle and the range at which it can be effectively employed. This is all "nothing new." Whether the general public understands and considers that I do not know, but it seems doubtful.

The extraordinary proliferation of military-style rifles in the hands of citizens, which we have seen in the last decade or so, is new - and very visible. Likely that has contributed to the anxiety felt by some of the populace. It also seems likely that much of this anxiety never would have come to pass were it not for the unfortunate, self-serving tendency of the MSM to supercharge the issue, whipping up apprehension and fear beyond any sort of reasonable and understandable level.

In this case, there seems plenty of blame to go around, but ultimately I guess it is true that our friends in the Senate (the so-called wise and reflective body ) are the ones who say what laws eventually end up on the books.

 

[NYlakesider]

There's been a lot of conversation about these LE mags at our weekly get togethers. Since we have some LEs that shoot here we have asked them about it. Conscious is, why give them an opportunity to rummage around in your stuff.
It may indeed be a moot point, but indeed why have a piece of equipment in your possession that CAN cause problems? [I have several]. I never put them in my vehicles.

I can remember seeing many weapons that said property of US on them, or have cop shop names and numbers on them. It might have happened but I never heard of a problem with those marked weapons!