Assault Weapons Ban

[The Loaded Goatee]

Not that I would ever want to see this, EVER but I'm curious to what you may know about the AWB and how it would effect all types of people, mainly gun owners.
I just wondered if the AWB were ever re-introduced is this a ban where you're expected to turn in your AR15, large magazines?
Do you get to keep your banned guns because you already own them and it's just a matter that you can't purchase any new ones because they would no longer be made? Just really curious what happens when something like this goes down. I appreciate anyone that might have answers to any of my questions. I wondered also if their banned what do stores do with the AR15's that they have left over in stock that didn't sell?
Last, if you own some AR's and the AWB was brought back would there be any way to still have an SBR built using one of your AR lowers, are tax stamps done too?

I may be wrong with some of the stuff I wrote please don't take me out back [emoji38][emoji38][emoji848] I'm trying to learn from all of you, so Thanks for the responses.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[4506517]

I would Google the AWB of 1994.

That will answer the majority of your questions.

It was commonly referred to as the "Assault Weapon Ban" not the "Automatic Weapons Ban"

 

[The Loaded Goatee]

I would Google the AWB of 1994.

That will answer the majority of your questions.

I actually did but it didnt address what happened to ppl that already owned the weapons. It mostly addressed that no new weapons could be manufactured.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[moosedog]

They give you a time to sell off existing stock and they grandfather in present items out in the public. That is the way it has been but who knows with the next president the media tries to get the unknowing to elect.
If your not already, you should be a member of the NRA.

 

[cmort666]

"Assault weapon" has no fixed meaning. It's whatever some anti-gun cultists wants to ban at any given instance.

Any "law" based on such a meaningless term is mere legislative whim, the equivalent of prescribing the death penalty for "bad" people, with "bad" having no explicit, predictable definition.

 

[4506517]

The "Ban" of 1994-2004 allowed folks to keep what they already had. It grandfathered in what was already out there.

No new magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds were available for civilian purchase. This is why you find many magazines, particularly AR mags date stamped now.

Bayonet lugs, pistol grips, collapsing or folding stocks, detachable magazines, etc were prohibited in various combinations.

Lowers that were purchased before 1994 (burden of proof was on the owner) could be assembled into pre ban configuration. Anything afterward could not.

 

[4506517]

The Wikipedia entry for:

"Federal Assault Weapons Ban"

Is quite extensive and provides in detail a great overview of the entire travesty.

 

[venomballistics]

after we have absorbed nearly 30 years of ritual abuse together. If the rate of compliance exceeds 10% im disowning you all
heres to your boating accidents

 

[ParadiseRoad]

...the reason guns are grandfathered after a new law is passed I believe has to do with this:

"Ex post facto laws retroactively change the rules of evidence in a criminal case, retroactively alter the definition of a crime, retroactively increase the punishment for a criminal act, or punish conduct that was legal when committed. They are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution."

..."punish conduct that was legal when committed"...

...such as owning a gun that was legal when you bought it and later banned...

 

[The Loaded Goatee]

The "Ban" of 1994-2004 allowed folks to keep what they already had. It grandfathered in what was already out there.

No new magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds were available for civilian purchase. This is why you find many magazines, particularly AR mags date stamped now.

Bayonet lugs, pistol grips, collapsing or folding stocks, detachable magazines, etc were prohibited in various combinations.

Lowers that were purchased before 1994 (burden of proof was on the owner) could be assembled into pre ban configuration. Anything afterward could not.

This is good info, I appreciate it. Thank you!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[The Loaded Goatee]

...the reason guns are grandfathered after a new law is passed I believe has to do with this:

"Ex post facto laws retroactively change the rules of evidence in a criminal case, retroactively alter the definition of a crime, retroactively increase the punishment for a criminal act, or punish conduct that was legal when committed. They are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution."

..."punish conduct that was legal when committed"...

...such as owning a gun that was legal when you bought it and later banned...

Interesting

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Muss Muggins]

Yeah, doesn't work for an H&R Handi Gun . . .

...the reason guns are grandfathered after a new law is passed I believe has to do with this:

"Ex post facto laws retroactively change the rules of evidence in a criminal case, retroactively alter the definition of a crime, retroactively increase the punishment for a criminal act, or punish conduct that was legal when committed. They are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution."

..."punish conduct that was legal when committed"...

...such as owning a gun that was legal when you bought it and later banned...

 

[ParadiseRoad]

Yeah, doesn't work for an H&R Handi Gun . . .

...not even if you pay the tax and do the paper work?...

...NFA 1934 didn't ban guns...it tried to tax them out of the reach of the average citizen...

...edit...

"The H&R Handy-Gun is a single-shot, breech-loading handgun produced from 1921 to 1934 by Harrington & Richardson. Two principal variants were produced; one with a rifled barrel and one smooth-bore.


The rifled-barrel variant was produced from 1930-1934 and it featured a 12¼" barrel. It was available in .22 WRF, .32-20 and possibly other centerfire cartridges. Some guns were originally factory fitted with a wire stock. Production was halted with the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA34). Rifled versions with a detachable wire stock are a short-barrel rifle under federal law and require registration. Pistols without the stock are exempt.


The smooth-bore version was produced from 1921 to 1934 and sports a 8" or 12¼" barrel. The gun was available in .410-bore (most 2½") and 28-gauge. After the passage of NFA34, the smooth-bore Handy-Gun was classed as an "Any Other Weapon". Production halted after the passage of the act, after approximately 54,000 Handy-Guns had been produced."

...according to the above...pistols without the stock are exempt...meaning they can be owned like any other hand gun...

...with the stock...they are class three and require the appropriate back ground check and $200 dollar transfer fee...

...the smooth bore is an "any other weapon" requiring the appropriate back ground check and $5 transfer fee...

 

[GKC]

Bayonet lugs, pistol grips, collapsing or folding stocks, detachable magazines, etc were prohibited in various combinations.

I read an article today that said the 1994 ban wasn't intended to reduce overall crime, but to reduce the lethality of mass shootings. Whether or not that's true, does anyone understand the rationale of banning bayonet lugs or pistol grips? I suppose you could make an argument about collapsing or folding stocks, which could make a rifle more concealable, and a detachable mag could make it faster to reload. What concern would there be with bayonets and pistol grips, though?

 

[TomkinsSP]

^^ When you call it by its correct name "the 1994 scarry looking weapons and accessory ban" you get a peek at the mindset of its creators.

 

[cmort666]

I read an article today that said the 1994 ban wasn't intended to reduce overall crime, but to reduce the lethality of mass shootings. Whether or not that's true, does anyone understand the rationale of banning bayonet lugs or pistol grips? I suppose you could make an argument about collapsing or folding stocks, which could make a rifle more concealable, and a detachable mag could make it faster to reload. What concern would there be with bayonets and pistol grips, though?

It's NEVER about anything BUT doing as much as humanly possible to harm Non-criminal gun owners.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[1stgarand]

Pistol grips are considered evil looking things that make the rifle look like a military weapon, and bayonet lugs, well, you might put a bayonet on it and stick people. That's only for the military to do, and I'm sure "they" don't want them to have one either. You can't have a rifle that "looks" like a military rifle. If it looks evil it will run out and kill people while you are not looking. That's their logic. Really, it is.

 

[dusty3030]

To a person who doesn't like guns, every gun is a gun and guns are bad. They are scary. They don't like the fact their neighbors may have one.
To a person who doesn't like guns, any reason they can get some outlawed, they have a win. Whether it makes sense or not.

 

[Absalom]

...the reason guns are grandfathered after a new law is passed I believe has to do with this:

"Ex post facto laws retroactively change the rules of evidence in a criminal case, retroactively alter the definition of a crime, retroactively increase the punishment for a criminal act, or punish conduct that was legal when committed. They are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution."

..."punish conduct that was legal when committed"...

...such as owning a gun that was legal when you bought it and later banned...

Respectfully, I don't think that has anything to do with it. Like anything in any law, provisions reflect what is politically feasible. The 1994 ban grandfathered guns in existing legal ownership simply because anything further, like confiscation, was and still is politically not feasible.

However, a ban on ownership including currently owned guns, if it ever became feasible, would not be a case of ex-post-facto.

Legally, you would not face a penalty for buying an assault rifle ten years ago (that WOULD be ex post facto), but only for not turning it in or getting it de-activated or whatever the new law might say, by whatever deadline was set.

That would be current law; non-compliance would have nothing to do with ex-post-facto.

 

[yaktamer]

Respectfully, I don't think that has anything to do with it. Like anything in any law, provisions reflect what is politically feasible. The 1994 ban grandfathered guns in existing legal ownership simply because anything further, like confiscation, was and still is politically not feasible.

However, a ban on ownership including currently owned guns, if it ever became feasible, would not be a case of ex-post-facto.

Legally, you would not face a penalty for buying an assault rifle ten years ago (that WOULD be ex post facto), but only for not turning it in or getting it de-activated or whatever the new law might say, by whatever deadline was set.

That would be current law; non-compliance would have nothing to do with ex-post-facto.

This is correct. Under a mandatory confiscation scheme one could make an argument that the government would have to pay just compensation for the taking of the property under the Fifth Amendment.