Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 6/5/2003 6:38:35 PM EDT
I realize this is BIY but didn't get much help from General folks.

I'm looking for background info for a letter to editor concerning 1994 AWB. My local rag posted an editorial in favor of not only continuing the ban, but actually expanding on it. I've found a lot of material concerninging weapons themselves, but so far I can't find anything written about the high capacity magazine part of the bill.

Any help or links or articles much appreciated.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 9:24:06 PM EDT
Oy. Bill Ruger is the guy that suggested hi cap mags = assault weapon. I dont know any sources though. Try searching about the Bill Ruger thing though it ought to come back with a few hits.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 4:26:48 AM EDT
Some of the logic that went into the AWB: Cops can call for backup and have ample access to magazines that hold more than ten rounds; ordinary citizens must rely on dialing 911 (typical response time in US 40 minutes) and have no back up...only limited to 10 rounds per magazine. The "ban" actually did nothing, if you have read anything on this site; it was just another Clinton "feel-good" law that made it "look" like they were doing something for "crime-control" and "to protect the chil'ren". It was only to get the first step in disarming honest law-abiding citizens of the US. Go get the crime statistics from the UK and Australia to see what disarming the ordinary citizens have done to crime...it's going crazy over there and now they want to ban toy guns and are concerned of thieves being harmed because robbery is their “only way of life”... What paper ran the op-ed or letter to the editor? Do they have a web site? [soapbox]
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 4:38:41 AM EDT
I think what I'm looking for is the specifics of the law like, specifically what is banned, can these still be imported, did the old ones get dumped or are they grandfathered... thanks for info. [url=http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=8201178&BRD=1973&PAG=461&dept_id=177147&rfi=6]Original editorial[/url]
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 5:15:34 AM EDT
Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but here is the link to BATF and the FAQ section concerning standard capacity magazines. [url]http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#o[/url]
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 7:39:15 AM EDT
yup! this is exactly what I need. thanks
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 8:34:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/6/2003 8:37:47 AM EDT by BigIck]
Here's what I posted to them:
[size=1]First the so-called "Assault Weapons" Ban has done nothing to thwart crime. The so-called “Assault Weapons” ban was nothing more than a “feel-good” attempt at gun control. As stated, “the fact is that assault weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible in rapid-fire succession. One hardly needs an AK-47 and a magazine containing as many as 40 rounds to go duck hunting.” Well as any duck hunter would tell you, a 12-gauge shotgun is more appropriate for duck hunting than any rifle. As for “killing as many people as possible in rapid-fire succession.” Well, fully automatic firearms, which this so-called ban doesn’t even touch, were severely restricted by the GCA of 1932; in fact, “Assault Weapons” were not even designed or manufactured until twelve years later by the German weapons developers and given the name “Sturmgevehr” by Adolph Hitler. This whole “ban” was the brainchild of Handgun Control Inc’s, now the Brady Campaign, former head David Sugarman. His idea was to vilify a certain type of firearm and use it as a stepping-stone to total gun control and bans of all weapons. Obviously, those that have no clue about firearms took the bate hook, line and sinker. Just because a firearm “looks” like its military counter part does not mean that it functions or operates the same. If being a “military” firearm is all that makes a firearm “evil” and capable of mass murder, why then isn’t the British Brown Bess, a 17th century flintlock musket on the “evil” weapon ban list? It’s a military firearm. Let’s look at what the so-called “Assault Weapons” ban actually bans, and these are all cosmetic, which means it makes it look different. The law defines firearms as "assault weapons" by one or both of two methods: name and description. [18 U.S.C. 921(a)(30)]. All told, the law affects more than 175 semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns and revolving cylinder shotguns a cross-section of firearms of various sizes, shapes, and calibers/gauges. Under the law, the term "semiautomatic assault weapon" means: · any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as: Norinco, Mitchell, Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); Action Arms I.M.I. UZI and Galil; Beretta AR-70 (SC70); Colt AR-15; Fabrique Nationale FN-FAL/LAR, and FNC; SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; Steyr AUG; Intratec TEC-9, TEC-DC9, and TEC-22; and revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; · a semi-automatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following: a folding or telescoping stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel; and a grenade launcher; · a semi-automatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following: an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and · a semi-automatic shotgun that has at least two of the following: a folding or telescoping stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a fixed magazine in excess of five rounds; and an ability to accept a detachable magazine. So if you have an AR-15 style rifle with a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug, it is “evil” and an “assault weapon” under the ban. Take the same AR-15 style rifle, remove the flash suppressor and bayonet lug and it is now legal under the law. It was worthless then as it is worthless now. It did nothing to thwart crime, which no gun law will ever do, just look at the crime statistics of England and Australia since they have banned the private ownership of firearms. One last thing, where doest the Second Amendment to the Constitution mention duck hunting? [/size=1]
View Quote
If they post it is a different story.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 10:12:30 AM EDT
good letter BigIck! I'll send mine in tonight. there was one good response in there today. It would be nice to see a couple of hundred.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 12:38:02 PM EDT
I posted a response that is on the site, as is PhilsAR response. I hope we're not the only people reading it... FWIW, if you do respond, the system doesn't take your carriage returns, so bulleted lists, etc. don't appear the way you want them to. Let's see a ton of responses there tomorrow.
Top Top