The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 11, 2013, 11:29 PM   #1
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 1,252
1994 AWB "watered down" Someone help me out, please

So I was listening to NPR today and they interviewed (I believe) Tom King of the NRA. Whoever it was from the NRA, they did a pretty good job of pointing out some basic fallacies, facts and FBI stats about "assault weapons" and gun violence.

Anyhow, the NPR interviewer offered that the original AWB was "watered down" to the point of being ineffective.

I'll admit that I wasn't paying enough attention in 1994. Can someone more familiar with the legislative process at that point in time please explain to me how the original AWB was the product of "watering down" rather than just being poorly written?
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old January 11, 2013, 11:38 PM   #2
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
I'll admit that I wasn't paying enough attention in 1994. Can someone more familiar with the legislative process at that point in time please explain to me how the original AWB was the product of "watering down" rather than just being poorly written?
They made an exception for the Mini-14. Everyone knows how deadly those are.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 12, 2013, 12:16 AM   #3
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,054
It depends on who you ask. Because of the (perceived) overly specific nature of some terms, manufacturers were able to market rifles nearly identical to those banned by simply changing a few parts.

Other folks claimed that by allowing pre-1994 guns and magazines to remain legal, the ban carried little weight because so much of that stuff was already in circulation.

You'll notice that both of those are things Feinstein is attempting to "fix" in her new version of the legislation.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 12, 2013, 08:57 AM   #4
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,844
Quote:
Anyhow, the NPR interviewer offered that the original AWB was "watered down" to the point of being ineffective.

I'll admit that I wasn't paying enough attention in 1994. Can someone more familiar with the legislative process at that point in time please explain to me how the original AWB was the product of "watering down" rather than just being poorly written?
Allow me to translate: "While we know that the original AWB didn't make any difference in crime, we're not going to admit that it didn't work because that's not politically expedient. Instead, we'll just claim that the original was watered down and that we didn't go far enough."
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 12, 2013, 09:16 AM   #5
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
Allow me to translate: "While we know that the original AWB didn't make any difference in crime, we're not going to admit that it didn't work because that's not politically expedient. Instead, we'll just claim that the original was watered down and that we didn't go far enough."
You forgot:

"This one will be so much better it WILL SAVE BABIES. You are not against it are you? Do you hate babies?"
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 12, 2013, 10:46 AM   #6
dlb435
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Posts: 654
The 1994 AWB banned a certain number of features that a rifle could have. Durring the ban you could still buy an AR-15 or AK-47 but it had to have a certain amount of US parts. The guns were delivered with a 10 round clip. The flash hider, baynet lug and collapsable stock were often eliminated to reduces the number of "evil" features.
The result was that you could still get an AR-15 and 20-30 magizines were still available, but expensive.
The ban was useless. It only aggrivated people and did nothing stop the supply of "assault" weapon.
The impact on crime was zero.
A true AWB would stop the sale of all semi-automatic rifles regardeless of design or original purpose. Thus the Browning automatics (hunting rifles), the Ruger Mini-14 and other non-military type weapons would also fall victim to the ban.
An other aproach might be to ban semi-automatic weapons with a detachable magazine. You could still get an AR-15 but the mag would be fixed and you would have to top load it.
The big killer in the US is not long guns. The big problem is pistols. Here they seem to be focusing only on magazine capacity.
This is were things get foggy. Read the second ammendment. It does not give you the right to anything more than a right to bear keep arms for any other reason than to protect your state as part of a well orginized militia.
As odd as this sound, the Federal government could ban EVERYTHING except military type weapons. You could even be prohibited from owning a firearm if your state disqualified you from ever serving as part of a militia.
We have a long history of hunting and an expectation of armed self defense but these are traditions, not law.
Keep in mind that even if a law is unconstitutional it may not be overturned. After all, any reasonable reading of the constitution would have outlawed slavery but it persisted for over 80 years before that hapened.
We will get what what the Congress thinks we want.

Last edited by dlb435; January 12, 2013 at 11:20 AM.
dlb435 is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 09:31 PM   #7
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,312
DLB, I suggest you go re-read the Heller and MacDonald decisions. The 2nd Amendment does a lot more than simply protect the state-run militia's arms. It sounds like you are arguing almost exclusively from the Miller case's ruling.
raimius is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 04:54 PM   #8
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,346
Yeah, the Supremes have come out and said that we have a right to own firearms in the general use. Or something like that. That's why they can't ban handguns.
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 05:19 PM   #9
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
DLB, you have read too much Brady stuff..quit buying into their garbage,

In Heller the Supreme Court said that weapons in comon use could not be banned, and that it was an INDIVIDUAL right to own and bear arms.

Therefore, I say (my opinion) the more AR/AK's sold the better, as the more comon they become, the more difficult they will be to restrict.
hermannr is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 06:09 PM   #10
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,346
I don't think he's buying what Brady is selling, just not up with the times.

Especially since even if correct, many hunting weapons have a direct link to military weapons. At least one branch is retro-fitting Remington 700's in 300 Win-Mag as their next sniper platform. Boom, Deer Rifle.
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 09:09 PM   #11
dlb435
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Posts: 654
Yeh, I'm up with the times. This court has chosen a broader interpertation than would normally be expected from the Supreme Court. I like it, but I also know that it could be reversed later on. It would only take one or two new people on the court to go the other way.
dlb435 is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 09:29 PM   #12
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
Yep Jim! I have one of those nasty "sniper rifle" remy 700...bought it back in 1964. It is an excelent 1000M rifle..
hermannr is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 11:20 AM   #13
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,346
Mine's not protected tho.. its in 300 RUM not Win-Mag.
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 11:51 AM   #14
Ben Towe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,120
Quote:
Yeh, I'm up with the times. This court has chosen a broader interpertation than would normally be expected from the Supreme Court. I like it, but I also know that it could be reversed later on. It would only take one or two new people on the court to go the other way.
In theory, yes. In practice it would undermine the standing of the court. SCOTUS has no real power to enforce a ruling aside from strong tradition. Remember Andrew Jackson's quote, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"

A fast reversal would reflect on the court poorly, as it would be seen as a political tool of the party in power, thus rendering it less effective. The court is supposed to be above the politics. A reversal is unlikely.
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs
Ben Towe is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 12:28 AM   #15
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 1,252
Thanks for the feedback. My impression as well was to obfuscate failure by declaring that it was "watered down."

I just wasn't sure if my impression was b/c I wasn't paying attention. I like to check my feel good assumptions.
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 01:27 AM   #16
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 1,882
I believe when they say watered down they mean the anti's did not get all they wanted banned . Just like the one coming up , we all have seen what the summery is and I believe it will look nothing like it ( watered down ) . One of the things I think that will be different is . There will not be a sunset/expiration on this one .

Quote:
It depends on who you ask. Because of the (perceived) overly specific nature of some terms, manufacturers were able to market rifles nearly identical to those banned by simply changing a few parts.
Yep ^
I bought an AK right after the ban had started that had a thumb hole stock . That was the only thing that was different from a regular one . I still have pre ban 30 round mags for the AK and 10/22 .
__________________
If you have a problem with everybody .

It's not everybody that has the problem
Metal god is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09241 seconds with 7 queries