Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Posted: 11/16/2001 3:58:37 AM EDT
What do you guys think will happen, if we are so lucky that this thing goes the way of the dodo bird?

USGI mags for $5?

Pre-Ban price drastically drops in price?

Beta C mags for $50?

Effect on "post-ban" prices?
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 4:11:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/16/2001 4:05:14 AM EDT by pdm]
Dealer on Beta C mags was about $165.00 5 years ago. Shipping and retail mark up will keep the price above the $200.00 mark, for sure.
When you consider this Rueban M's prices aren't that bad.


edited because I spell like a chimp
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 8:05:06 AM EDT
As much as i'd love for the ban to sunset in 2004 and all of my pre-bans that i have scrimped, scoured and saved to obtain drasticaly decrease in value i don't see it happening.

Can you think of anyother gun law that was re-voked in recent (or past) history. I sure as hell can't. Even if the fed bill dies what about the state laws like in PRK?
Do you think Colt would start selling hi-caps to civilians? Doubt it.

BTW, new post-ban mags sold to LEO's are going for like $15 so hot deals aren't likely.
It would be so nice to put a tele-stock on my post-ban, but i dont' see it happening.
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 9:00:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By alive45acp:

Can you think of anyother gun law that was re-voked in recent (or past) history. I sure as hell can't. Even if the fed bill dies what about the state laws like in PRK?
Do you think Colt would start selling hi-caps to civilians? Doubt it.
.



Yes, back in 1986 the requirement for signatures on pistol ammo was scrapped. Many little PITA laws were rescinded like mailing of ammo and interstate shipping of firearms between its owner and a FFL holder were relaxed.

We stand a good chance of repeal of this ban if we mobilize early.

Link Posted: 11/16/2001 9:06:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/16/2001 9:01:08 AM EDT by PitViper]
My ban sunset scenario is this:
No way in HELL does this sunset, and we'll all be damed lucky if we don't get something even worse. After all, It's for the children, you know.
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 9:09:59 AM EDT
Post Ban BETAS I am pretty sure sell for $225 so yes they could be a little less expensive. Glock mags would drop big time for $110 or so for G-20 HCs to about $15!

I have a lot of pre-ban stuff and I wouldn't like the thought of how much money I would loose as a asset but then again it would be worth it to again be able to buy a new AR-15 pistol, an AR-10 Carbine with CAR stock, a 9mm BETA mag. Or how about being able to import weapons and parts again? Plus this would allow new guns to be developed which are not being developed due to this stupid law.

Oh how I wish this law would go away... but I really doubt it will.
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 10:02:41 AM EDT
All of the magazines would drop significantly in price.

Marked post-ban magazines and weapons would have some increased collector's value in years to come.
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 10:07:59 AM EDT
I would max my credit cards out with Guns and mags before the next ban went into effect. The real question I have is Bush a true pro-gun president? He could by executive order drop the ban, since he hasnt I doubt it will go away ;o[
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 11:02:47 AM EDT
Note to self: Get a bunch of credit cards with high spending limits before September, 2004.

Kharn
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 11:34:41 AM EDT
You can bet that every anti-gun group that ever existed will raise an unbelievable stink if there is any effort to let the AW sunset happen. And when the media grabs hold of the story, WOOHOOOO!!! you can bet that the spineless congress critters will be jostling for places in line to sign the bill making the ban permanent. Expect that every ignorant soccer mom and slob hunter will raise a mighty chorus of "who needs those dangerous things anyways?" Dan Rather will see to that.

I hope I'm wrong, but the history of this issue is consistent. [frown]
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 2:22:39 PM EDT
Bush has said that he would sign an extention of the magazine/AW ban, That's bad. But! He has not said that he would agree to further restrictions on gun ownership generally. The only way the sunset may happen(IMHO)is if Congress bundles the extention with some other crap, which the President has NOT agreed to and he vetos the whole mess. You can come up with any number of various senarios but this is my idea of our best chance.

Don in Ohio
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 5:28:37 PM EDT


I have a lot of pre-ban stuff and I wouldn't like the thought of how much money I would loose as a asset



Why would you loose the money? Is it too tight?
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 5:36:05 PM EDT
First of all the ban will sunset. It sunsets in 2004. Now the only way to keep everything from going back to the way it was before would be for the Congress to vote on something new or to continue the old one. All it would take is a Senator to filibuster the new bill to stop it. With the way things have been going lately I think we have a good chance of this happening. Just remember to do your part when the time comes.
Link Posted: 11/16/2001 7:17:12 PM EDT
I wouldn't mind at all if my stockpile of mags dropped in price due to the sunset.

If a new ban is signed, I'll be looking for a loophole. If the new ban isn't an extension or continuance of the current one, wouldn't all applicable firearms made before 2004 be considered "preban"?
Link Posted: 11/17/2001 9:54:30 AM EDT
If by some miracle the ban is "allowed" to sunset, what is gonna replace it? California learned the hard way that the second wave is much worse.
Link Posted: 11/17/2001 2:02:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gunmonkey:
If by some miracle the ban is "allowed" to sunset, what is gonna replace it? California learned the hard way that the second wave is much worse.



It's not a question of will it, or will it not sunset. It will sunset because it expires in September 2004. It will not be renewed either because it will not exist after September 2004. What this means is that in order to save the children, another piece of legislation will have to be drafted in place of the 1994 Crime Bill. So the 2004 Crime Bill will be rail roaded through Congress, and I expect it will be worse. Unless Republicans have a majority in the Senate and the House come late 2004, I think we are going to have a problem.
Link Posted: 11/17/2001 7:52:21 PM EDT
I think Don Ohio has the scenario to a tee. The Dems will tack so much spending onto the 2004 bill so Bush can't sign it before the election. Suppose he loses the presidency, then he most assuredly won't sign it.

We will get a few months bfore is is passed by the new congress and president. Talk about a holiday spending spree until Jan 20th.
Link Posted: 11/19/2001 7:25:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SS109:
Talk about a holiday spending spree until Jan 20th.



I'm drooling!!! The problem is that we need the manufacturers to be ready to punch as many guns & mags through their pipeline as quickly as possible as this could be a Mid-Ban line of "Pre-Ban style" weapons and mags!

If the bill would later be brought back to life, I am guessing Post-Ban weapons will remain such after the Crime bill might come back! Oh, please Armalite... get an AR-10 style pre-ban with a CAR stock, flash hider & bayonet lug ready so you can PUMP them out if the chance arives!!!!

Hell, perhaps we need the Republicans to LOAD up this bill as well so that NOBODY will sign it into a law! My vote is that we put a $100 Trilion Dollar Urban destruction plan on that bill!
Link Posted: 11/19/2001 8:36:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SS109:
Suppose he loses the presidency, then he most assuredly won't sign it.



I think he would have to mess up severely to not get re-elected. I forgot the actual numbers, but an incumbant pres already has a better chance to win than a new runner. . . even if he hasn't gained the support bush has already. I think the dems. running hilory would be a HUGE laugh.
Link Posted: 11/19/2001 12:12:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Quarterbore:
I'm drooling!!! The problem is that we need the manufacturers to be ready to punch as many guns & mags through their pipeline as quickly as possible as this could be a Mid-Ban line of "Pre-Ban style" weapons and mags!



Don't some manufacturers like bushmaster still make pre-ban models for LEO's? It wouldn't be hard for them to just ramp up production slightly and make them available for everyone.
Link Posted: 11/19/2001 1:21:23 PM EDT
On 9.14.2001, I'm going to place an order for as many assembled AR-15 lowers as I can find and afford.

God Bless Texas
Link Posted: 11/19/2001 9:36:50 PM EDT
PLEEEEEZ. A mid ban? It's NOT going to happen. There will be a new bill signed and there will be certain weapons granfthered. These will either be the weapons made before 94, or the ones before 2004. There won't be pre,pre bans and post pre, pre bans. Either all your weapons will become prebans or they won't. Those of you that spend thousands hoping for "mid bans" better hope you are right about a permanent sunset of the ban or better grandfather clause or enjoy your expensive new postban collection.

And what would make anyone think GWB would ever stop another bill? Every recent republican we've had in the white house has F*ucked gun ownership all up. Did Ronald Reagan not allow the 1986 NFA addition preventing new MG's from being made? Did daddy Bush not make the 89 import ban? Compared to what Republicans have done to gun ownership in the last 15 years the AW ban is nothing. So my scenario......
KEEP DREAMING!
Link Posted: 11/19/2001 10:31:59 PM EDT
Don't forget that Reagan also jumped on the AW ban-wagon with everyone else, significantly affecting the passage of the law.

It's nearly 2002, but much can still happen in 2 years. I'm sure excuses (which area already starting to fly) will be argued to try to find "reason" for the Taliban assault, and the rationalizations for more "protection" will simultaneously erupt as well - fueling the fire for more control of things unrelated to real-world threats. Also remember that representatives, often stoking irrational fears themselves, engage in "crusades" to foster their public images. And the press just laps it up. Passing laws - regardless of whether they are relevant or not - assigns them the sainthood to many the average idiot.

Notwithstanding increases in the frequency of the demonstrable inability of government to "save" people from "harm" will the average Joe & Jane begin to admit the futility - and counterproductiveness - of hyper-controlling legislation. From this realization, the perception of black gun owners & ownership might begin to shift from outcast/underclass to a status deserving of favor. People are most effectively controlled by fear, and until they decide to stop being paralyzed by it and accept some level of control themselves, they'll keep giving control away, and taking us along for the ride as well.

You really think this march towards socialism will subside? Not me. Get what you can, while you can.

Of course, I'd love to be eating these words 2 years from now.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 5:59:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hatebreed:
PLEEEEEZ. A mid ban? <<snip>> KEEP DREAMING!



Yes, I agree this may be a dream, but let's play the senerio as is...

This law will end on 9-2004...
Unless it is revived, it will die at that time...
If the liberals take control in Jan 2005, then there is a good chance they will revive the law.

So... this may be a dream, but it is possible! If this happens, I hope the manufactures jump on the chance to make as much consumable product as possible during that period!

It may never happen and I grant you that the odds are slim, but I will hold out for the chance as this may be the only way to get some of the weapons that I would like!
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 6:18:19 AM EDT
Well, we've got one more election cycle to help our cause. We'll just have to work hard during the '02 elections to get our people elected. I think this time around it will be much more difficult to get this bill going as it did with Slick Willie. Remember, we had a Democrap Congress, Senate, and President. My guess is that Bush would rather not have to make a decision on this one either way because he knows that he will piss off a lot of people that elected him last time around. If he's smart, he'll just quietly talk to some of his Congressional and Senate friends behind closed doors and have them tie it up in committee or filibuster it until after the election. That way he won't have to make a decision that pisses everybody off. Although I don't know why he is trying to pander to the marxist gun-grabbers anyway. It's not like any of them are going to vote for him any time soon anyway.
Top Top