"Preparing" for an AWB

[groovatron]

Forgive me for my ignorance on this subject, but I have several questions concerning the potential for another AWB. These questions are to be answered as if an identical AWB was put into action that replicated the last AWB. So anyway.....here are my questions..

I understand that the lower reciever of an AR style rifle is considered the actual gun itself. If I were to have some stripped lowers in my possession prior to a new AWB, would I be free to build a rifle without regulation once the AWB took affect?

If I could build that rifle, would I need to follow the other requirements of the AWB......(no flash hider, collapsible stock....etc.) ?

Would gun manufacturers be forced to remove remaing inventory or just stop production once the new AWB took affect?

Do private sale transfers stay the same with pre-ban guns?




Well, that's a good start for my questions. I was not affected by the last AWB (only had a few pistols and shotguns) so I don't have much recollection of how it went down. I just want to be as prepared as possible in the tragic event that a new AWB get's passed through congress. Thanks in advance for your answers. I have been searchin the web for this info, but am having a hard time clarifying certain information.

 

[shibumiseeker]

The problem is no one knows the answer. Any new ban could take whatever form the government thinks it can get away with. I don't personally see a new ban happening in the next few years, the Dems got thoroughly spanked as a result of the last ban and they are not going to shake that tree again since they'll lose ground this election.

As far as bans go, whether something is grandfathered in or not is up in the air, a ban could be sweeping by giving the BATFE the power to make administrative rules instead of having things be enumerated in the legislation.

So there is no answer to your question.

 

[groovatron]

@shibumiseeker......So you're saying stock up on lowers.....

 

[Mgderf]

@shibumiseeker......So you're saying stock up on lowers.....

This is never a bad idea.

 

[shibumiseeker]

@shibumiseeker......So you're saying stock up on lowers.....

Never hurts. They are relatively cheap now and could bring a pretty penny if a ban happened. Or they could be contraband that needed to be buried deep.

Besides, it never hurts to have a few lowers around, there's always some project that is begging for them!

 

[groovatron]

This is never a bad idea.

I guess that's kinda the idea behind my post. I can't really afford to build several of the complete rifles that I see myself owning in the future. I'd be real ticked if they took that opportunity away from me.

 

[ryknoll3]

If this theoretical new AWB is identical to the old AWB, having a stripped lower would not qualify you for a pre-ban. It would have had to have been built into a complete "assault weapon" before the ban went into effect. If manufacturers had built out the firearms by the ban date, they could still sell them. The price would certainly skyrocket.

Be assured, a new AWB would NOT be identical to the old AWB. It would be much stricter, like Cali's ban. It would ban ALL features, whereas the old AWB allowed one feature. This is how all the postie AR's and AK's could be built. Lose the bayo lug and flash hider and you were good to go. I remember politician's and anti-gunners complaining that the firearms manufacturers did not comply with the "spirit of the law."

That said, I don't see a new ban coming down the pike anytime soon. There simply aren't the votes and it was proven pretty clearly that the last one didn't work. I think the bigger concern would be for those that live in more liberal states that don't yet have an AWB. I could see it happening quicker on a state level than Federal.

 

[shooter521]

@shibumiseeker......So you're saying stock up on lowers.....

Not really. During the AWB, the ATF ruled that lowers not assembled into rifles at the time of the ban's enactment could NOT be used to build up a rifle with prohibited features after the ban. It took them a few years to figure things out and issue that ruling, and in that time, a LOT of "pre-ban lowers" were sold and completed. Those rifles were all theoretically illegal, but that assumes anyone would ever actually check.

 

[jbombelli]

I don't foresee a "ban" in the near future. More likely, the National Firearms Act will be amended to add "assault weapons" to the list. That way they can say they didn't ban anything. There will be an amnesty period to add your guns to the registry, and all transfers will have to go through a Class III FFL, etc. etc. etc., and the same penalty for possessing an unregistered machine gun will apply to "assault weapons."

MOST people in this country won't understand what this means, and will actually be in favor of this.

That's how I think they'll come at us next. The NFA Registry is obviously constitutional (NOT MY OWN OPINION), so how would it be unconstitutional to add something to it?


Then, a few years down the road, they will add an amendment to some bill to close that particular registry, and despite it not passing, someone like Charlie Rangel will declare that it passed and that will be that. It happened before with the Hughes Amendment.

 

[E5RANGER375]

stock up on ammo and learn to shoot. problem solved

 

[groovatron]

Not really. During the AWB, the ATF ruled that lowers not assembled into rifles at the time of the ban's enactment could NOT be used to build up a rifle with prohibited features after the ban. It took them a few years to figure things out and issue that ruling, and in that time, a LOT of "pre-ban lowers" were sold and completed. Those rifles were all theoretically illegal, but that assumes anyone would ever actually check.

Thanks....this is some of the info I was looking for.

 

[MPD179]

This is off topic and for that I apologize... Groovatron... I really like your avatar!

 

[groovatron]

This is off topic and for that I apologize... Groovatron... I really like your avatar!

That's quite all right

 

[Kirk Freeman]

These questions are to be answered as if an identical AWB was put into action that replicated the last AWB.

When you buy a lower receiver, build it up and then tear it down. Store the lower receiver in the gun safe and use the parts to create your next rifle (i.e., you only buy one upper and one LPK, but you are assembling many rifles).

 

[groovatron]

When you buy a lower receiver, build it up and then tear it down. Store the lower receiver in the gun safe and use the parts to create your next rifle (i.e., you only buy one upper and one LPK, but you are assembling many rifles).

Hmmmm.....interesting. That's not a bad idea. Man I hope it doesn't come down to this. I guess I'd rather be safe than sorry

 

[shibumiseeker]

I missed the line Kirk quoted. My apologies for my lack of reading comprehension!

 

[groovatron]

I missed the line Kirk quoted. My apologies for my lack of reading comprehension!

Lol....that's okay. Your response still had it's own merit within the conversation

 

[Kirk Freeman]

groov, when you build it up, take a "proof of life" photo with that day's newspaper. Download the photo and then encrypt it, print out a hard copy and put it in the gun safe.

 

[groovatron]

groov, when you build it up, take a "proof of life" photo with that day's newspaper. Download the photo and then encrypt it, print out a hard copy and put it in the gun safe.

A smart man you are.........must be all that coffee (will give actual rep when I recharge)

 

[Vasili]

I don't foresee a "ban" in the near future. More likely, the National Firearms Act will be amended to add "assault weapons" to the list. That way they can say they didn't ban anything. There will be an amnesty period to add your guns to the registry, and all transfers will have to go through a Class III FFL, etc. etc. etc., and the same penalty for possessing an unregistered machine gun will apply to "assault weapons."

MOST people in this country won't understand what this means, and will actually be in favor of this.

That's how I think they'll come at us next. The NFA Registry is obviously constitutional (NOT MY OWN OPINION), so how would it be unconstitutional to add something to it?


Then, a few years down the road, they will add an amendment to some bill to close that particular registry, and despite it not passing, someone like Charlie Rangel will declare that it passed and that will be that. It happened before with the Hughes Amendment.

I think you're spot on the money.
What gets me the most is that the Hughes amendment never actually passed, and still made it in. It's also kinda enraging to think about how many people the ATF has killed or maimed executing raids on people who'd already done the paperwork, but the registry info was incorrect or 'missing'.

Aw, hell, the whole thing makes me mad. All of it.
Someone wants my vote, all he's got to do is repeal '34/'68/86.
That's all i'd ever want.