Senator Feinstein to introduce a new AWB

[SADShooter]

I understand that there will be ways around it and there will be plenty of people that have "boating accidents", but if the end result is super expensive components, mags, etc. (like in the previous AWB), then it will unfortunate.  I am also concerned what effect a broad based ban would have on the firearms industry. 

With a corresponding stigma, and reversal of the positive trend in views of firearms generally.

[charby]

Well when Remington and Ruger are making/selling AR-15 rifles as sporting weapons, I don't know how much fire there will be for a AWB after a week or two.

Some other Kardashian/Lohan/Snooki/David Bowie event will dominate the news soon.

[T.O.M.]

If we get a prospective ban on buying/selling EBR and full-cap mags, but no resgriction on possession of what is already owned, I suspect we will see a repeat of what happened last time...climbing prices on parts, screami.g high prices on the EBRs already out there, and an industry shift away from big mags to designs that match mags that fit the law.  It may result in resurgence of revolvers.

[gunsmith]

Well when Remington and Ruger are making/selling AR-15 rifles as sporting weapons, I don't know how much fire there will be for a AWB after a week or two.

Some other Kardashian/Lohan/Snooki/David Bowie event will dominate the news soon.

The media is having a feeding frenzy & I'm not jumping in. I am wearing my NRA shirt around though
It just so happened that my innernet turned off during the whole thing, was actually a little happy about that.
I even deactivated my old facebookaccount - tired of cirular arguments with idiot radlibs from Frisco.

[De Selby]

Birdman, CA and NY both have outright bans on possession in place - "I owned it before the ban" isn't a defense for many weapons.  I can dig up the statutes if you like but I feel the focus in this matter is political, with Heller being the next best area to concentrate on.

The way I see it:

-there may be political will for a ban on possession.  They won't confiscate, what they'll do is just throw the book at people for not destroying or turning in EBRs and high cap mags as they find them.  If. They're really nice they might let people weld their guns into inoperability.  There is no legal or constitutional barrier to them doing this apart from Heller.  Ex post facto only works for acts done in the past.  Criminalising future possession of an existing item is 100 percent in the clear. 

-I'm sure someone will raise a 5th amendment takings argument if this happens.  I'm equally sure it won't stop the program or amount to much payment.  This has been done in the states, and no one's been paid for restrictions or bans.

-the level of scrutiny that comes with Heller potentially has a big impact.  The higher the scrutiny, the more focused the rules need to be on outcomes.  It's more difficult for the most restrictive elements of a law to survive constitutional challenge.

-then there's politics.  But that doesn't look great at the moment.

[kgbsquirrel]

Birdman, CA and NY both have outright bans on possession in place - "I owned it before the ban" isn't a defense for many weapons.  I can dig up the statutes if you like but I feel the focus in this matter is political, with Heller being the next best area to concentrate on.

Thanks for reminding me about that.



Now you can have them, and now you can't.

[lee n. field]

AWB is dead before arrival, already.


We can print polymer AR lowers with a $1000 open source 3d printer.

Not quite yet.

What I would like to see are plans for a lower made from layered sheet metal.  Last I looked, most anybody can handle a hacksaw, file and drill.

[lee n. field]

Good one.  Saved and forwarded.

[Monkeyleg]

There were hundreds of thousands of people in CA who didn't register their EBR's and who didn't turn them in. I think we'll see millions do the same if the Feds try it.

[Ben]

There were hundreds of thousands of people in CA who didn't register their EBR's and who didn't turn them in. I think we'll see millions do the same if the Feds try it.

Indeed. It was an incredibly small minority that "obeyed the law" and once everyone else saw what Lockyear pulled, that was it for any chance of any of us following a law like that ever again.

[RaspberrySurprise]

There were hundreds of thousands of people in CA who didn't register their EBR's and who didn't turn them in. I think we'll see millions do the same if the Feds try it.

I think that is the point at which the ATF will start collecting 4473's from FFL's and finding out who owns what.

[Monkeyleg]

I think that is the point at which the ATF will start collecting 4473's from FFL's and finding out who owns what.

And that's when things go rodeo.

[Strings]

>There is no legal or constitutional barrier to them doing this apart from Heller.<

Not entirely correct.

Reread Miller. The argument that was used to bust him, and which was upheld, is that a short barreled shotgun "wasn't found listed in the TOE of any military unit". If push comes to shove, we lean HARD on that.

Would it protect ARs? No. BUt it could be used to force open the FA registry, which the antis do NOT want to happen. Consider it a sort of "Gun Law MAD"

[birdman]

Birdman, CA and NY both have outright bans on possession in place - "I owned it before the ban" isn't a defense for many weapons.  I can dig up the statutes if you like but I feel the focus in this matter is political, with Heller being the next best area to concentrate on.

The way I see it:

-there may be political will for a ban on possession.  They won't confiscate, what they'll do is just throw the book at people for not destroying or turning in EBRs and high cap mags as they find them.  If. They're really nice they might let people weld their guns into inoperability.  There is no legal or constitutional barrier to them doing this apart from Heller.  Ex post facto only works for acts done in the past.  Criminalising future possession of an existing item is 100 percent in the clear.  

-I'm sure someone will raise a 5th amendment takings argument if this happens.  I'm equally sure it won't stop the program or amount to much payment.  This has been done in the states, and no one's been paid for restrictions or bans.

-the level of scrutiny that comes with Heller potentially has a big impact.  The higher the scrutiny, the more focused the rules need to be on outcomes.  It's more difficult for the most restrictive elements of a law to survive constitutional challenge.

-then there's politics.  But that doesn't look great at the moment.

The CA law had grandfathered weapons if ownership was established Pre-ban.

Even when they outright banned the 50BMG, you could still possess it, just not buy or sell it (in the state).

With the exception of the thing KGB cited, where post ban registration was revoked, they did NOT confiscate weapons purchased and registered before the ban.

I still have yet to see an example of possession of Pre-ban firearms was ruled illegal and they were confiscated.

You state CA and NY have outright bans on possession and imply there was no grandfathering.  You are a lawyer, cite the relevant statute.

[De Selby]

Birdman, the California assault weapons bans grandfathered because that was the policy decision of the legislature.   They have not grandfathered other weapons, like machine guns and ninja starts.

Here's a cite:http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=22001-23000&file=22410-22490 for shurikens.

Machine guns:  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=32001-33000&file=32625

As you can see, these statutes ban mere possession.  "Ownership before the law was passed" isn't a defense or a reason to grant a permit.

Here's New York:  http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=@SLPEN0P3TPA265+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=10429422+&TARGET=VIEW

Have a look at the exemptions - owning before the law is not one of them.

[birdman]

Birdman, the California assault weapons bans grandfathered because that was the policy decision of the legislature.   They have not grandfathered other weapons, like machine guns and ninja starts.

Here's a cite:http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=22001-23000&file=22410-22490 for shurikens.

Machine guns:  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=32001-33000&file=32625

As you can see, these statutes ban mere possession.  "Ownership before the law was passed" isn't a defense or a reason to grant a permit.

Here's New York:  http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=@SLPEN0P3TPA265+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=10429422+&TARGET=VIEW

Have a look at the exemptions - owning before the law is not one of them.

Thanks!  Yet one more reason why CA and NY suck.  Of course, since NFA was constitutional, banning those specific weapons didn't cause a problem.  I doubt it would be as easy for "regular" firearms...but caveat emptor

Thanks for the citations...now I'm even more pissed (not at you :) )

[De Selby]

Thanks!  Yet one more reason why CA and NY suck.  Of course, since NFA was constitutional, banning those specific weapons didn't cause a problem.  I doubt it would be as easy for "regular" firearms...but caveat emptor

Thanks for the citations...now I'm even more pissed (not at you :) )

Hahaha, no need to thank me for making CA and NY look more crappy - they did all the hard part for me.

There's one upside to new legislation: it will almost certainly force a new decision that spells out what Heller means for individual ownership and carry.  And in this court, that may not be the worst thing for gun owners.

[SteveS]

Well when Remington and Ruger are making/selling AR-15 rifles as sporting weapons, I don't know how much fire there will be for a AWB after a week or two.

Some other Kardashian/Lohan/Snooki/David Bowie event will dominate the news soon.

Good point. Prior to CT., support for gun control was at the lowest point in the last 40 years.

[Hawkmoon]

Birdman, CA and NY both have outright bans on possession in place - "I owned it before the ban" isn't a defense for many weapons.  I can dig up the statutes if you like but I feel the focus in this matter is political, with Heller being the next best area to concentrate on.

When Connecticut enacted their AWB they required registration of already-owned firearms that fell within their definition of "assault weapon." I don't remember what the window was (six months, perhaps?), but even if you owned all nice and legal-like before -- if you didn't register within the window period, your toy became contraband.

[T.O.M.]

Any buzz on what might be labeled an "assault weapon" this time?  AR-15's seem to be the new media talking point, as opposed to AK's last time.  But I'm hearing and reading the Glock name a whole lot this time around...with the Arizona shootings, the Va. Tech shootings, and now the Sandy Hook guy packing one.  Kind of worried "assault weapon" ay include handguns this time...

[Ben]

Any buzz on what might be labeled an "assault weapon" this time?  AR-15's seem to be the new media talking point, as opposed to AK's last time. 

Possibly AK-15s, since that's what O'Reilly was talking about tonight with Alan Gottlieb.*


* To his credit, after Alan corrected him he apologized and said he looked like an idiot.

[Strings]

"AK-15" could easily just be the brain processing faster than the mouth can speak. A sorta mismash comes out: I've had that happen before

[slingshot]

Consider the lead ammo ban in CA.  I don't recall if it passed.  But it banned poessession after a grace period.

[AJ Dual]

Good point. Prior to CT., support for gun control was at the lowest point in the last 40 years.

If we weather this without any significant legislation, save maybe some band-aid tightening of NICS reporting or whatever, the tiny silver lining is if we win this one, then we really, really, really have won the RKBA argument, stick a fork in it.

BIG 'if's' I fully and readily admit, but yet it's there.

The inaction after Columbine and VT were serious blows to the antis, who in terms of funding and membership already were on the ropes, but the inaction and their inability to pass anything after such high profile events it let everyone else know it. Granted, the kids weren't as young, but it established a pattern and a benchmark for us to win.

And in terms of the "political climate" being against us, I'm not sure by how much it really is. Obama won with a fair number of blue-collar types who fell for the class-warfare/class-envy stuff, but folks who otherwise love their guns every bit as much as the rest of us do. And aside from Fast and Furious, they were willing to vote for him again based on his relative inaction on anything gun-related.

And that's when things go rodeo.

If it comes to that, I feel bad for my kids... and the kids of the people doing the confiscating.

[charby]

"AK-15" could easily just be the brain processing faster than the mouth can speak. A sorta mismash comes out: I've had that happen before

Don't defend him, O'Reilly is just a peterhead like the rest of the pundits, they will say anything for ratings.