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
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: NRA Raises $200 Million as Gun Lobby Toasters Burn Logo on Bread [View all]spin
(17,493 posts)61. Read further down the article you linked to...
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"
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
105 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If the intent was to have companies stop manufacturing semi-auto firearms....
PavePusher
Jan 2012
#103
"damn things wouldn't be in production" -- did you forget? Production never stopped.
X_Digger
Dec 2011
#88
Precisely. It's the only issue I can think of where the party is horrifically out of step with
Fair Witness
Dec 2011
#9
This one (from your own link) shows a drastic DECLINE in support of more 'control'
Fair Witness
Dec 2011
#39
As a Democrat and NRA member I hate the over-the-top language from LaPierre and most of the NRA.
aikoaiko
Dec 2011
#14
Hope that never happens. Guns in public is a regressive cause, no matter how many votes it attracts.
Hoyt
Dec 2011
#31
Gun-control must be a "conservative cause." It's worked so well for the Right! nt
SteveW
Dec 2011
#81
Where I'm from, you usually see confederate flag, "insured by S&W," W, and NRA sticker on vehicles.
Hoyt
Dec 2011
#98
We sure are lucky the Colonists didn't have any guns, otherwise we might have our own country
Fair Witness
Dec 2011
#37
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
I don't think it would work. The NRA would lose too many members if they started....
Logical
Dec 2011
#49