Assault Weapons Ban... Educate me please

[lucky4034]

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
-Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).​

These are pretty ridiculous IMO, but whatever... anyway...

Take an AR-10 for instance... Couldn't a manufacturer simply alter the current design to remove some of these features?

Put on a Fixed stock, unthreaded barrel and a fixed rail with no railing on the bottom (to prevent the addition of a pistol grip or grenade launcher)

 

[rockhopper46038]

Precisely what Armalite (and countless other manufacturers, I'd assume) did with my National Match rifle manufactured during the ban years. No threading, no flash suppressor, fixed A2 stock. The '94 AWB was a joke, but a distinctly unfunny one.

 

[Bubbajms]

Sure, and that's what happened before. Thus the designation of "Pre-Ban" when people advertise different firearms..

 

[Spikedog]

Sure, and that's what happened before. Thus the designation of "Pre-Ban" when people advertise different firearms..

Lived through the first ban. There was a good run up, so everything was available. The prices just went up.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

CT has had an AWB since the mid-90s.

The Sandy Hook murderer used an AWB compliant/Diane Feinstein-approved weapon.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Precisely what Armalite (and countless other manufacturers, I'd assume) did with my National Match rifle manufactured during the ban years. No threading, no flash suppressor, fixed A2 stock. The '94 AWB was a joke, but a distinctly unfunny one.

Exactly, but don't forget those stupid thumbhole stocks! (for the OP's benefit, this was a method of keeping weapons in a functional configuration while not having a pistol grip as defined by the law)

 

[Fawkes]

Lived through the first ban. There was a good run up, so everything was available. The prices just went up.

If they are able to close the "gunshow loophole" this won't be the case. Suppressing private transactions is a tall order.

 

[indymike]

CT has had an AWB since the mid-90s.

The Sandy Hook murderer used an AWB compliant/Diane Feinstein-approved weapon.

No hi-cap mag ban though. That died in committee in 2011.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The proposed hi cap "ban" in CT would not have impacted the murderer's magazines.

 

[MP43]

New laws for the lawbreakers. Just comes to show the intellegent polititions we have. Oh i forgot they went to college and got a degree. They know everything!!!! LOL

 

[indymike]

The proposed hi cap "ban" in CT would not have impacted the murderer's magazines.

I certainly wasn't asserting that it would...was just pointing out that there isn't an AWB in CT that is comparable to the 94 federal one or NY, CA, IL, etc.

 

[SecondAmendment]

The criteria for the new ban will not be the same as the old ban. Feinstein said there is only one criterion in the new ban. My suspicion is that criterion will be the ability to accept a high capacity magazine. The bill also bans over 100 firearms by name.

Feinstein also said the TRANSFER of said firearms will be prohibited. So, if you can't sell your guns, what is their value? (other than the value of defending yourself with them.)

 

[indymike]

I am betting that they will have to seriously water down her version for it to have any chance at all in the House. The Democrats only have 200 or so votes in the House and that's IF all of them stick together on Feinstein's original draft, a big if. A lot of compromises will need to be made for them to get to 218 votes. I just can't see them getting 18 or more Republican votes without cutting some deals on a bill and watering it down.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I certainly wasn't asserting that it would...was just pointing out that there isn't an AWB in CT that is comparable to the 94 federal one or NY, CA, IL, etc.

A valid point, but IL does not have a AWB (you may be thinking of Cook County).

 

[indymike]

A valid point, but IL does not have a AWB (you may be thinking of Cook County).

My bad. I assumed if they don't allow CC then the entire state must be under some type of AWB as well.