Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you know? If so, tell me. Not the comsetics 10 round stuff. The paragraphs and subsections that define it in the law. That's what matters.
They did it before. They can do it again.
Since it keeps getting brought up, let ask the actual text of the 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, otherwise known as "the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994"
From pages 4-6 of the act, as passed:
Quote:
The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means—
(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms, known as—
(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Indus14 tries UZI and Galil;
(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC–70);
(iv) Colt AR–15;
(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(vi) SWD M–10, M–11, M–11/9, and M–12;
(vii) Steyr AUG;
(viii) INTRATEC TEC–9, TEC–DC9 and TEC–22;
and
(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine AND has at least 2 of —
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor;
and
(v) a grenade launcher;
(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine AND has at least 2 of —
(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm
with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of —
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.
Not listed, but also relevant, and "ammunition feeding device" of greater than 10 round capacity.
So you have the specific models listed in Section A. Which is why everyone started selling kits of uppers, lowers, barrels, shrouds and custom stocks that would easily replicate the models banned.
Then comes B, C, and D, which allow every other semiauto under the Sun, assuming it doesn't have 2 or more of the following cosmetic features...
Then comes the oh yeah, no more than 10 round magazines.
And interspersed throughout the document, the repeated tagline of:
Quote:
shall not apply to the possession or transfer of **whatever was defined as being banned** otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
The act did not outright ban semiautomatic rifles, handguns or shotguns. It primarily defined assault weapons based on cosmetics and accessories, it listed very few specific models, it did not outlaw the manufacture of parts, kits, etc, and it had both a sweeping grandfather clause and a hardline sunset provision.
They got around the SCOTUS challenge BECAUSE it didn't really ban any whole category of anything, but specific models they determined were "not of common use" and most likely to be in the hands of a gang banger during a drive by. You can spot the anti-gang banger thinking because of what specific models were banned, most notably, the TEC-9, any sort of Uzi knockoff and any version of an AK...which were in the late 80s and early 90s, the gang banger drive by weapons of choice.
Additionally, for folks not willing to look this up, I took the liberty of doing it for you - semiauto weapons used by Harris and Klebold, Columbine, 1999, smack in the middle of the period where "assault weapons were banned!!!"
Harris:
Hi-Point 995 Carbine - developed during the now-defunct 1994 Federal assault weapons ban, the Hi-Point carbine comes with a ten-round magazine that fits into the pistol grip, which made it legal under the definitions of the 1994 AWB.
Klebold:
9×19mm Intratec TEC-9 - technically a DC9. Made prior to 1994, thus grandfathered in as legal, because the DC9 used 10 round magazines, and if made prior to 1994, well, perfectly legal to own/transfer.
Semiautomatics were not banned from 1994-2004. Certain models and certain accessories and cosmetics were banned, and that forced existing manufacturers to retool some designs, others to go out of business, and a whole lot more to pop up in the "new ways to get around that dopey ban with our cool new stuff" market.
Being "ignorant" of AR-15s is not equivalent to owning/firing one. One can gain knowledge of an item without using it. I've never driven a bulldozer, but I know what it does and what its purpose is.
- "Could you not play the bagpipes after midnight?"
- "Until you learn to play the bagpipes, you can't have an opinion!"
Of course you love your logic, because you cannot provide anything different.
All you are providing is "what ifs."
However, we are not talking about a bagpipes, yes?
But, if I was going to have a very in-depth dicussion about bagpipes that went to the extent of having laws added/changed, I would know as much as I could so I could provide a valid discussion.
It's very clear those such as you don't give a damn about actually understanding the situation.
Of course you love your logic, because you cannot provide anything different.
All you are providing is "what ifs."
However, we are not talking about a bagpipes, yes?
But, if I was going to have a very in-depth dicussion about bagpipes that went to the extent of having laws added/changed, I would know as much as I could so I could provide a valid discussion.
It's very clear those such as you don't give a damn about actually understanding the situation.
The poll only asks those who have fired or nor fired. If you think only those who have fired should have opinions what about the opinions of those who have had them fired at them or hit? Seems like their opinions should be as important.
As a Canadian I have no opinion that should count, on thr matter but if ypu are not intetested in the opinions of those who have not fired then you should look for the opinions of those having been fired at.
And no I have not fired a semi aitomatic assult style rifle but I have a full automatic assult rifle and a machine gun. But as I said I am a Canadian so I will not enter the poll because I am not affected.
The poll only asks those who have fired or nor fired. If you think only those who have fired should have opinions what about the opinions of those who have had them fired at them or hit? Seems like their opinions should be as important.
As a Canadian I have no opinion that should count, on thr matter but if ypu are not intetested in the opinions of those who have not fired then you should look for the opinions of those having been fired at.
And no I have not fired a semi aitomatic assult style rifle but I have a full automatic assult rifle and a machine gun. But as I said I am a Canadian so I will not enter the poll because I am not affected.
It's not a semi automatic assault rifle........because one would be solely outgunned on the battle field not to have the option of automatic fire. Further, the civilian -15 is longer than the M4, for example and when one is in close quarters, that can make a difference.
The poll only asks those who have fired or nor fired. If you think only those who have fired should have opinions what about the opinions of those who have had them fired at them or hit? Seems like their opinions should be as important.
Did you just really post the bold? And you are comparing that to this OP?
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
As a Canadian I have no opinion that should count, on thr matter but if ypu are not intetested in the opinions of those who have not fired then you should look for the opinions of those having been fired at.
Bold 1. Then why are you here?
Bold 2: If you're close enough to see what you've been shot by? Think about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
And no I have not fired a semi aitomatic assult style rifle but I have a full automatic assult rifle and a machine gun. But as I said I am a Canadian so I will not enter the poll because I am not affected.
So, you were either in the military or you went to a place (that you pay) to let you shoot those "auotmatic assult rifle" and "machine gun.
an ar15 is a modular design so its parts are interchangeable
its made of aluminum so its light
all the other parts are the same with any other rifle. i would understand if the ar 15 had a large bullet, but its a pissy ant round to begin with, a 22 on steroids
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
