2009 AWB

imported post

Need help straighting things out about this. If i own a assualt rifle prior to aAWBis it still legal to shoot it at ranges? or you really cant do any thing with them and they will just sit in the safe until the ban is over.

imported post

That would depend on the particulars of whatever laws might be passed in the future. I'm not greatly worried, for my own part. The last so-called "assault weapons ban" didn't apply to existing inventory in any case.

-ljp

imported post

The previous 'ban' was a prohibition on the manufacture and importation of certain rifles with 'military' features and magazines over a certain capacity. Everyone was able to keep what they already had, but the prices of 'banned' magazines and rifles shot up dramatically until 2004 due to lack of adequate supply. The current proposed AWB is largely the same, but probably will not have a sunset clause. You will be able to keep your rifle (unless they enact confiscation legislation) but stocks, magazines, and other accessories for it will become unavailable.

imported post

frgntsmtn wrote:

Need help straighting things out about this. If i own a assualt rifle prior to aAWBis it still legal to shoot it at ranges? or you really cant do any thing with them and they will just sit in the safe until the ban is over.

Click to expand...

I would imagine that most all public ranges do not allow the use of an assault rifle on their premises. They are just too dangerous in crowded areas. That and the fact that there may be local ordinances against their use, so definitely check ahead before taking your class 3 rifle out to a public range.

imported post

frgntsmtn wrote:

Need help straighting things out about this. If i own a assualt rifle prior to aAWBis it still legal to shoot it at ranges? or you really cant do any thing with them and they will just sit in the safe until the ban is over.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, are you talking about an assault rifle (capable of fully automatic fire, requires an FFL and tax stamp) or a so-called "assault weapon" (semi-automatic, functions exactly like other semi-autos, but has "military styling")?

...Orygunner...

imported post

Merriam-Webster doesn't seem to care if their definition is the same as TRADOC.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault+rifle

assault rifle One entry found.


Main Entry: assault rifle Function:noun Date:1972 : any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

imported post

frgntsmtn wrote:

Need help straighting things out about this. If i own a assualt rifle prior to aAWBis it still legal to shoot it at ranges? or you really cant do any thing with them and they will just sit in the safe until the ban is over.

Click to expand...

I imagine they could only ban the transfer and sale of "assault weapons" but not punish current ownership. If they tried, wouldn't it violate ex post facto?

imported post

Brigdh wrote:

frgntsmtn wrote:

Need help straighting things out about this. If i own a assualt rifle prior to aAWBis it still legal to shoot it at ranges? or you really cant do any thing with them and they will just sit in the safe until the ban is over.

Click to expand...

I imagine they could only ban the transfer and sale of "assault weapons" but not punish current ownership. If they tried, wouldn't it violate ex post facto?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't put anything past them, especially with the support of a "progressive" Supreme Court.

imported post

There is a serious lack of "balance of power" or "check and balance" in the government now.....with the Democrats like Obama, Pelosi, etc, controlling all aspects of US government now, I wouldn't put it past them to try to repeal the 2A within the next 4 years.......followed by door-to-door confiscation.....why not? The people at large have shown their willingness to throw away their freedoms for a handout. They are your enemy now. Always remember that.

imported post

why not?

Click to expand...

Because many Democrats remember that the Adequate Magazine Ban was a major catalyst for the Republican Revolution of the 90s. It's hard to create social welfare programs if you anger gun owners and are subsequently kicked out of office.

imported post

You keep telling yourself that if it comforts you.....when they come to your door to confiscate your arms it will be too late to change your mind.

imported post

Brigdh: Well, certain laws have been upheld despite their ex post facto aspects, like adding misdemeanor domestic violence convictions as a criterion for making someone a "prohibited person" with regard to buying or possessing firearms. The ban applies retroactively to anyone ever so convicted, even if it were legal for them to have guns with this record before the change. Likewise, the "street sweeper" shotgun was reclassified as a "destructive device" and banned altogether, even though it was just a "shotgun" when introduced.

-ljp

imported post

Who is going to come door to door? That would be like rounding up all the illegal aliens in the United States to deport them. There are just too many of them and not enough "agents" to do it with. Besides, if the govt. started a "door to door" confiscation, they would find out the hard way what the 2nd Amendment is all about.

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

You keep telling yourself that if it comforts you.....when they come to your door to confiscate your arms it will be too late to change your mind.

Click to expand...

Are you operating under the assumption I would cooperate with such a confiscation? No, in such a situation, I would change THEIR minds. A .223 tumbling through it ought to change it enough.

imported post

Good, I hope you are ready. Because I don't think it's as unlikely as you seem to think. They have control now of all of it, the presidency, senate, house, congress......who is going to veto a bill that takes away your gun rights when the majority of elected officials are gun grabbers? Those crying out against it would be quickly silenced since they are but a small, impotent minority........I think these people are just crazy enough to start the second civil war in this country, and laugh all the way while doing so.

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

Good, I hope you are ready.  Because I don't think it's as unlikely as you seem to think.  They have control now of all of it, the presidency, senate, house, congress......who is going to veto a bill that takes away your gun rights when the majority of elected officials are gun grabbers?

Click to expand...

Ignoring the legislative redundancy in your above statement, "they" controlled all those things when the Adequate Magazine Ban was passed. Mere months later, the very same gun grabbers were kicked out of office by the constituents they had angered.

imported post

thorvaldr wrote:

Merriam-Webster doesn't seem to care if their definition is the same as TRADOC.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault+rifle

assault rifle One entry found.


Main Entry: assault rifle Function:noun Date:1972 : any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

Click to expand...

While I use that dictionary link to check spelling, I have to tell you that it is corrupted by political correctness and outright mistakes. For example, look up the word "gender". Gender is a word which defines the use of proper parts of speech in language. It does not describe human sexual differences. That is a more recent invention brought about by feminists in order to reduce and eliminate the use of the correct word for this: sex.

Read the description of assault rifle in wikipedia. It is much closer to the actual definition of the weapon. It must be capable of fully automatic fire or it does not qualify as an assault rifle.

imported post

We are assuming that an order could come down to police, national guard units, and the military to begin the process of rounding up and confiscating privately owned firearms. But think about this. First off, it would be an illegal order and therefore not enforceable or required to be carried out. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and every military individual takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. Plus it would be in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. And then there is this.

Let's say this has begun and has been met with armed resistance and quite a bit of it. A unit of the Army is moving through Georgia, taking arms as they go and they are running into fire from civilians. And let's say that this unit is comprised with soldiers from Indiana. Don't you think that they are going to put two and two together and think that if this is happening in Georgia, it is probably also happening in their own home towns with their own families being fired upon by the military. In other words, I would bet a lot of soldiers, LEO's, and guardsmen would refuse to carry out these illegal orders.

imported post

How many times have a brought that up?

There is CONSIDERABLE anti-government sentiment in the military.

At least, I know there was where I was stationed, and every duty station of just about every 200X veteran I've ever spoken to....

The underlying theme?

government != country
and
government != Constitution

(!= mean "does not equal")

imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and every military individual takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. Plus it would be in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

Click to expand...

Did that stop them in NOLA?