PDA

View Full Version : The assault weapons ban



1a2b3c
09-09-2004, 08:05 PM
Ive been waiting for this thing to expire and it looks like monday it finally will. I am gonna be buying all kinds of fun little goodies for my AR15, and at alot cheaper prices then they are at now. Them pre-ban rifles will drop from a $1000 or $2000 to the price of a used rifle, like it should be. I can finally put that telescopic butt on my gun so it fits me better. Hi-cap mags finally wont cost more than i make in a day. I hate republicans even more than i hate democrats but atleast they know when a ban is nothing more than feel good legislation. It was the most useless gun law on the books and im glad to see it go.

crawdaddio
09-09-2004, 08:48 PM
Are you serious?

eg8r
09-09-2004, 08:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It was the most useless gun law on the books and im glad to see it go.<hr /></blockquote> There are plenty more. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

nhp
09-10-2004, 12:23 AM
AR15's are not made to shoot deer. They are made to shoot humans. Why was the ban useless?

Cueless Joey
09-10-2004, 12:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> AR15's are not made to shoot deer. They are made to shoot humans. Why was the ban useless? <hr /></blockquote>
Because criminals do not follow the law?

Singlemalt
09-10-2004, 03:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1a2b3c:</font><hr>..... I hate republicans even more than i hate democrats but atleast they know when a ban is nothing more than feel good legislation. It was the most useless gun law on the books and im glad to see it go.... <hr /></blockquote>

What?? Have you forgotten where the ban came from to begin with!?!??!

"We will never disarm any American who seeks to protect his or her family from fear and harm."

-- President Ronald Reagan

Singlemalt
09-10-2004, 03:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> AR15's are not made to shoot deer. They are made to shoot humans. <hr /></blockquote>

And McDonald's was made to make people fat then?


"We will never disarm any American who seeks to protect his or her family from fear and harm."

-- President Ronald Reagan

nhp
09-10-2004, 04:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cueless Joey:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> AR15's are not made to shoot deer. They are made to shoot humans. Why was the ban useless? <hr /></blockquote>
Because criminals do not follow the law? <hr /></blockquote>

And did you ever stop to think that lifting a ban on assault rifles just might make it easier for criminals to get their hands on them?

This is a touchy subject for me, being that I live in the street gang capital of the nation, and I have lost 6, yes SIX friends, two of them close friends, to gang violence.

nhp
09-10-2004, 04:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And McDonald's was made to make people fat then?


"We will never disarm any American who seeks to protect his or her family from fear and harm." <hr /></blockquote>

Can you please explain to me what both of those lines have to do with the subject? Don't eat McDonalds and you won't get fat. Take the guns off the streets and innocent people will stop getting shot.

As for the Ron Reagan quote- What in the hell is wrong with having a small revolver locked up in a drawer? What in the hell does a guy need an AK-47 to defend his family for!? Are you gonna spray the intruder with 30 more rounds to make sure he's dead? These guns are made for war, not the suburbs. These guns spray so many bullets you can hit innocent bystanders much more easily than you can firing a semiautomatic pistol. I swear you gun nuts are so irrational it baffles me sometimes.

Singlemalt
09-10-2004, 05:15 AM
I mean no disrespect at all and understand your feelings about how it feels to lose friends, especially in the manner you have lost them. A city only about 20 minutes from where I live has gotten very bad with gang violence.

What I was simply trying to get to was that people who are out committing crimes/murders are not people that I would think are "legally" (either w/ a purchase permit which requires a background check or a NICS check) obtaining the firearms they are using no matter whether it is a pistol or an "assault rifle". Criminals are going to be purchasing there guns out of the trunk of someone's car not by going into there FFL in town and purchasing it there legally.

nhp
09-10-2004, 05:38 AM
I see your point, but with an assault weapons ban it is less likely that they will be purchasing AK-47's out of a trunk of a car, and more likely they will get the less powerful weapons, like 9mm. While of course the less powerful weapons still kill people, there is less of a chance that an innocent victim can get caught in the cross fire. There always will be guns in the country, and I accept that and don't try to fight it, but I am definately against the legalization of guns made for war, guns that are designed to hit multiple targets easily, guns that are powerful enough to pierce armor, the same guns used in the North Hollywood bank robbery a few years ago. That was only about 10 minutes from my house. I don't think anyone but the military has any business with weapons like that.

highsea
09-10-2004, 06:26 AM
Lol, good post. What kind of an Ar do you have? The Olympic Arms were the best, imo. The colts are junk, nothing against FN, but that's what you get when you sub out to Belgium for a service rifle. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif The sweetest little carbine is the HK MP5, imo, but it's just a 9mm, so it can't really reach out there. But very compact, and easily supressable with subsonic ammo. The 5.56 round is just too wimpy, imo, and it's a barrel eater.

But of all the 5.56's my fav is the Sig 550. Just beautiful, built in bipod, clear mags, and that so sweet swiss craftmanship. A new one will run you close to 2 grand, but worth every penny. Second best, is the Steyr AUG from Austria. Same punch, compact bullpup design, and arguably the best accuracy in a 5.56. Plus it's really easy to change barrels, which is important if you run a lot of crappy ammo. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

If this ban really goes away, sell your colt and save up for an XM-8 in .270. It's our newest service rifle, and quite sporty. Ballistics beat hell out of the .223 in every way.

The first batch of these will hit Iraq in the last quarter of this year. They will all be 5.56's, but the sniper version will be .270. It's a brand new .270, based a necked down rimless .30-30. So it's not a .270 Win. which is a necked down -.06. It won't have the long range punch of the Winchester round, but it will be way better that the 5.56, and a lot easier to control. Check out the integrated sight. Sa-weet!

Two batallions will be outfitted, and all the Colonels are fighting to be the first ones. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif The tests have gone gangbusters, 15,000 rounds without cleaning, no jams, throw it in the dirt, freeze it, etc. It's an all new action. All the junk is ejected with the casing. Nothing stays in the breech. Super cool.
Here is a pic of the new XM-8.

http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/XM8_Rifle_2.jpg

Looks pretty cool, huh? You won't be able to get the snail mag, cause that's an SAW, but the carbine should hit the civilian market (in semi-auto) in 4-5 years. The .270 will kick ass. Don't expect to get the pistol version, it's an SOF version only. So the second and fourth ones will not be offered in a civilian version, but the first and third ones will, The third one has the 20" barrel, that will be the.270. The top one (carbine) will be a 5.56 only.

The top pic has the shows the snap-on grenade launcher, which replaces the M-203. There is a 12 gauge shotgun also, not pictured. Back off, sucka! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

-CM

SpiderMan
09-10-2004, 09:14 AM
My deer rifle fires a much more powerful round than any AK-, AR-, or similar "assault" weapon, and I could hit someone at much greater range. But neither my mini-30 nor my A-bolt has killed anyone. For that to happen, "I" would need to be a killer, and given a choice I'd probably use the more powerful weapon.

In general, long guns are historically offensive and short arms defensive. Carbines and "assualt" rifles fall somewhere in between, good to have in a defensive situation if you have time to deploy them. Otherwise, pull your handgun.

SpiderMan

eg8r
09-10-2004, 02:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Can you please explain to me what both of those lines have to do with the subject? Don't eat McDonalds and you won't get fat. Take the guns off the streets and innocent people will stop getting shot.
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, taking the guns off the streets does not save innocent people. As you surely know it is the criminals who are disobeying the laws. All you are recommending is to disarm law abiding citizens thus putting them in more danger.

Your reply to the analogy does not work, simply because an innocent bystander never had the choice of whether to get shot or not, whereas they do have the option of eating at McD.

Since you are mentioning innocent people getting shot, and the subject of this part of the thread is on the AR15, just how many innocent people were shot with an AR15 when they were legal? How many deer?

eg8r

eg8r
09-10-2004, 02:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
And did you ever stop to think that lifting a ban on assault rifles just might make it easier for criminals to get their hands on them?
<hr /></blockquote> Sure it will be easier but they are less inclined to use them when they are fearful of being shot back.

eg8r

highsea
09-10-2004, 02:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>And did you ever stop to think that lifting a ban on assault rifles just might make it easier for criminals to get their hands on them? <hr /></blockquote> Easy, Tiger. There's a lot of hype and emotion involved here, but it should be pointed out that the expiration of the ban will not put AK-47's and UZI's on the street.

These guns will still fall under the Federal ban on imports. Any new guns will have to be made in the US, and currently there is no domestic manufacture of these types. It's pretty unlikely that anyone will tool up for large scale production of AR's or AK's.

Some boutique gunmakers like Olympic Arms may make a few AR's, but they will be very expensive, like $1500-$2000 or more, because the receivers will have to be milled out of billets. These guns will be marketed to target shooters. And, yes, there are target shooters and competitions that are for military weapons only.

-CM

Cueless Joey
09-10-2004, 02:52 PM
Kinda odd that Washington, DC and NY have a ton of gun laws ( much more than other cities ) yet have more crimes than most cities. I think that proves something.
Let's just make it simple. You fire a gun during a crime, you get hung.
Oops, ACLU and the trial lawyers won't like that.

nhp
09-10-2004, 04:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>And did you ever stop to think that lifting a ban on assault rifles just might make it easier for criminals to get their hands on them? <hr /></blockquote> Easy, Tiger. There's a lot of hype and emotion involved here, but it should be pointed out that the expiration of the ban will not put AK-47's and UZI's on the street.

These guns will still fall under the Federal ban on imports. Any new guns will have to be made in the US, and currently there is no domestic manufacture of these types. It's pretty unlikely that anyone will tool up for large scale production of AR's or AK's.

Some boutique gunmakers like Olympic Arms may make a few AR's, but they will be very expensive, like $1500-$2000 or more, because the receivers will have to be milled out of billets. These guns will be marketed to target shooters. And, yes, there are target shooters and competitions that are for military weapons only.

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

Ah well I wasn't aware of that. I was given the impression that all of a sudden they were gonna be sellin AK's at K-marts or something. Well not exactly, but something similar to an AK buying bonanza was the impression I had. I suppose if the guns are manufactured here they could put some kind of regulations on how many rounds they fire per second, and power, etc. Thanks for the info.

1a2b3c
09-10-2004, 05:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cueless Joey:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> AR15's are not made to shoot deer. They are made to shoot humans. Why was the ban useless? <hr /></blockquote>
Because criminals do not follow the law? <hr /></blockquote>

And did you ever stop to think that lifting a ban on assault rifles just might make it easier for criminals to get their hands on them?

This is a touchy subject for me, being that I live in the street gang capital of the nation, and I have lost 6, yes SIX friends, two of them close friends, to gang violence. <hr /></blockquote>

If this is true you live in our nations capital, Washington DC, where it is illegal to own a gun.

1a2b3c
09-10-2004, 05:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> I see your point, but with an assault weapons ban it is less likely that they will be purchasing AK-47's out of a trunk of a car, and more likely they will get the less powerful weapons, like 9mm. While of course the less powerful weapons still kill people, there is less of a chance that an innocent victim can get caught in the cross fire. There always will be guns in the country, and I accept that and don't try to fight it, but I am definately against the legalization of guns made for war, guns that are designed to hit multiple targets easily, guns that are powerful enough to pierce armor, the same guns used in the North Hollywood bank robbery a few years ago. That was only about 10 minutes from my house. I don't think anyone but the military has any business with weapons like that. <hr /></blockquote>

You do not know what the ban is, you just know the name sounds like something good. It didnt ban any type of firearms, just the names and some cosmetics. The old AK's which arent even covered in this ban, that was the 1989 ban i believe, are still being sold today. They just couldnt call them AK47's. THey are now called SAR's. Sounds stupid right, but thats what the ban was. They are sold with 10 round magazines, but you are still able to buy the old 40 round magazines for them and thats perfectly legal. The only difference between an AR15 made before the ban and one made after the ban is that its missing a flash hider/muzzle brake (whatever its called), the butt of the gun cannot be adjusted, and a few other small unimportant things related to the looks of the gun. To give you an idea of what the ban did i will show you 2 pictures and see if you can tell me which one is banned from manufacture and which one can still be made today. Sounds fun right? http://gunbroker.com/pixhost/2004-07-18/Gun_Bowanna_1090365746_new_stuff_018.jpg
http://pix.gunbroker.com/pixhost/2003-08-17/Tejas_Gunwerks_1061328561_RFA2-M4PmC.jpg

Let me know if you think you have the answer. And yes one was made after the ban and one wasnt.

Less of a chance of an innocent getting caught in the crossfire??? THats some BS. More people get caught in the crossfire of a 9mm pistol then people get shot intentionally and unintentionally with any rifle covered under the 1994 crime bill, maybe even all rifles covered. Why? Because rifles arent used in crimes anywhere near as much as a 9mm handgun. You cant conceal them, you cant hide them, they are not the first choice of criminals.

So what if China, or Korea, of anyone else disables our communications somehow? The army cant communicate with each other and we are somehow kind of in a world of S*&amp;t??? Incase you didnt notice we arent the most loved country in the world, lots of countrys hate us. Sure it might not happen. Probably wont. BUt who are you to tell a law abiding citizen that they cant own a weapon that would enable them to defend themselves from multiple attackers? Japanese military said the reason they didnt invade california when they bombed pearl harbor was because they knew most americans had guns in their homes and they would be outgunned(a quote from the history channel).

Armor piercing rounds? Here is a link to what the law covers, i think you should read it so you know what we are talking about. Armor piercing bullets have nothing to do with this. My deer rifle has more powerfull rounds then my AR15. You say you dont understand us "gun nuts", it was "gun nuts" right?? We dont understand why you people who hate us "gun nuts" do not read or even attempt to take the time to understand what the laws we bitch about really do. THis law does nothing, here is a link to show you. Please tell me what good it does. www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/aw94.htm (http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/aw94.htm) http://www.awbansunset.com/whatis.html

ANd the weapons used in that robbery were fully auto AK47. Those are highly regulated in the US and only Class 3 firearms dealers and class 3 firearms users can obtain one. Those are covered in the 1934 firearms act, not the ban in 1994, that ban covers things like bayonnet lugs on your rifle. Did those robbers stab someone with a bayonet?

Sorry to be an ass, but i cant stand it when people call the informed "gun nuts" then spout off about something thats not even covered in the law i am talking about. Its not your fault. Only someone who shoots sporting rifles know because we are the only ones who care. The rest of you just know that the name sounds good/scary so the law must be right. IF it was really a good and honest law, do you think it would drop off the radar like it is doing now? They couldnt get it to pass in 1994 without the sunset clause, which is monday i might add. And it only passed by one vote even then in 1994, and that was Gores vote. Im not gonna say Bush won, because i think he cheated. But i will say that it wouldnt have even been close if Gore didnt piss off all the gun owners of america in 1994. I voted for Nader because of his stance on guns. Gun owners rocked the vote in 2000, and it showed. DEmocrats lost seats in the house and senate in 1994 because of the ban (bill clinton quote).

If youre gonna call us names like "gun nut" wouldnt it be polite if you knew the laws you are talking about? And by the way i lived in the hilltop neighborhood in tacoma washington for 5 years. Big time bloods neighborhood, and probably the toughest neighborhood in the state of washington. I never once heard of a shooting there with a rifle. They did have a shootout once with some gang members and a few Army personel who lived in the neighborhood. All with handguns, and yes the army won the fight. Cops were too scared to even show up for the fight.

1a2b3c
09-10-2004, 05:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> Lol, good post. What kind of an Ar do you have? The Olympic Arms were the best, imo. The colts are junk, nothing against FN, but that's what you get when you sub out to Belgium for a service rifle. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif The sweetest little carbine is the HK MP5, imo, but it's just a 9mm, so it can't really reach out there. But very compact, and easily supressable with subsonic ammo. The 5.56 round is just too wimpy, imo, and it's a barrel eater.

But of all the 5.56's my fav is the Sig 550. Just beautiful, built in bipod, clear mags, and that so sweet swiss craftmanship. A new one will run you close to 2 grand, but worth every penny. Second best, is the Steyr AUG from Austria. Same punch, compact bullpup design, and arguably the best accuracy in a 5.56. Plus it's really easy to change barrels, which is important if you run a lot of crappy ammo. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

If this ban really goes away, sell your colt and save up for an XM-8 in .270. It's our newest service rifle, and quite sporty. Ballistics beat hell out of the .223 in every way.

The first batch of these will hit Iraq in the last quarter of this year. They will all be 5.56's, but the sniper version will be .270. It's a brand new .270, based a necked down rimless .30-30. So it's not a .270 Win. which is a necked down -.06. It won't have the long range punch of the Winchester round, but it will be way better that the 5.56, and a lot easier to control. Check out the integrated sight. Sa-weet!

Two batallions will be outfitted, and all the Colonels are fighting to be the first ones. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif The tests have gone gangbusters, 15,000 rounds without cleaning, no jams, throw it in the dirt, freeze it, etc. It's an all new action. All the junk is ejected with the casing. Nothing stays in the breech. Super cool.
Here is a pic of the new XM-8.

http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/XM8_Rifle_2.jpg

Looks pretty cool, huh? You won't be able to get the snail mag, cause that's an SAW, but the carbine should hit the civilian market (in semi-auto) in 4-5 years. The .270 will kick ass. Don't expect to get the pistol version, it's an SOF version only. So the second and fourth ones will not be offered in a civilian version, but the first and third ones will, The third one has the 20" barrel, that will be the.270. The top one (carbine) will be a 5.56 only.

The top pic has the shows the snap-on grenade launcher, which replaces the M-203. There is a 12 gauge shotgun also, not pictured. Back off, sucka! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

-CM

<hr /></blockquote>

I have the Oly arms PCR2. Sorry i noticed in the original post i said i had a preban but i meant post. I use to live close to the Oly arms headquarters.

highsea
09-10-2004, 06:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1a2b3c:</font><hr>I have the Oly arms PCR2. Sorry i noticed in the original post i said i had a preban but i meant post. I use to live close to the Oly arms headquarters.<hr /></blockquote> Nice gun, even though I am not an AR fan. I used to live in Shelton, I toured the Oly Arms shop some years back.

-CM

Cueless Joey
09-10-2004, 10:07 PM
I used to own an HK91 clone.
It did not have the evil-looking flash hider and the pistol grip ( it had a thumbhole instead ) b/c of the new California law then.
I sold it b/c sooner or later it too would have been a liability to own here in hoplophobic California.
One legislator here read his speach and said, " we have to get rid of these guns like ISUZI..."
I would have loved to have owned an MP3 and Benelli semi shotguns.
Btw, crime rates in Cali did not go down until the 3-strike law became in effect after YEARS of lobbying by the NRA.
Diane Feinstein milked it after the death of Polly Klaas. Like she wrote it.

nhp
09-11-2004, 05:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1a2b3c:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cueless Joey:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> AR15's are not made to shoot deer. They are made to shoot humans. Why was the ban useless? <hr /></blockquote>
Because criminals do not follow the law? <hr /></blockquote>

And did you ever stop to think that lifting a ban on assault rifles just might make it easier for criminals to get their hands on them?

This is a touchy subject for me, being that I live in the street gang capital of the nation, and I have lost 6, yes SIX friends, two of them close friends, to gang violence. <hr /></blockquote>

If this is true you live in our nations capital, Washington DC, where it is illegal to own a gun. <hr /></blockquote>

I live in Los Angeles. Washington DC has alot of street gangs, but they are not even close to being as violent as the ones out here. There are hundreds more large street gangs out here than in D.C.

nhp
09-11-2004, 05:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If youre gonna call us names like "gun nut" wouldnt it be polite if you knew the laws you are talking about? And by the way i lived in the hilltop neighborhood in tacoma washington for 5 years. Big time bloods neighborhood, and probably the toughest neighborhood in the state of washington. I never once heard of a shooting there with a rifle. They did have a shootout once with some gang members and a few Army personel who lived in the neighborhood. All with handguns, and yes the army won the fight. Cops were too scared to even show up for the fight. <hr /></blockquote>

I wasn't trying to insult you, I was saying it in a joking manner.

The street gangs out here are MUCH different than the ones where you live. Most blood or crip gangs outside of California are "wannabees" as in they don't do the same things the gangs out here do. There are many many different places in LA and LA county where you hear gunshots every day and night. Los Angeles is the nations murder capital by sheer number, even higher than New York City. Most of the murders are gang-related. I hope this can help you better understand where I am coming from. The gangs here are no joke.

highsea
09-11-2004, 06:45 AM
California's State law banning semi-auto's is way more restrictive than the Federal law anyway. The lifting of the ban at the Federal level will not effect California at all, since the State law will stay in place.

Truth is, the 1994 Federal ban did not really have any effect on crime, and neither will lifting it. About the only difference will be for folks like 1a2b3c, who can now buy a few accessories that they coulnd't have before.

-CM

nhp
09-11-2004, 06:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> California's State law banning semi-auto's is way more restrictive than the Federal law anyway. The lifting of the ban at the Federal level will not effect California at all, since the State law will stay in place.

Truth is, the 1994 Federal ban did not really have any effect on crime, and neither will lifting it. About the only difference will be for folks like 1a2b3c, who can now buy a few accessories that they coulnd't have before.

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

If lifting the ban will not affect California, why is LA Mayor James Hahn and Police Chief William Bratton going all crazy about it? I see them opposing lifting the ban on the news every day.

highsea
09-11-2004, 07:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>If lifting the ban will not affect California, why is LA Mayor James Hahn and Police Chief William Bratton going all crazy about it? I see them opposing lifting the ban on the news every day. <hr /></blockquote>Lol, are they democrats? Are they up for re-election? It helps public officials when they can blame the Federal Gov't. for their problems.

Seriously, California's ban is not at all threatened. California allowed those who owned an assault weapon prior to June 1 1989, to register it and pay a fee to keep their guns.

[ QUOTE ]
Any person lawfully possessing a "Roberti-Roos assault weapon" before June 1, 1989, was to register the firearm with the Department of Justice by March 31, 1992, although under a recent law, anyone failing to register an SKS rifle with a detachable AK-47 magazine between January 1, 1992 and December 19, 1997 will be immune from prosecution prior to January 1, 2000. This law requires those in possession of such an SKS rifle to relinquish it to the Department of Justice, a law enforcement agency or transfer it to a licensed gun dealer on or before January 1, 2000.".

This is the Roberti-Roos list:

A firearm is deemed an "assault weapon" if it is listed in Section 12276, or if it is added to the list via a successful petition to a court by the Attorney General. This list is commonly known as the "Roberti-Roos list":

(a) All of the following specified rifles:

(1) All AK series
(2) UZI and Galil
(3) Beretta AR-70
(4) CETME Sporter
(5) Colt AR-15 series
(6) MAS223
(7) Fabrique Nationale FAL, LAR, FNC, 308 Match and Sporter
(8) Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C
(9) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and HK-PSG-1
(10) RPB Industries Inc. sM10 and sM11 and SWD Incorporated M11 and MAC types
(11) SKS with detachable magazine
(12) SIG AMT, PE-57, SIG 550 and 551
(13) Springfield Armory BM59 and SAR.48
(14) Sterling MK-6 (15) Steyer AUG
(16) Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78S
(17) Armalite AR-180
(18) Bushmaster Assault Rifle
(19) Calico M-900
(20) J &amp; R ENG M-68
(21 ) Weaver Arms Nighthawk

(b) All of the following specified pistols:

(1 ) UZI
(2) Encom MP-9 and MP-45
(3) RPB Industries Inc. sM10 and sM11, SWD Incorporated M-11, Advance Armament Inc. M-11, and Military Armament Corp. Ingram M-11, and MAC types
(4) INTRATEC TEC-9
(5) Sites Spectre
(6) Sterling MK-7
(7) Calico M-950
(8) Bushmaster Pistol

c) All of the following specified shotguns:

(1) Franchi SPAS 12 and LAW 12
(2) Striker 12
(3) Street Sweeper

(d) Any firearm declared by the court pursuant to section 12276.5 to be an assualt weapon that is specified as an assault weapon in a list promulgated pursuant to section 12276.5.

In 2000, the california law was expanded, to include this definition:

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
(b) "Assault weapon" does not include any antique firearm. (c) The following definitions shall apply under this section:
(1) "Magazine" shall mean any ammunition feeding device.
(2) "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
(3) "Antique firearm" means any firearm manufactured prior to January 1, 1899. Firearms that fit the above descriptions which were possessed on December 31, 1999 can be kept if they are registered between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2000. Firearms that are on the Roberti-Roos list, but not currently validly registered, cannot now be registered.

Unless otherwise specified, registered "assault weapons" may only be possessed:

1. At registrant`s residence, place of business, or other property owned by such registrant, or on property owned by another with permission.
2. At certain recognized target ranges or shooting clubs.
3. At certain recognized exhibitions.
4. While on publicly owned land upon which possession and use of "assault weapons" is specifically permitted by the managing agency.
5. While transporting the assault weapon between any of the places listed above, or to any licensed gun dealer.

It is a felony to offer for sale, give or lend any "assault weapon". The does not apply to a person who lends a registered "assault weapon" to another person who is 18 years of age or over if all of the following conditions apply: (1) the person to whom the "assault weapon" is lent is not prohibited from possessing a firearm and remains in the presence of the registered possessor, and (2) the "assault weapon" is possessed at a licensed target range, or at the target range of a public or private club organized for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets, or at an exhibition, display or education project sponsored by a law enforcement agency or a nationally or state recognized firearms entity.<hr /></blockquote> http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=CA

I think your politicians know that the Federal AWB has no effect on California. But it helps their PR image to scream and shout.

-CM

Cueless Joey
09-12-2004, 09:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If lifting the ban will not affect California, why is LA Mayor James Hahn and Police Chief William Bratton going all crazy about it? I see them opposing lifting the ban on the news every day. <hr /></blockquote>
Because they're milking the issue for votes.
If California just has the truth in sentencing law ( like if a criminal is sentenced to prison, he must serve at least 80% of the time) , we'd be better off.
There is something fundamentally wrong here when we go after OBJECTS instead the criminals.
Take Mrs. Brady for example. She goes after handguns, magazines, toy guns, rifles etc but I have yet to hear her go after the criminals themselves. The man who shot her husband spent his "prison" not in prison. Maybe she'd lobby against that.

stickman
09-12-2004, 09:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> AR15's are not made to shoot deer. They are made to shoot humans. <font color="blue"> You could shoot a deer if you wanted to. Some people enjoy shooting targets or even beer cans. Why should it be banned by reasonable, sane gun enthusiasts? </font color>
Take the guns off the streets and innocent people will stop getting shot. <font color="blue"> I know this is old news, but if they take guns off the streets, only criminals will have guns. </font color>

As for the Ron Reagan quote- What in the hell is wrong with having a small revolver locked up in a drawer? <font color="blue"> You kill deer with this? After you lock it up in a drawer, and store the ammunition elsewhere, just to be safe, it will probably do you no good. I have several guns. I don't own a pistol or an assault weapon, but I see no reason why I shouldn't have one if I wanted to. I plan to buy a pistol in time, for self defense. My son owns a TEC-9 and loves shooting it. He has had it for a long time and hasn't killed anybody yet. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif</font color> <hr /></blockquote>

stickman
09-12-2004, 09:47 PM
I'm sorry for your friends, nph. These types should not own guns. They should be where no one could ever hurt anyone again. Even with bans, these violent people will kill. I don't feel that you can count on Police to protect you, they are a small percentage of the population overall. There are far more criminals than Police. I doubt that I would like living in Los Angeles.

nhp
09-13-2004, 05:27 AM
Back when I was in high school, after I had lost 4 friends already to gang members going on shooting sprees, one of my close friends had a birthday party at his house for his sister. One of his friends was standing outside, and some gang members drove up. They got out of the car and they started jumping him. There was about 10 of them, and they were just out to start [censored] for no reason. My friend Andre saw this from inside his house, he ran outside and broke up the fight. Andre pushed Steve towards the front door, and the gang members pulled a gun out and shot Andre in the back of the head. The bullet glanced off his skull. Andre fell down, then they shot him again in the arm. He got up and ran for the door, and they shot him one last time, and a bullet got lodged in his heart and he died 20 minutes later. He was one of the nicest guys I ever knew, his family was absoloutely devastated. His name was Andre Sales and there was an article in the newspaper about it, talking about how easy it is for criminals to get their hands on guns.

About two years after that, another good friend of mine, named Chris Pilkington was shot in murdered. I played little league baseball with him, and after that I was friends with him all throughout highschool. He was standing in the front yard of his friend's house and some gang members drove up and shot him in the head without saying a word. There was no apparent reason. A year after that happened, his sister Emily was killed in a car accident. Those were the only two children the parents had. Those were such sad times for me, I can only imagine what the families felt.

When I was 11 years old my older brother was shot by gang members. He wasn't killed, and he testified against them in court and they were convicted. For the next few years after that, I would wake up in the middle of the night and find ALL of the lights in our house on. He was terrified to death because one of the shooters was released, and they could have easily found out where we lived. It was very disheartening for me to see my older brother always peering out the window if a car drove by our house slowly. I was 11 years old, and my older brother whom I looked up to was fearing for his life. Imagine how I felt.

This is where my stance on guns comes from. It's not because I'm a liberal, it's based on personal experience.

highsea
09-13-2004, 05:50 AM
Nat, I don't want to seem unsympathetic or insensitive. Nothing like that. But had your friends been armed, and spent some time learning about self-defense, they might still be alive today. At least theyd've had a fighting chance.

The cops can only be so many places, and the Gov't can only pass so many laws. Beyond that, the responsibility for our own safety (and that of our loved ones) falls squarely upon our own shoulders.

The cops can only be relied on to investigate the aftermath.

That's why it's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

-CM

SpiderMan
09-13-2004, 08:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1a2b3c:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cueless Joey:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> AR15's are not made to shoot deer. They are made to shoot humans. Why was the ban useless? <hr /></blockquote>
Because criminals do not follow the law? <hr /></blockquote>

And did you ever stop to think that lifting a ban on assault rifles just might make it easier for criminals to get their hands on them?

This is a touchy subject for me, being that I live in the street gang capital of the nation, and I have lost 6, yes SIX friends, two of them close friends, to gang violence. <hr /></blockquote>

If this is true you live in our nations capital, Washington DC, where it is illegal to own a gun. <hr /></blockquote>

I live in Los Angeles. Washington DC has alot of street gangs, but they are not even close to being as violent as the ones out here. There are hundreds more large street gangs out here than in D.C. <hr /></blockquote>

Doesn't California/LA already have gun laws far more restrictive than most? Has it made LA safer than Kennesaw, Georgia?

SpiderMan

SpiderMan
09-13-2004, 10:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
If youre gonna call us names like "gun nut" wouldnt it be polite if you knew the laws you are talking about? And by the way i lived in the hilltop neighborhood in tacoma washington for 5 years. Big time bloods neighborhood, and probably the toughest neighborhood in the state of washington. I never once heard of a shooting there with a rifle. They did have a shootout once with some gang members and a few Army personel who lived in the neighborhood. All with handguns, and yes the army won the fight. Cops were too scared to even show up for the fight. <hr /></blockquote>

I wasn't trying to insult you, I was saying it in a joking manner.

The street gangs out here are MUCH different than the ones where you live. Most blood or crip gangs outside of California are "wannabees" as in they don't do the same things the gangs out here do. There are many many different places in LA and LA county where you hear gunshots every day and night. Los Angeles is the nations murder capital by sheer number, even higher than New York City. Most of the murders are gang-related. I hope this can help you better understand where I am coming from. The gangs here are no joke. <hr /></blockquote>

Apparently the gangs don't realize that there are laws against murder? If they did, surely they'd obey them as well as laws against guns.

Sorry about the sarcasm, but those people are the real problem. Unfortunately, it's just not good politics for the establishment to go after a problem they can't hope to solve before the next election. Instead they rail and rally against inanimate objects in order to appear they're "doing something". When it doesn't work, they can always claim the ban didn't go far enough.

In LA, street thugs have little to fear from law-abiding civilians. whose main option is calling 911 so that a policeman can come by after the crime and make his report.

After Texas legalized concealed-handgun carry, I immediately felt safer on downtown streets at night. Even before I began carrying, I was safer because no one can tell who is armed.

SpiderMan

Eric.
09-13-2004, 10:44 AM
Well put. With all due respect to NHP, he doesn't know enough about what he's talking about.

BTW, your 2 gun pics are misleading. My guess is that the one with the fake adjustable stock, non threaded flash hider and no bayonet lug is the post ban gun.


Eric &gt;loves my Bushmaster XM-15

Voodoo Daddy
09-13-2004, 02:32 PM
I'm just glad I can pull the Draganov 7MM, the UZI 9MM and the MAC 10 .45 ACP outta mothballs!!!

Voodoo~~~N.R.A. Life Member and Certified Firearms Instructor /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Fasteddy7
09-13-2004, 03:10 PM
Highseas what about this. Its leagal now to own assault weapons. Everyone rushes to buy all these guns at a much lower price. guns are coming from everywhere back streets, manufacturers, overseas. All you have to do is register. Now 6 months later they put the ban back in place. Now all the guns they have been trying to find are all registered and now have an home and address. You now have to turn in any assault weapons. Crazy ploy I know but sounds feasable to me. Just something weird I thought about, I realy have no opinion on the matter.

SpiderMan
09-13-2004, 03:41 PM
Wouldn't work in Texas, as we have no mandatory record-keeping between individuals. Anything that changes hands on the used market, unless it's sold by an FFL dealer, is untraceable. In other words, when they ask me what happened to that AR-15 I used to own, "I sold it to a middle-aged man of average weight and height. Yes, I verified that he was a Texas resident of legal age, but I didn't write down his name".

SpiderMan

1a2b3c
09-13-2004, 04:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1a2b3c:</font><hr>I have the Oly arms PCR2. Sorry i noticed in the original post i said i had a preban but i meant post. I use to live close to the Oly arms headquarters.<hr /></blockquote> Nice gun, even though I am not an AR fan. I used to live in Shelton, I toured the Oly Arms shop some years back.

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

I use to fish the skok religiously. This is my first year not living in the Oly/Tacoma area. I miss the fall salmon run on the skokomish for sure.

1a2b3c
09-13-2004, 04:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> Back when I was in high school, after I had lost 4 friends already to gang members going on shooting sprees, one of my close friends had a birthday party at his house for his sister. One of his friends was standing outside, and some gang members drove up. They got out of the car and they started jumping him. There was about 10 of them, and they were just out to start [censored] for no reason. My friend Andre saw this from inside his house, he ran outside and broke up the fight. Andre pushed Steve towards the front door, and the gang members pulled a gun out and shot Andre in the back of the head. The bullet glanced off his skull. Andre fell down, then they shot him again in the arm. He got up and ran for the door, and they shot him one last time, and a bullet got lodged in his heart and he died 20 minutes later. He was one of the nicest guys I ever knew, his family was absoloutely devastated. His name was Andre Sales and there was an article in the newspaper about it, talking about how easy it is for criminals to get their hands on guns.

About two years after that, another good friend of mine, named Chris Pilkington was shot in murdered. I played little league baseball with him, and after that I was friends with him all throughout highschool. He was standing in the front yard of his friend's house and some gang members drove up and shot him in the head without saying a word. There was no apparent reason. A year after that happened, his sister Emily was killed in a car accident. Those were the only two children the parents had. Those were such sad times for me, I can only imagine what the families felt.

When I was 11 years old my older brother was shot by gang members. He wasn't killed, and he testified against them in court and they were convicted. For the next few years after that, I would wake up in the middle of the night and find ALL of the lights in our house on. He was terrified to death because one of the shooters was released, and they could have easily found out where we lived. It was very disheartening for me to see my older brother always peering out the window if a car drove by our house slowly. I was 11 years old, and my older brother whom I looked up to was fearing for his life. Imagine how I felt.

This is where my stance on guns comes from. It's not because I'm a liberal, it's based on personal experience. <hr /></blockquote>

I had a friend named Daniel Lopez. He was part of a small neighborhood gang in LA. He ended up getting shot as well. I wouldnt blame my rifle or anyone elses since he was shot with a handgun. I wouldnt blame the handgun either. I blame a guy named Jeremy Thatcher, cause thats who shot him.

I am very liberal. I vote green mostly because i hate republicans and democrats are just republican lites. I believe in the Bill of Rights and the second ammendment. It wasnt put there to insure some dicksmack has the right to go deer hunting every winter. It was there to make sure the government doesnt turn into a military or police type of state. Maybe sporting rifles like my AR are the best defense a person could have in a situation like that. THats not why i own mine, but its reason enough for me to own one. I own mine because its a blast to shoot. And im glad that tomorrow i can buy a telescopic butt to put on my lower receiver.

I can see why you wouldnt like guns and all, but its not the gun its the criminal(like we havent heard that before). Stiffen the penalty for using a gun in a crime. Do you know they dont punish felons who try to buy a gun but fail the NICS check? Why? Im all for background checks. I dont see the point in the waiting periods but i figure if you need a gun for protection immediatly and you dont own one thats what you get for not thinking ahead. Some laws are good. This one isnt and i havent seen one good reason from anyone on this thread or anyone period as to why this law was good. It was BS, and now its gone.

Bad guys will get guns, even if they are all banned in the US, look at the UK. Any type of a gun ban only effects those who obey the law because the criminal wont obey the law. However this ban didnt ban any guns, it banned they way they looked.

eg8r
09-13-2004, 05:11 PM
I can understand your position and I respect it, I just don't agree with it. The issue really is that criminals do not care about gun laws. I hate to say it but if all guns were outlawed even BB guns, there is a very high percentage that all those people would still be shot. Criminals don't obey the law, and all you are doing is asking to disarm the law abiding citizen.

Whether it is easier or tougher for a criminal to get a gun is not the point. Look at the statistics for cities/counties/states with very strict gun control and see if the crimes are equal throughout those areas and less restrictive areas. My bet is that the higher the gun control laws, the more crime you will see.

eg8r

nhp
09-13-2004, 06:51 PM
It's funny because I was thinkin to myself, all I gotta do is show them the crime statistics in Jolly Old England, and that will prove everyone wrong. I was surprised to see how wrong I was. This was the first article I came across:

England's Civilian Disarmament Law
Leads To 100 Year High Murder Rate

Failure of British Gun Ban Illustrates Folly of
California Gun Control Efforts

Newly released statistics reported October 13th show that since the British government passed one of the most stringent gun bans in the world in 1997, Britain's murder rate has risen to its highest level since records began being kept 100 years ago.

The number of murders in the first eight months of this year has risen by as much as 22% in some of Britain's biggest cities, which account for the majority of homicides. This builds on a 4% rise in the murder rate in the year to March and is 20% higher than the total for 1997, the first year of Tony Blair's government and the year that strict new gun bans were imposed. Police say random killings are rising. Official figures show the proportion of murders in which the victim is not known to the killer has nearly doubled in the past decade to 31%. The British Home Office reports that handgun crime is at its highest since 1993, while overall gun crimes have never been higher. Since the draconian 1997 gun ban was passed, criminal misuse of handguns has jumped by 40 percent. As in California, much of the gun violence is related to urban youth gang warfare and the illicit drug trade. But petty criminals are now using guns during common street crime. London has surpassed the crime rate of New York City. Robberies, in which criminals use or threaten violence, have gone up by 35 percent in the past year. In fact, Chris Fox, vice-president of the British Association of Chief Police Officers, said the rising murder rate put Britain out of line with America, where it has fallen 12%, and France and Germany, where it has dropped 29% and 27% respectively since 1995.



Read the rest of this article at: http://www.crpa.org/pressrls101502.html

You guys are right.

Cueless Joey
09-13-2004, 08:15 PM
I read eons ago on American Handgunner, a ton of people get murdered with the frying pan/pot in England.
Really, I think all this is the result of urbanization imo.
Colonel Cooper once said, you put too many rats in one box, they'd eat each other.

Qtec
09-14-2004, 05:55 AM
No,you were right. Gun crime in the UK has soared because illegal guns are flooding the country.This proves that more guns on the street leads to more serious crime.
ie, strict gun control= low gun crime rate.
lots of guns on the street= more shootings.
Very simple.

Q

SpiderMan
09-14-2004, 07:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> No,you were right. Gun crime in the UK has soared because illegal guns are flooding the country.This proves that more guns on the street leads to more serious crime.
ie, strict gun control= low gun crime rate.
lots of guns on the street= more shootings.
Very simple.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Huh? Then why didn't these illegal guns "flood the country" when they were easier to obtain? You've unwittingly made the majority's point here - despite the fact that they are "illegal", the guns are coming in, and being used in record numbers.

What's different now is that, with little fear of encountering an armed homeowner, the criminals are emboldened. "Stricter gun control" has backfired in England just as it has in New York, D.C., and Los Angeles.

Cueless Joey
09-14-2004, 08:11 AM
No, it proves GUN LAWS are ineffective.
I don't know how you arrived to your conclusion.
Maybe England would do what they did to drugs.
Regulate it.

stickman
09-14-2004, 08:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Gun crime in the UK has soared because illegal guns are flooding the country. Q <hr /></blockquote>

You've just made my arguement for me, Q. If the guns are illegal and it has caused crime to soar, then it apparently hasn't worked. You just made the work of criminals safer for them. The unarmed, law abiding citizen can't protect themselves against the armed criminal, and law enforcement usually only arrives after the crime is committed. (too late)

Wally_in_Cincy
09-14-2004, 08:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> No,you were right. Gun crime in the UK has soared because illegal guns are flooding the country.This proves that more guns on the street leads to more serious crime.
ie, strict gun control= low gun crime rate.
lots of guns on the street= more shootings.
Very simple.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

That was funny /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Thanks,

Wally

eg8r
09-14-2004, 08:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Gun crime in the UK has soared because illegal guns are flooding the country.This proves that more guns on the street leads to more serious crime.
<hr /></blockquote> I am not sure you could be any further from the truth. What it tells you is that criminals do not follow the law, and they are more likely to use guns in crimes when they know the other person will not be armed.

If someone was to read Q's post and completely shut off all thought and logic he might make sense. His post would leave people to believe the guns are doing the killing, not the criminals.

eg8r

TomBrooklyn
09-16-2004, 12:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> AR15's are not made to shoot deer. They are made to shoot humans. Why was the ban useless? <hr /></blockquote>Any gun can be used to shoot eiter a deer or a person. We already have laws prohibiting the illegal use of any firearm and the unjustified shooting of humans.

Prior to the assault weapons ban, less than 2% of all crimes were committed with long arms which most of the assault weapons are. Of that 2%, only a fraction were the so called assault weapons. 98% of all crimes involving a firearm were and still are committed with pistols.

The assault weapons ban was nothing more than feel good legislation to allow some of the largely useless politicians to dupe some of the innocently trusting but naive people into thinking they are actually doing something useful to earn the taxpayers money we are forced to pay them. The ban is also a ploy by gun control activists who consider it a step towards as getting as complete a ban on all firearms as they can possibly achieve.

1a2b3c
09-18-2004, 09:16 AM
Thats funny. If you wanted to know jolly old englands murder rate you could have just asked. (i used to argue with people about some of these dumbass gun control laws on www.democraticunderground.com (http://www.democraticunderground.com)) The cops dont even have guns. What did they really think would happen?

1a2b3c
09-18-2004, 09:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote TomBrooklyn:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> The assault weapons ban was nothing more than feel good legislation to allow some of the largely useless politicians to dupe some of the innocently trusting but naive people into thinking they are actually doing something useful to earn the taxpayers money we are forced to pay them. The ban is also a ploy by gun control activists who consider it a step towards as getting as complete a ban on all firearms as they can possibly achieve. <hr /></blockquote>

bingo. The last sentence i can provide links to prove it.

1a2b3c
09-18-2004, 09:28 AM
For anyone still reading this and still not a believer that the law was BS, remember the DC sniper? He shot those people with a rifle made after the ban took place, meaning it followed the laws written in the ban...ie it couldnt have a bayonet. (this explains why none of the victims were stabbed) But anyway, its gone now and i can understand why. The only negative thing about this is that Bush might just get re-selected(note not elected).