Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

spin

(17,493 posts)
61. Read further down the article you linked to...
Sat Dec 31, 2011, 12:12 AM
Dec 2011

The law banned certain feature combinations that many firearms experts[who?] considered to be arbitrary.[citation needed] Manufacturers complied with the law by removing the banned features while leaving the core functionality of the weapons intact. For this, they were criticized as attempting to circumvent the spirit of the law by many gun control groups and even by then-president Bill Clinton.[citation needed] Pro-gun groups responded by pointing out that the manufacturers made and sold exactly what was permitted, and that they could not be held to any standard higher than the law itself.[citation needed]

For example, the AB-10 was a legal version of the TEC-9, with barrel threading and barrel shroud removed; the XM-15 was a legal AR-15 without barrel threading or a bayonet mounting lug; post-ban semi-automatic AK-47s were sold without folding stocks or bayonet lugs, and with standard or "thumbhole" stocks instead of pistol grips. As the production of magazines holding in excess of 10-rounds for civilians had been prohibited, manufacturers sold their post-ban firearms either with newly manufactured magazines with capacities of ten rounds or less, or with pre-ban manufactured high-capacity magazines, to meet changing legal requirements.

The ATF technology branch determined in 1994 that muzzle brakes were not impacted by the AWB, and that muzzle brakes on threaded barrels were not an assault weapon feature, so long as they were welded or soldered in place.

The law prohibited newly manufactured detachable magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds manufactured after enactment of the law from sale, transfer, or importation. One effect was the increased importation from other countries of large quantities of magazines manufactured before the ban.[citation needed] Former Warsaw Pact countries had large quantities of AK-47 magazines of various capacities that could fit a variety of both pre-ban and post-ban AK-47 variants. Existing stocks of pre-ban American-made magazines were likewise exempt from the ban; this resulted in a brief surge in domestic manufacture of high-capacity magazines before the law took effect. Large capacity magazines manufactured post-ban for military and law enforcement were stamped or etched with the logo "LEO" (for "Law Enforcement Only&quot and it was illegal for civilians to possess LEO magazines during the ban....emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_ban#Provisions_of_the_ban


So what exactly did the AWB ban?


Assault rifles vs. "Assault weapons"

The term assault weapon is a United States political and legal term used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified the definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine containing more than 10 rounds, and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Primary pistol grip
Forward grip
Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
Barrel shroud
...emphasis added

The assault weapons ban did not restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns, which have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement or SOT (special occupational taxpayer) dealers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#Assault_rifles_vs._.22Assault_weapons.22


So while you can correctly argue that the AWB banned the manufacture and sale of firearms that had a certain combination of features, it did not stop the sale of semi-auto black rifles. Most buyers really were not all concerned if their new weapon had a bayonet mount or a threaded barrel designed to accept one. Who needs a grenade launcher anyway? It might be nice to have a folding or telescoping stock and a pistol grip but the main thing was the semi-automatic feature and the versatility of the weapon. The black rifles sold like hot cakes at the country fair and so did semi-auto pistols.

During that time frame every almost every regular shooter at the range I shot at purchased assault weapons. I was amazed to see shooters who had absolutely no interest in owning a rifle that looked like a modern military weapon prior to the ban feel a need to run out and get one during the ban. They all had to get a bunch of hi-cap magazines to go along with their new weapon.

I remember these same people telling me prior to the ban how rifles such as the AR-15 were crappy inaccurate pieces of plastic junk that were worthless compared to their highly accurate bolt action rifles with walnut stocks. I found it fascinating how merely banning something makes it popular and irresistible.

I also found that I was the rare shooter on the line with a old fashioned revolver and I was surrounded by shooters with Glocks and 17 round magazines. I have still not bought a black rifle although I am considering it.




Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I don't think Obama would veto anything that had anti-gun language in it... krispos42 Dec 2011 #1
None of those issues would safeinOhio Dec 2011 #2
In your viewpoint... krispos42 Dec 2011 #5
True in my viewpoint. safeinOhio Dec 2011 #7
What other Constitutional Rights are "states rights" issues? PavePusher Dec 2011 #13
I , and most others, safeinOhio Dec 2011 #16
SCOTUS has declared that "keep" is a fundamental Right. PavePusher Dec 2011 #19
"would seem to indicate" safeinOhio Dec 2011 #26
You are arguing something I haven't even asserted. PavePusher Dec 2011 #27
Every day is a good day, here. safeinOhio Dec 2011 #43
Fundamental does not mean absolute. PavePusher Dec 2011 #46
Where do you get from the decision that 'keep' is unregulated? X_Digger Dec 2011 #44
The examples you have given here pipoman Dec 2011 #74
The AWB was NOT a ban. It was a merely "feel good" law... spin Dec 2011 #18
IMHO I think the gun mania of this country... ellisonz Dec 2011 #52
No, it made manufacturers change features or model names.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #55
What do you think that says about the integrity of the gun manufacturers? ellisonz Dec 2011 #57
I guess it says the gun manufacturers are burf Dec 2011 #58
They met the letter of the law. A boneheaded law. X_Digger Dec 2011 #62
You have very low expectations for corporate responsibility. n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #63
Well isn't that special.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #68
A company should respect the intention of the Federal government... ellisonz Dec 2011 #72
I'm endorsing following the law as written X_Digger Dec 2011 #76
If the intent was to have companies stop manufacturing semi-auto firearms.... PavePusher Jan 2012 #103
Read further down the article you linked to... spin Dec 2011 #61
Thats because the arms manufacturers are snakes... ellisonz Dec 2011 #65
Virtually every law and restriction pipoman Dec 2011 #75
No it doesn't irk me in the least... spin Dec 2011 #84
And this is a good thing? ellisonz Dec 2011 #87
"damn things wouldn't be in production" -- did you forget? Production never stopped. X_Digger Dec 2011 #88
You certainly are upset with people for complying with the law. PavePusher Dec 2011 #90
The AWB was concieved and passed during a moral panic. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #93
The War on Terror has contributed far more to a militarized police force... spin Dec 2011 #91
Still insist on following Josh Sugarmann's failed line? friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #92
Italian proverb: Simo 1939_1940 Jan 2012 #105
I think Bloomberg is jealous and a whiney fuck of an Authoritarian. PavePusher Dec 2011 #3
All bets are off. safeinOhio Dec 2011 #8
Did I say I thought anyone would try to take away guns? PavePusher Dec 2011 #12
You are the one that said safeinOhio Dec 2011 #17
I don't believe in conspiracies rl6214 Dec 2011 #4
Their power could be curtailed in the blink of an eye slackmaster Dec 2011 #6
Precisely. It's the only issue I can think of where the party is horrifically out of step with Fair Witness Dec 2011 #9
You are welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts safeinOhio Dec 2011 #29
That is a horse-shit poll and I think you know why. Fair Witness Dec 2011 #33
Like I said, safeinOhio Dec 2011 #36
This one (from your own link) shows a drastic DECLINE in support of more 'control' Fair Witness Dec 2011 #39
Yup , safeinOhio Dec 2011 #41
the question I always had about this poll is gejohnston Dec 2011 #50
Polls of gun owners show that a majority of them safeinOhio Dec 2011 #73
most of us expressed the same here gejohnston Dec 2011 #77
"Confusion to the enemy!...." SteveW Dec 2011 #79
What I REALLY want to know is Glassunion Dec 2011 #10
Would you settle for Eric Estrada? slackmaster Dec 2011 #11
As a Democrat and NRA member I hate the over-the-top language from LaPierre and most of the NRA. aikoaiko Dec 2011 #14
If Obama comes out for rrneck Dec 2011 #15
I partially agree... ToolMaker Dec 2011 #21
Who said he was against... ellisonz Dec 2011 #53
Who said he was against... rrneck Dec 2011 #54
Well much of the rhetoric here that is so popular out there... ellisonz Dec 2011 #59
and a third can't name any... rrneck Dec 2011 #64
Definitely not political cartoons... ellisonz Dec 2011 #67
It's about as good as it's going to get right now. nt rrneck Dec 2011 #69
how is this remotely relevant? gejohnston Dec 2011 #70
How is it not relevant? n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #71
I fail to see how gejohnston Dec 2011 #78
"Perhaps it was more of a written by the dim for the clueless." ellisonz Dec 2011 #83
Please, enlighten us of the loopholes of which you speak. n/t oneshooter Dec 2011 #85
It's not hard to write such legislation... ellisonz Dec 2011 #86
Keep those NRA royalties rollin' in! nt SteveW Dec 2011 #80
$650 for a toaster???? WTF Remmah2 Dec 2011 #20
An "assault" or "tactical" toaster would go for $1500 and sell in the millions. Hoyt Dec 2011 #22
No, because that would be stupid. Callisto32 Dec 2011 #24
Grenade launcher, assault toast thrower, it's all the same to him. PavePusher Dec 2011 #28
Just like the guns that folks seem to covet for some irrational reason. Hoyt Dec 2011 #30
More like the firearms you have a irrational fear of, for no reason. n/t oneshooter Dec 2011 #45
We've given you plenty of rational reasons. PavePusher Dec 2011 #47
Maybe not, burf Dec 2011 #60
compared to Brady and VPC gejohnston Dec 2011 #23
Hope that never happens. Guns in public is a regressive cause, no matter how many votes it attracts. Hoyt Dec 2011 #31
hope what never happens? gejohnston Dec 2011 #35
Gun-control must be a "conservative cause." It's worked so well for the Right! nt SteveW Dec 2011 #81
This message was self-deleted by its author Simo 1939_1940 Dec 2011 #94
I think you'd like seeing the bumper of my car. Simo 1939_1940 Dec 2011 #95
Where I'm from, you usually see confederate flag, "insured by S&W," W, and NRA sticker on vehicles. Hoyt Dec 2011 #98
Glad I'm not from Georgia gejohnston Dec 2011 #99
Dick Cheney country? Hoyt Jan 2012 #101
Somehow, I doubt the entire state is represented by a single man. PavePusher Jan 2012 #102
it is also gejohnston Jan 2012 #104
We sure are lucky the Colonists didn't have any guns, otherwise we might have our own country Fair Witness Dec 2011 #37
"Guns in public is a regressive cause..........." Simo 1939_1940 Dec 2011 #97
The NRA is a bunch of right wing idiots. Who will lie to raise money. Hate them. Logical Dec 2011 #25
I recently joined, not because I think LaPierre is a good guy, but because I'm interested in protect Fair Witness Dec 2011 #34
I think you are supporting a right wing group. Like if you joined pro-life group or Logical Dec 2011 #38
Yes, it is my decision. Fair Witness Dec 2011 #40
?? What does this have to do with the NRA...... Logical Dec 2011 #42
Sooooo, let's turn into a more centrist group. By joining. PavePusher Dec 2011 #48
I don't think it would work. The NRA would lose too many members if they started.... Logical Dec 2011 #49
maybe gejohnston Dec 2011 #51
Correct. The NRA is not about inclusiveness. ellisonz Dec 2011 #56
Only 1/2 royalty payment for this one... SteveW Dec 2011 #82
Stereotyping. Broad-brushing. Pigeon-holing. PavePusher Dec 2011 #89
Notice that the latest scary buzz terminology Simo 1939_1940 Dec 2011 #96
I think how the NRA spends its money speaks for itself. n/t ellisonz Jan 2012 #100
I think LaPierre is fearmongering to raise revenue. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #32
I would bet... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2011 #66
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»NRA Raises $200 Million a...»Reply #61