User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/8/2002 4:50:23 PM EDT
[#1]
I'm no expert on this but if I remember correctly, ATF books say the post-ban rifles must not have certain pre-ban features on rifle made after the ban. I'm guessing only one pre-ban feature is allowed? The pistol grip is usually it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2002 4:51:27 PM EDT
[#2]
The Bushmaster XM15 in post-ban configuration is perfectly legal to own according to Federal law, since it complies with section 922(r), the Assault Weapons Ban. The stock doesn't fold or collapse, and it doesn't have a flash suppressor.
The Brady Bunch is talking out of its ass, as always. Jim Brady was a hell of a guy, but he's not the same man he was before he got shot, and his wife's the self-serving bitch she's always been. Need I say more? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2002 4:58:22 PM EDT
[#3]
The gun IS ILLEGAL in California but IS LEGAL everywhere else (all other states)I don't know about Puerto Rico or the Marshall Islands.
Sarah Brady is mad that Bushy got around the AWB. Need I say more? She hoped, unlike some anti-gunners, that it would've banned all semi-auto centerfire rifles. She just malcontent and -EXCUSE ME- pissed that we can still buy semi-autos. Don't mean to cuss. CRC |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2002 4:59:22 PM EDT
[#4]
Same bullshit, different angle.
kpel308 said it well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2002 5:03:54 PM EDT
[#5]
The Supreme Court struck down the "copies and clones" portion of the law as being vague. Had that not happened, then the only AR15-type rifles sold in the last 8 years would have been the ones made before the ban.
The Brady Bunch can complain all they want, but they lost in court, and can KMA. -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2002 5:05:30 PM EDT
[#6]
Since when did truth or accuracy enter into any statements by hci or the brady's?
If in fact they are illegal, a lot of citizens, manufacturers and govt agencies must have been reading from a different document for almost 10 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2002 5:40:05 PM EDT
[#7]
Yes, I realize it's bullshit and would not expect anything less considering the source. But the fact still remains that the law in question states, in addition to banning guns based on the certain "evil" features: "The term 'semiautomatic assulat weapon' means... any of the firearms, [b]or copies or duplicates of the firearms[/b], known as... blah blah blah, [b]'Colt AR-15'[/b], blah blah blah"
Troy's explanation makes sense. How convenient that Brady forgets to mention that this part of the law was tossed out in a court challenge. --Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2002 5:49:07 PM EDT
[#8]
This kind of inaccuracy is actually more indicative of their lack of finances and trained staff than a deliberate attempt to decieve.
And is why the media has rarely quoted them in the last year or so, even during the sniper spree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2002 5:50:40 PM EDT
[#9]
Of course its BS. Liberals aren't interested in truth telling as long as whatever they are lying about furthers their agenda. Brady et al hate guns...all guns...but ARs most of all.
They are using "their" interpretation of the existing law. Problem for them is, like liberals everywhere, they are ill educated and out of touch: Their interepretation doesn't matter a damn. The states and courts, with the exception of Goofysville on the Left Coast have made it crystal clear. We are right and the antis are wrong. Let 'em bitch. We won on Tuesday and we'll keep on winning in the courts. Now let's go after the AWB! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2002 5:52:30 PM EDT
[#10]
So, Brady Bunch finally ran out of excuses to make up illogical huh?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2002 5:52:55 PM EDT
[#11]
My Momma says "Brady is a copy of the DEVIL" and Illegal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2002 5:56:14 PM EDT
[#12]
I think I am going to send Sarah a carton of smokes for her trouble.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2002 5:59:20 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: The Supreme Court struck down the "copies and clones" portion of the law as being vague. Had that not happened, then the only AR15-type rifles sold in the last 8 years would have been the ones made before the ban. The Brady Bunch can complain all they want, but they lost in court, and can KMA. -Troy Do you have a cite for this? I do not believe that this portion of the AW ban has been challenged in a federal court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2002 7:11:44 PM EDT
[#14]
Ok, I think I found the definitive answer to this, right from my own bookshelf.
From David B. Kopel's "Guns: Who Should Have Them" – [I]...the ban specifically outlaws the Colt AR-15 rifle. First of all, the AR-15 is an automatic rifle; the sponsors meant to outlaw (but, technically, did not) semi-automatic derivatives of the AR-15, such as the Colt AR-15 Sporter.[/I] --Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2002 7:19:44 PM EDT
[#15]
They obviously have confused what they [i]wanted[/i] passed compared to what the NRA watered down and fought to not have passed.
Look through this thread, and look at the '91 and '93 proposals, and see what they would have liked to have passed. [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=151470&w=searchPop[/url] Things could have been much worse. (spelling edit) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2002 7:37:53 PM EDT
[#16]
it was clearly the intent of Congress to ban all semi-automatic assault weapons. That is total bullshit. If that was the intent of the law then Congress could easily have worded it that plain and simple. The problem was a law worded that way could not be passed. She is now trying to argue her original position which did not muster enought votes to pass....its called democracy. Also anybody who transfers responsibility from the shooter to an inanimate object is a true dumb ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2002 8:21:17 PM EDT
[#17]
It's a moot point, I will bet money the AW ban will come to a timely death in 9-04. However, I think the import ban and MG manufacture ban is here to stay unless people get REAL nervous about invasion - most likely armed terrorists infiltrating the country
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2002 9:33:54 PM EDT
[#18]
What part of "particularly suited to criminal misuse" don't you all understand?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2002 11:47:27 PM EDT
[#19]
I think we've all got that down, since not even 1% of crime is commited with "assault weapons". Must not be "particularly suited to criminal misuse" I reckon...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2002 3:05:08 AM EDT
[#20]
If the BATF put the Brady Bunch's interpretation into regulations, the court's would slavishly follow such an interpretation. This is probably what congress intended, and is a reasonable interpretation of the law. There would not even be any ex post facto implications, because just the interpretation of the law has changed, not the law itself.
Thank the NRA and for inserting the 10 year expiration in the law and GW for his efforts in the recent elction. As a result, we will hopefully never have to face the issue. If we keep the Republicans on their toes. As to wy the BATF did not interpret the law that way in the first place, we are frogs in a boiling pot. BATF has used this tactic before. [b]Troy:[/b] I have never heard of a US Supreme Court case on this issue. I believe there were some issues with a California law that involved copies/clones, but that was strictly a state issue. If you know of a case, please post it. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2002 4:47:35 AM EDT
[#21]
.......if we would have gotten the guns out of the hands of all those law abiding citizens......then jimmy would never have gotten shot.............[stick](shut up asshole)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2002 4:50:48 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Ok, I think I found the definitive answer to this, right from my own bookshelf. From David B. Kopel's "Guns: Who Should Have Them" – [I]...the ban specifically outlaws the Colt AR-15 rifle. First of all, the AR-15 is an automatic rifle; the sponsors meant to outlaw (but, technically, did not) semi-automatic derivatives of the AR-15, such as the Colt AR-15 Sporter.[/I] --Mike This is what happens when idiots who know nothing about a subject write laws about said subject. Really makes them look stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2002 5:21:17 AM EDT
[#23]
The libs always like to talk about the "intent" of so and so. For example, the "intent" of the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was that the Second Amendment gives us the collective right to form a National Guard. See Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, etc. goofed when they originally wrote the Bill of Rights. And the libs, being that they are so much smarter and advanced than the rest of us have determined (using their ultra-advanced minds) that the true intent of the Founding Fathers is that the Second Amendment is a collective right and not an individual right. Likewise, they really intended for America to be a socialist utopia, and not the corrupt, evil, war-mongering, capitalistic republic that it has become. As the libs all know, the Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves over Tuesday's elections.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2002 6:10:27 AM EDT
[#24]
It's called "grasping at straws". They know that they have lost the GC issue, and they are trying to make any point that they can.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2002 6:13:50 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: It's called "grasping at straws". They know that they have lost the GC issue, and they are trying to make any point that they can. Yup. I hope they keep it up, I hope they pound it into the ground as even slimy fucking dems like carville know GC has become a losing issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2002 6:20:40 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: The Supreme Court struck down the "copies and clones" portion of the law as being vague. Had that not happened, then the only AR15-type rifles sold in the last 8 years would have been the ones made before the ban. The Brady Bunch can complain all they want, but they lost in court, and can KMA. -Troy Do you have the citation for the case? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2002 6:23:42 AM EDT
[#27]
Brady says Bushmaster is "Copy of Colt AR-15" and Illegal uh....is she aware that COLT still sells them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2002 6:41:58 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: The libs always like to talk about the "intent" of so and so. For example, the "intent" of the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was that the Second Amendment gives us the collective right to form a National Guard. Let's not forget the "intent" of voters in FLorida with "Dimpled" chads....[}:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2002 8:06:26 AM EDT
[#29]
all semi-automatic assault weapons |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2002 8:14:22 AM EDT
[#30]
Look through this thread, and look at the '91 and '93 proposals, and see what they would have liked to have passed. [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=151470&w=searchPop[/url] Things could have been much worse. Yes, and look at who was one of the sponsors of the '93 bill... Ms. Pelosi, the person now considered the front runner for the leader of House Democrats. I miss Dick already. (Never thought I'd say THAT!) I am fortunate enough to be represented by rep. David Vitter, a reasonably strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights. I plan to write him a letter this weekend to let him know that I voted for him without the least bit of hesitation, soley because of this position (he won comfortably). --Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2002 8:18:25 AM EDT
[#31]
I'm surprised they didn't say that Bushmaster violated the "spirit" of the law--this is the usual tactic. They know that Bushmaster fully complied, but that there is some vaporous "spirit" surrounding all laws which lets you interpret them based on your personal feelings about them rather than the words clearly written on the page. I've seen this bs tactic used two dozen times in the last few years, always by some VPC or Brady freak who didn't have the facts on their side so they just played silly games. See, they think that since they want a that law bans all semi-auto rifles, and since they worked so hard to pass the "watered down" Crime bill, then the "spirit" of the law means all semi-autos are banned--in other words, it's whatever they want it to mean.
Imagine if all laws had a spirit and we could not know whether we were actually complying or not? Sounds like a typical totalitarian system, doesn't it? When the people can't read and understand the laws for themselves, you are in trouble. Guess what? We're pretty much there! But at least the courts do not insult our intelligence by charging people with violations of a law's spirit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2002 9:50:59 AM EDT
[#32]
That's the ticket. Billy Clinton was whining about the spirit and intent of those nasty gunmakers who follow the letter, but not the spirit of the law.
Troy is right about the court challenge, I just don't know where to find it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2002 9:53:15 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: The Brady Bunch is talking out of its ass. I thought their breath smelled pretty bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2002 11:35:53 AM EDT
[#34]
The federal law bans certain weapons according to the "features" they carry, and expressly exempts guns manufactured prior to Sept of 1994.
The law expressly forbids firearms with a detachable magazine and TWO banned features. The serial killers' rifle had a detachable magazine and a pistol grip (only one banned feature). They wrote a bad law and are now trying to divert attention away from their own incompetance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2002 12:59:54 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: ...They wrote a bad law and are now trying to divert attention away from their own incompetance. Bingo. Before you can "ban" a contrived class of things you have to first define what constitutes a member of that class. Congress deliberated for weeks to define "semiautomatic assault weapon". The Brady bunch had their say in that process, and they were ECSTATIC about their great accomplishment at the time. If they think all the post-ban clones are illegal why have they waited until NOW to say something about it? I recall some whining about Colt et al exploiting "loopholes" in the law (IOW they changed their designs to COMPLY with the law), but no criminal complaint or lawsuit has been filed. Will they try one now? [50] |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2002 3:50:12 PM EDT
[#36]
Sarah Brady is an ill-tempered bitch because she hasn't gotten laid in 20 years.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2002 4:56:20 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Sarah Brady is an ill-tempered bitch because she hasn't gotten laid in 20 years. You are not volunterring for a special asignment are you? [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2002 5:25:25 PM EDT
[#38]
I beleive that technically an AR-15 is a full auto weapon that was the predessesor to the m16. Although we refer to weapons like my Bushmaster as AR15's, technically it should be called an XME2S15... or something like that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2002 6:03:33 PM EDT
[#39]
They are right you know,I'd like to hand my AR over like a good boy but if I walk up to a cop with it he will piss on him self and try to shoot me.
I guess I'm stuck with it[:(] |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2002 5:21:14 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Sarah Brady is an ill-tempered bitch because she hasn't gotten laid in 20 years. Dr Evil: What do you mean we don't have sharks with frekin lazers in their heads? No1: Sharks were moved to the endangered species list. Dr Evil: Well, what do we have? No1: Sea Bitch. Dr Evil: Sea Bitch? Well is it ill-tempered? No1: It is Sarah Brady the the ill-tempered mutated sea bitch. Dr Evil: Excellent, Austin Powers will never escape this one. No way will his MOJO work on her. According to No2, Venerated, she hasn't gotten laid in 20 years. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
