Assuming that the AWB does in fact sunset in September, will owners of "post-ban" firearms be allowed to reconfigure these firearms to include 2 or more of the previously banned items?"

If you did this today, you would be manufacturing an "assault weapon" which is illegal under current law. Remember, this is a ban on manufacturing and importing. However, the act of manufacturing or importing an "assault weapon" becomes legal on September 14, 2004.

Some people have opined that a post-ban firearm cannot be modified in this manner because it was made during the ban period. This makes no sense to me. A "post ban" gun is legally meaningless within the context of the AW ban - it is legally no different than a bolt action Mauser. Thus, were one to add the evil features after it is no longer illegal to do so, I simply don't see a problem.

Comments? Other opinions?

It's very, very, very simple.

When the ban sunsets, NO PART OF IT WILL BE IN EFFECT ANYMORE.  That's what sunsetting is all about.  The law goes away.

Now ask yourself, with no law prohibiting you from reconfiguring your rifle to be just like a pre-ban one, what law would be broken by doing so?

Think, man, think!

CJ

Ok Fellas!

Here is one for you...what about magazines marked "govt use/LEO/export" and any other such horse hoofer.... what happens to that stuff? Thoughts...theories? and ..is there anyone versed in legaleze that can start to provide definitive answers instead of thoughts, guesses, opinions and such? Nothing against you fellas....but we all know that logic is not a requirement for legislation and we are talkin some serious laws here...

Thanks!

[usa]

No, it's not necessarily "very, very, very simple."

And 3gunguy, I am a lawyer, I am well trained in "legalese." There are situations where a law is no longer in effect can create lingering issues.

I sure hope we can modify our post bans.  I live in the People's Republic of CA, so I can't get any more AWs than the ones I already own and have had to register.  I hope atleast I could add to my "registered AW" that are post ban and not allowed to be a real AW under the Federal Ban.  Did everyone get that?  My post-bans are registered as an AW in the state of CA, but not allowed to have AW characteristics!  I hate these laws.  Make them go away!!!

yes, you will be able to add the other "evil" features to post-ban weapons, because with the lapse of the ban they are magically not evil anymore.

The ban will no longer exist. So long as you don't violate any other existing federal law (i.e. barrell must be at least 16") you will be fine.

Someone help me out here.... I though the ban on hi-cap mags was separate from the AWB. Is that incorrect?

They were passed as part of the same legislation. They are codified at different subsections of 18 USC 922 (v and w, I believe) but both provisions are set to expire.

Reading the law more carefully, it would also seem that "LE-Only" SAWs and hicap magazines would now become just like any other firearm or magazine, despite their markings, once the ban sunsets.

Yes, LEO marked magazines would have no remaining restrictions on them.  They could be legally bought and sold by anybody.


It IS this simple:  When a law expires, it's DONE and can no longer be enforced, period.

CJ

First off, I agree with you, as I said in the first post here. Being the paranoid person that I am, however, I like to get other opinions, particularly from people like you.

A relatively new poster on the general board said that he talked to some unnamed people from ATF while at a range, who said that it had already been decided that what are currently known as "post-ban" firearms cannot be converted to what what currently be considered a "SAW" after the ban sunsets. Sounded about as credible as "my girlfriend's uncle's babysitter's dogwalker's buddy who is an armored car driver said so."

His statements didn't make sense, but the mention of "ATF" and "decided" created all sorts of ooo's and aahhh's in the crowd over there.

Personally, I don't really care, as I own no "post-ban" firearms currently. I do have along list of stuff to buy on September 14, though.

If the ATF were to attempt to make such a ludicrous ruling, it could be ignored with impunity, as all rulings must have a basis in the written letter of the laws IN EFFECT.

It'd be tossed out by ANY judge who had any honesty in hiim whatsoever.

ATF rulings with no basis in law are INVALID rulings.

CJ

Once Again Fellas,

Here are my two cents and I am sure thats all this is worth:

1. The ATF can and has done anything it so choses and it will in this case almost cetainly clarify how things will be after the ban sunsets. IE....LEO mags...may remain as such..but new production is no longer prohibited..ETC....in expectation that the ban may be reenacted at some later date.

2. cmjohnson..I know this room is made up of all sorts of various tough guys...you go ahead and mess with the ATF...and let a judge decide. Sounds like fun...gettin hooked up...all your stuff confiscated...legal fees...sittin in a cell...three years of trial..just to leave it up to 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty...NO THANKS!

3. There is simply no way to know exactly how this will affect all of us. I hope it is as simple as you all say...but it is 6 months away. I want to go on a shopping spree on sept 14 too but instead of all of us giving opinions and thoughts and what we are all going to do and stomping our feet...we should look to research this and see if there is some plan by the ATF on how they plan on dealing with this...because what they say goes.

[usa]

Fact:  Ever ATF ruling MUST have a legitimate basis IN THE LETTER OF THE LAW, and that law MUST be an ACTIVE, on the books law, not one that has sunset or been repealed.   And that interpretation (ruling) must be something that CAN be read from the law.

With the AW ban no longer an active law, SHOW ME what federal law would prohibit you from adding the "evil features" to your rifle made during the ban.   Show me that other law.

I promise, unless another LAW comes into existence that keeps me from doing so, I'll add those features to any ban-era rifle I own if I so choose to do so.   If the ATF tries to say I can't do it, I'll send them a registered letter (or more precisely, my attorney will) that demands that they show cause for that decision based on the letter of the laws CURRENTLY IN FORCE.   Failure to prove a connection between the ruling and the laws IN FORCE constitutes acknowledgement of the illegitimacy of the ruling, and any attempts to enforce that illegitimate ruling will result in lawsuits being filed for a variety of charges beginning with false arrest and false imprisonment.

I'm quite serious.

CJ

And we wonder how our rights are taken away. They aren't taken away, we GIVE them away when people don't bother to learn the law and the way our legal system works, and assert their rights.

Case in point: This guy is so afraid of the ATF bogeyman that rather than look into the facts, he's actually giving consideration to continuing to obey this stupid, freedom-stealing law even after it's repealed, just in case, just to be SAFE. Good thing the men who fought the British in 1776 weren't such a bunch of sheeple.

If this is the best we can do, we might as well just hang it up 'cause we're fucked.

3gunguy, grow a set and learn how our system works, because it's all we have - and it's all we need. I hate to break it to you, but the black helicopter crowd down at the local range are the equivalent of a bunch of third-graders scaring each other with ghost stories. If you want to be a free man with some self-respect, you have to take the iniative and live your own life. Remember, the lead dog may take the most risks, but he definitely has the best view.

ok everyone...I am a big P***y your right...all this tough talk...I don't talk tough nope I sure dont...bet there were a bunch of shit talkers in 1776 too...and when the led started flying hmmm....elbows and assholes... anyway..I am not attacking anyone ...so I appreciate you refraining on same and focussing on the subject at hand.

All of US as individuals will never do a dam thing...but as a united bunch..we might just raise an eyebrow or two. The problem is this...if cmjohnson here decides to do that...they come and hook him up..one day he is not on the boards anymore...then you model one...you go open up shop one day and bang your in the clink...now eventually news will spread..but if I were them I would pick my worst potential threats...Isolate them and neutralize them before they could become such.

We are all men and women of principle, but if they come and hook up both cmjohnson and model one...the rest of you....are you going to leave your job, wives, family, homes, etc and start one man revolutions over it? I mean come on...we all like to think we are the shit but your talking a serious game here and then what say is the plan? Now if it comes to that..the whole shootin match is over and we all know it.

The sunset is our opportunity to legally change things in our favor and build momentum upon that....the best revolution is to get people out there and vote these dam democrats all out of office. If all 60 million gun owners voted for the republican ticket...there would be no issue. IF all 60 millon gun owners demanded the protection of our rights, There is no other group near our size that could stop it legislatively. Period.

My basic question is this. Will they rule that, like prebans being grandfathered, all firearms made during the ban will be grand fathered as such, and that serial numbers produced after Sept 14th will then be ok to build on? Can anyone predict how that will play out? I would love to buy 50 lowers now if that is not the case....anyone?

What about LEO marked mags? they could potentiall rule the same on that. Anything marked as LEO stays as such. Who knows...anyone with a crystal ball?

[usa]

ATF rulings don't mean SHIT if there's no law backing them up.

Period.

End of story.

CJ

I think some of you are a bit confused about how criminal laws are interpreted and enforced in "the real world". This misunderstanding has caused more that few people to be investigated, arrested and prosecuted for actions they thought were legal. Let me use a few real world examples to illustrate my point.

SOCOM Manufacturing - Ernie makes uppers designed for M11's. His interpretation of "the letter of the law" seemed to allow it. He assumed that the BATF would consider the uppers to be non-weapons.... he was wrong. The BATF ruled that they were in fact machineguns.

Maadi-Griffin Co. - Bob Stewart manufactured "unfinished" .50BMG receivers. His interpretation of "the letter of the law" was that since the kit was unfinished and required machining to be completed, it was legal. The BATF found an "expert" that could make the gun fire with a dremel and a couple hours... guess where that got Bob?

Sideplates, Drop in auto sears and the like - Jim Jeffries, noted attorney put it best "The sideplate phenomenon has always been a BATF fantasy unconnected to the reality of the law.  This is perhaps the clearest example of BATF's simply making up law which is totally at odds with the acts of Congress which it purports to enforce..."

Because many of these issues and others like it, rest in undefined areas of the law, BATF "experts" can get away with murder from the witness stand and judges will generally pay deference to the opinions of those charged with enforcing the law... and so will juries.

So, unless you are prepared to give up your family, friends, money and freedom for your interpretation of the law, its probably not a good idea to toy with the agency who's interpretation really counts.

However, some of you "brave" guys may wish to challenge those laws in an effort to change them. If any of you are willing to make the sacrifices listed above I would be more than happy to donate the shotgun/hacksaw and even make the long distance call to BATF to come get you.

You are missing the point, the law, is what the BATF, the judge and ultimately the jury interpret it to be... those rulings get people arrested and convicted on a regular basis.

CJ,

You can stomp up and down and stamp your feet all you want but if they decide you can't ....guess what...you can't. It is THAT simple. Until they determine how this will work itself out, no one knows. I hope you are right..don't get me wrong, but the fact remains is we dont know what will happen so unless there is someone who knows something we don't...its just too early to tell.
[usa]

Look,  I'm telling you exactly how it is as far as the scope of the law says, and in accordance with the powers that the ATF has by law, and the powers that they do NOT have by law.

They are NOT authorized to make law, not in reality and not by a de facto ruling.  

It is CONGRESS, and CONGRESS ALONE, that is authorized to make laws.  It is the responsibility of LAW ENFORCEMENT organizations to ENFORCE those laws, and as of now, the BATFE is NOT a law enforcement organization.  

None of this means that you can't be arrested for a crime that doesn't exist in the law books, and it doesn't mean that you can't be convicted of that non-existant crime if a weak-minded jury is lied to and believes it, or a judge is equally thickheaded.  

I'm not saying you CAN'T get in trouble, but I am stating in no uncertain terms that it is a FACT that when the ban sunsets, it is NO LONGER LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE, PERIOD.

Emphasis on LEGALLY.

If by some strange chance I were to be arrested for such a non-crime,  any lawyer that couldn't successfully argue for my case would be so incompetent that I'd have to wonder how he found his way to work that morning.  

The BATFE has certain responsibilities and powers. They have very specific limits. If you were to take the time to look up exactly what those are, and verify each one against the Constitution and laws passed by Congress, you'd soon see that I'm telling you the absolute truth.

It's no surprise that they have at times attempted to usurp authority that has never been granted to them.   What IS surprising is that they have not been punished for those events.

CJ

Wrong, the law is not something fixed and tangible, it is constantly in flux and changes with every interpretation and ruling. While some of these laws may not be rational or even necessary... they are laws all the same.  



Wrong again, like it or not, they are the agency tasked with interpreting the vastly undefined areas of firearm law.



Not quite right, BATF interprets those laws.



There must be a typo in there somewhere, you can't possibly be saying that the BATF is not a law enforcement agency. I quote the BATF's mission statement:
[i]
"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is a law enforcement organization within the United States Department of Justice with unique responsibilities dedicated to reducing violent crime and protecting the public. ATF enforces the federal laws and regulations relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, explosives and arson..."
[/i]




According to who's interpretation... yours? Sorry, yours doesn't count. Until the BATF interprets it, you are running the risk of being prosecuted. In reality, the little guy won't be the likely target for prosecution, but its a risk all the same.

I don't know about you, but I value my freedom. I fight for my rights in ways that work and that don't require me to be a defendant. Join organizations, speak publicly, educate your fellow gun owner, speak to politicians... simply complaining about unjust laws does no good.



Funny, I was going to suggest the same thing to you... Congress is the one that gave them the powers that they posses.



Again, complaining about it doesn't fix it.

CJ,

I completely agree with everything you just said. Now, let's take it one step further. The concern is that one of us does get arrrested for one of those arbitrary rulings..or even many of us. What are we to do? Nothing will happen. It will not cause the end of days and all of our loyal kick ass friends arent going to take up arms to free you and the world will not change. Only your pocket book and the time and hassle.

Alot of this can be simply avoided by seeing if they make any of these arbitrary decisions and then making educated moves...including contesting those rulings legally in a court of law rather than trying to prove your innocence based on what their decisions are, not what we think they may or may not be now.

[usa]

I guess you pussies should throw all your guns away right now, because any day the ATF can just decide guns are all illegal and arrest you.


And if you are looking for legal presedent on the AWB sunset just look to the year 1993, the laws on the book covering semi autos were the same then as they will be on Sept 14 2004. How many people were conviced of violating the AWB in 1993 ?

Ok Angst,

Now if the ATF were to rule that all guns were illegal, then I think we would be talking about the mass dissarming of the populace and like I said way up top, then the whole shootin match is over and its a free for all. Now you and I know that is not going to happen...at least not anytime soon. No one is saying you should just go along like sheep and take it as they give it. By taking the time to read the above posts, you will see that what I suggest is first waiting to see what they say before you go and buy all those cases of LEO stamped magazines on Sept 14th to see if they consider them to still be limited in possession due to their markings....cause face it YOU DONT KNOW what they will say.

What we can all do in the meantime is work to keep Bush in the white house and vote out everyone that has voted against gun ownership rights. Unfortunately, Bush supports the extension of the ban, but he is better than Kerry.

And again, Ad hominom attacks serve nothing to address the issue.

[usa]

Markings mean nothing without a law to reference them to. I can engrave all my guns and magazines and ammo with "For law enforcement only" if I want and not break any laws by having them. I understand that you think the ATF had made some "odd" "rulings" before , but at least all the ruling had some basis in a law that was on the books. after the AWB there is no law concerning what evil features are on a semi-automatic firearm , or what markings need to be on a magazine.

Yes the ATF declaring the "All guns" thing was way over the top , but acording to some people here, they seem to that that could be a possibillity for them to legally do (it's not BTW).

While I am not a lawyer I do understand the laws pretty well (I do have formal university education in the area) I have read the laws , unlike alot of these people. I have even picked up the US code and read everything in title 18 concerning firearm MULTIPLE times.


Remember the ATF can only interpret and enforce , there is no law that could possibly cause them to interperate that LEO mags and post-ban guns can possibly be any different then the same items made prior to or after the ban , there is NOTHING . Noone here has even come up with a way that the ATF could possibly rule in any other way. The only thing is "Well the ATF can do anything it wants" and thats SIMPLY NOT TRUE. The fact is the people saying that are just not up on the facts as to what basis the ATF makes the rulings on , and what the law states. They fear what they do not understand.


I know that does not convince people that the ATF is some sort of all powerful SS like agency who can dictate anything it wants to the masses, but some people prefer to live in that world I suppose.

Angst,

I agree with almost everything you said. Here is one for you that I posted up top...

The ATF could rule that all the mags made between the date the ban was enacted and the sunset date....that are marked LEO and Serial Numbers manufactured during those dates...be grandfathered and stay as such..while any made after such dates are now free. Is it right? I would say not. Does it suck? HELL YES. Could they rule that way in anticipation of the ban being reenstated at a later date to keep things simple for them? Maybe... The honest answer...right, wrong, or indifferent...is that none of us know.

[usa]

But there is nothing to "grandfather". You cannot tell people to obey a non-existant law, or charge the with failure to obey a law that doesn't exist. I think you are being confussed by the fact that pre-ban guns are that way because they were "grandfathered" there was no requirement in any way that they should of been. Noone wanted to get in the business of taking guns away from people, therefore a "grandfather clause" was written into the law. The law could of been written in a way that all "pre-bans" has to of been turned in, but they knew that would never fly. The is no sort of "grandfathering" that automatically happens.

Where there are ATF ruling there are laws that allow the ATF to have discression. Types of things the ATF has discression on and issued rulings on:

Whats "sporting purpose" as defined in the 1968 import laws.

What 80% of a reciever means.

What a "dealer" or "engaged in the business means".

What a "flash hider" is.

Laws such as these allow the ATF to make their own rulings.

Once the AWB is gone, then it's gone, there is nothing to rule on.

Looks at it this way, one day the local sherrif could decide that noone can wear a yellow shirt, then arrest anyone in his county wearing a yellow shirt. I mean it COULD happen, is it ever going to ? Not likely , and it would be laughed out of the magistrates office before it went to court.

That sounds just as pausable/laughable as what you are saying to those who understand the law and law enforcement.

So NO they can't rule it, and if someone went insane and did it , its going to be laughed out of court as soon as the US District Attorney sees it.


And to rule you can;t own something because "it might be banned in the future" that's ludicris, there is no presedent anywhere in US law for anything like that. The idea is laughable to any law enforcement official or lawyer.  

Angst,

I am a worst case kind of guy. Bottom Line on this whole thing is...I hope your last post is 100% exactly correct.

Out.
[usa]

I am a lawyer.

I think the ban will continue notwithstanding my e-mails to my representatives urgining them to do what they can to make sure the ban sunsets.

However, if it does sunset, I will feel comfortable threading the barrel of my post-ban WASR (AK variant), removing the pins from my Bushmaster's telescopic stock, and buying some 33 round Glock mags marked "LEO use only" for my 17.

Can I get arrested by some idiot ATF agent?  Sure.  Will I win?  Sure.  Can the US Attorney indict me?  If he/she is unethical and proceeds on a case that has no legal merit - yes (i.e. an average lawyer can indict a ham sandwich).  Would the story run in the paper?  Yes.

I do tend to agree with some of the previous posters, that if the law has no effect, it has no effect.  Sometimes, things really are that simple.

However, there are a lot of laws that affect gun/ammo ownership.  I suggest that you check all the laws in your jurisdiction to make sure you are in complaince.

As to the AWB, it is probably not going anywhere.  Think about it.  It is a tough sell.  Although I appreciate the freedome to own an AR, AK, or some other so-called "assault" semi-auto rifle, most people don't understand the law and think that the ban is against machine guns.  Most people think that a ban on machine guns is a good thing.  It is unlikely that we will be able to educate the masses as to the reality of the AWB.

If it does sunset, exercise your freedom.  A lot of country's don't have the same freedome we have - we should not be scared of it - we should embrace it.  (hope that did not sound too corny)

I'm with silverstate.

First, a judge makes "rulings" not BATF. They are a federal agency that can "interpret" existing laws. A federal district court judge has the authority to disregard it if he/she wants.

Second, every indictment I've ever seen, has one or more "counts". Each "count" must set forth the section of "law" (remember all criminal laws are written) that was allegedly violated.

How would the indictment read?

"John Doe willfully violated 18 U.S.C. ..... uh.... well... he disregarded a BATF opinion letter.... so there."

You all sit back and "wait to see what happens". That will give me a chance to order my flash suppressor and tele-stock before they become back-ordered.

(yes... this all assumes that congress doesn't somehow get the AWB enacted prior to Sept.)

God... some people around here are afraid of their own shadows.

I want you guys to answer a question...assuming that the federal AWB has expired, what federal law would one be violating if they put a flash hider, a bayo lug, & a folding stock on their AR15 type rifle, regardless of its date of manufacture???

Please don't answer with hearsay, rumor, speculation, or made up, unsubstantiated nonsense predicated on a gross misunderstanding of how our legal system works... please cite U.S. Code that indicates, in any manner or form, that doing as you say would be a crime!

I will save you some time... Minus the AWB, there is NO LEGAL DEFINITION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES AN "ASSAULT WEAPON" UNDER FEDERAL LAW!

After the AWB expires, the term "assault weapon" will lose all it's legal weight & meaning. In other words, there will no longer be any such thing as an "assault weapon", except in the minds & vocabulary of the gun grabbers.  

Why is this so hard for some people to grasp???

For real.

People, if ATF were to come to your door on Oct. 1, 2004, and arrest you for "assembling an assualt rifle" on Sept. 20, 2004, [b]WHAT LAW ARE THEY GOING TO CHARGE YOU WITH VIOLATING?[/b]

The law currently in effect will NO LONGER EXIST as of Sept. 13, 2004.

They may as well charge you with violating Prohibition if you made beer in 1990.

BINGO.

But...

Can anyone here cite the specific text in the U.S. Code or Code of Federal Regulations that defines a Stryker 12 or Street Sweeper 12 gauge shotgun as a Destructive Device?

Anyone?

Bueller?



The point is, sometimes, the law isn't always rigidly adhered to, not by the people and not by the people in the government, either.



CJ

True. There is no [i]actual text of law[/i] that specifically bans those. It's an interpretation of an existing law.

However, any interpretation of 922(v) (the firearms portion of the 1994 crime bill) after 9/14/04 will be moot because 922(v) will no longer exist.

Lets say that the Gun Control Act of 1968 had a 40 year sunset clause and would go TU in 2008. The opinion of ATF that SIG550 rifles are "non-sporting" would be moot because the law they drew on for the opinion would no longer be in effect.

To draw on the Prohibition comparison again: It's an exercise in futility for the feds to come out with an "opinion" from the Prohibition law that a certain percentage of alcohol makes a home brew an "alcoholic beverage".

I cannot believe that people are saying things like "well it's not worth ATF taking your guns and the legal bills" if they try to enforce a law that is no longer on the books. Then WHAT is?!?

[chairborneranger]If they DID arrest me for "maufacturing an assault weapon" AFTER the law was null and void, you can damn well rest assured that I would sue the ever-loving shit out of the agent, his supervisor, HIS supervisor, and the federal government, and I would WIN.[/chairborneranger]

[i]
18 U.S.C. 921(a)(4): DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE26 U.S.C. 5845(f)(2): DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE (Nonsporting shotgun having abore of more than one-half inch in diameter)The registration period for the USAS-12, Striker-12, and Streetsweepershotguns will close on May 1, 2001.ATF Rul. 2001-1Pursuant to ATF Rulings 94-1 (ATF Q.B. 1994-1, 22) and 94-2 (ATF Q.B.1994-1, 24), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) classified theUSAS-12, Striker 12, and Streetsweeper shotguns as destructive devices [red]under the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53[/red]. The NFA requires thatcertain "firearms" be registered and imposes taxes on their making and transfer.The term "firearm" is defined in section 5845 to include "destructive devices." The term [red]"destructive device" is defined in section 5845(f)(2)[/red] as follows:[T]he term ‘destructive device’ means . . . (2) any type of weaponby whatever name known which will, or which maybe readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have abore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the [red]Secretary finds is generally recognized asparticularly suitable for sporting purposes[/red]; . . .The USAS-12, Striker 12, and Streetsweeper shotguns were classified asdestructive devices pursuant to section 5845(f) because they are shotguns with abore of more than one-half inch in diameter which are not generally recognized asparticularly suitable for sporting purposes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
- 2 -Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7805(b), ATF. Ruls. 94-1 and 94-2 were issuedprospectively with respect to the making, transfer, and special (occupational) taxesimposed by the NFA. Thus, although the classification of the three shotguns asNFA weapons was retroactive, the prospective application of the tax provisionsallowed registration without payment of tax. ATF has contacted all purchasers ofrecord of the shotguns to advise them of the classification of the weapons asdestructive devices and that the weapons must be registered. ATF has registeredapproximately 8,200 of these weapons to date.Held, the registration period for the USAS-12, Striker-12, andStreetsweeper shotguns will close on May 1, 2001. No further registrations will beaccepted after that date. Persons in possession of unregistered NFA firearms aresubject to all applicable penalties under 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53.Date signed: February 2, 2001.
[/i]


Good enough ?


Note under the [red]LAW[/red] the ATF can make a determination as to the "sporting sutablility" of a shotgun with a bore over .5"

The above is an example of the ATF ruling, notice how it refers to US Code.

Actual code looked up and quoted for you.


[url]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/5845.html
[/url]

[i]
any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a [red]shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes[/red][/i]




So what say you now ?


Bueller ??

Sheesh! Two phrases:

"One time, at Band Camp,..."

"It could happen!"

i dont think the ATF will rule anything,

1. they cant rule, they only enforce the law.

2. If the ban sunsets, there will be NO ban and i really think it will be as if it never existed.

3. Think of it from a practical standpoint, How in the hell can the ATF enforce such a thing, Shit, you can go to any gun show NOW and see post ban weapons with pre-ban features. I dont see how the ATF can practically go on a campaign of every time they see an AR or an AK to check it and see if it is a 10 year gun.

Just doesnt make sense, usually you can count on them doing what makes sense.

NOW when the NEW and IMPROVED ban comes out, you wont be able to BUY ANY AW. Pre or Post so from a enforcement standpoint this is what they will go on. If you have one, they wont care what is on it as long as it only goes bang once.  IMHO

I think the people who don't think th ATF can get away with their interpretation of the law have had their ear plugs in every time there is an arguement as to the interpretation of the SECOND AMENDMENT!! Here is something written about as simply as you can put it.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Granted we would have been a lot better of if they had left off the militia part and just said "everyone can have gunS who wants one."

Somehow Congress and the courts and all of the other elements of the government have been allowed the pick this apart, interpret, assume, and generally act as if they were in the shoes of the men who originally signed it. Look what that has gotten us.

I don't think you guys give te lawyers enough credit for coming up wth something so absolutely ridiculous that a judge will actually be so dazzled by the way it's layed out as to actually buy into it. To normal people who think straight and clear these things maye sound ludicrouse: sueing McDonald's for making people fat, tobacco companies for giving people cancer, and gun manufacturers because someone was killed with a gun. But I know there are people out there counting there millions right now because the companies had to pay out on such idiocy. So don't just assume that those who don't want us to have guns will simply roll over and accept the fact that the AWB has gone away. I know I plan on going on a shopping spree like everyone else when it happens because there isn't a doubt in my mind that somethig worse will be written soon after.

As for the power of "law enforcement agencies"... I have seen mall security guards with guns... what laws are they upholding when they draw down on a "would-be" shopifter or a crowd of kids "up to no good" by hanging out in the food court? Or, on a much more blatant level of abuse of authority... when the FBI burns down buildings and shoots children who are exercising their 2nd amendment rights...

Still think the ATF or any agency will not read the laws the way they want to in order to take away your scary black rifle? Think again. Remember, if they think you might get to keep your black rifle, they can always shoot you and claim you drew down on them... we are talking about guns here.

All the tough guys out there who think that if the ATF knocked on their door they would go down shooting... I hope you have a WHOLE LOT OF AMMO and that you can load mags fast. If you have all your magazines loaded and waiting for that day... good luck. Your springs have no doubt fatigued and your shit will malfunction during your blaze of glory shootout. I don't hear about the ATF knocking down people's doors unless someone gives them a good reason too, so unless you are on the "Nutball" list in their office what are you worried about? And unless you run around the local range blatantly showing off a rifle that may be in question there is also nothign to worry about. Leave your illegal shit at home morons!! The ATF doesn't go door to door asking you to show them what you have in your house that is potentially illegal.

One more thing... I hope the high capacity mag thing goes away to because I would really like to have a Beta C-Mag and 15+ round mags for my pistols. I asked the guy at Quantico Arms if Beta C-Mag will let me order something now in antcipation for the sunset... they will no doubt be getting swamped with orders if this goes in our favor.

They don't "rule," this is true. However, they (like many other federal agencies) can and do interpret. Their interpretations are not binding on courts, of course, but they are given considerable weight.

Just so we're all clear here, I started this thread to satisfy my own, ever so slight, nagging doubts. Not because I actually think that a good argument exists that the AW ban will have lingering effects.

The person who posted on the general board who caught my eye stated that some people from ATF (did not specify their titles or affiliations) made statements about sunset interpretations. I know for a fact that ATF agents would not run their mouths like this about agency interpretations, and I doubt that an ATF, Treasury, or DOJ lawyer would either. So I conclude that this person is completely full of shit.

Case closed.

Once again, how, pray tell, are they going to "rule" on an "interpretation" of 922(v) when 922(v) will not exist after 9/14/04?

FOS indeed.

Hey. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I hope I am, but if you are in NY, the law falls back to the New York Stae AWB which had no sunset provision. So yer still screwed. Yes, it's no longer a fed violation, but isn't it then a state violation?

Hate to rain on your parade boys but the AWB will never go away!!!

301 posts from the newbie here, and he's trying to tell us more experienced, more thoroughly versed old timers how things are going to be! [rolleyes]


Dude, the AW ban is ALREADY all but gone right now.

By the rules that Congress operates under, a bill (or an amendment to a bill) can only  be offered ONCE in a given legislative year, and the anti's already blew their wad by getting an amendment to extend the ban...an amendment that was attached to the gun industry lawsuit protection act, which TANKED.   So, that amendment is DEAD for this year.  They can NOT reintroduce ANY bill to extend the AW ban during THIS LEGISLATIVE YEAR. (Calendar year)

The most that Congress would have gone for would have been simple renewal.  They definitely would not pass any more restrictive AW ban.  (Such a bill would not ever pass in THIS House of Representatives!)

So they WON'T get a tougher ban, and they CAN'T extend the current one, either.  And they won't BOTHER to try for a WEAKER ban.

Those are the FACTS, newbie.   The ban will DEFINITELY sunset on schedule, on September 14, 2004.   And there is no chance of a new ban even being DISCUSSED on the floor in Congress until NEXT YEAR, and if that should happen, well, that won't get much support either.  Particularly not in the House of Representatives.

Civics 101:  For a bill to become law, it has to pass in BOTH Houses of Congress.  It's not enough for one to pass the House but not the Senate, or vice versa.  It has to be BOTH.

If the Senate (or House) passes a revised bill that contains some language that wasn't in the other house's version of the bill, then it has to be reconciled in a joint committee meeting. Usually, such changes are thrown out.

That's the facts, Jack.

CJ

They aren't. I was making a general statement about agency interpretations to give a CORRECT statement about what federal agencies do and what significance their interpretations have.

I don't know what "FOS" means.

cmjohnson-

Lets assume you're right for the moment about those rules you stated. The AWB ban amendment was considered in only one house of Congress. So, if the House considers and passes one between now and Septemeber, then the Senate would act on it.

Also, I wasn't aware that an amendment could not be reintroduced as an independent bill, or that if an independent bill had already been introduced and not acted upon, then an identical amendment would kill it automatically. I'm not saying you're wrong, I honestly don't know. Do you have a link to a House or Senate rule about this?

301 posts from the newbie here, and he's trying to tell us more experienced, more thoroughly versed old timers how things are going to be!


Dude, the AW ban is ALREADY all but gone right now.

By the rules that Congress operates under, a bill (or an amendment to a bill) can only be offered ONCE in a given legislative year, and the anti's already blew their wad by getting an amendment to extend the ban...an amendment that was attached to the gun industry lawsuit protection act, which TANKED. So, that amendment is DEAD for this year. They can NOT reintroduce ANY bill to extend the AW ban during THIS LEGISLATIVE YEAR. (Calendar year)

The most that Congress would have gone for would have been simple renewal. They definitely would not pass any more restrictive AW ban. (Such a bill would not ever pass in THIS House of Representatives!)

So they WON'T get a tougher ban, and they CAN'T extend the current one, either. And they won't BOTHER to try for a WEAKER ban.

Those are the FACTS, newbie. The ban will DEFINITELY sunset on schedule, on September 14, 2004. And there is no chance of a new ban even being DISCUSSED on the floor in Congress until NEXT YEAR, and if that should happen, well, that won't get much support either. Particularly not in the House of Representatives.

Civics 101: For a bill to become law, it has to pass in BOTH Houses of Congress. It's not enough for one to pass the House but not the Senate, or vice versa. It has to be BOTH.

If the Senate (or House) passes a revised bill that contains some language that wasn't in the other house's version of the bill, then it has to be reconciled in a joint committee meeting. Usually, such changes are thrown out.

That's the facts, Jack.

CJ


Newbe? Looks like your newer than I am Newbe. I don't sit in front of my PC non stop hence over 5000 posts. DUDE.

Learn the board code.  The quotes feature is your friend.

It took a couple of years for me to get to 5000 posts, and when you work it out to a per-day average, it's not bad at all.

I've learned a lot since I registered.  I dare say that I am as well versed on the law concerning the AW ban, and on the mental state of Congress on the  issue, as anyone here.  I've spent enough time researching it, so I should know.  

One advantage of getting older is that you tend to become more methodical and thorough in your activities.  I'm 38, and by now, if I get interested in something, I pretty much hammer it to death.  When I'm done with it, I've extracted all the useful information about it and am something vaguely resembling an expert on the subject.


DOOD.

CJ

I have less posts than you, and you still don't know shit.

Why PM me?

From :: Blazinglead :: 3/29/2004 10:10:22 PM


That should be fewer post than you,and you still don't know shit. Dumb fuck.



Tell me genius, what vehicle will be used to renew the AWB?