• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Assault Weapons Ban 2019

Ranb

Penultimate Amazing
Ranb
Joined
Jul 25, 2003
Messages
11,313
Location
WA USA
Senators Introduce Assault Weapons Ban
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...eases&id=EFC76859-879D-4038-97DD-C577212ED17B

Key provisions:

Bans the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 205 military-style assault weapons by name. Owners may keep existing weapons.
Bans any assault weapon that accepts a detachable ammunition magazine and has one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock. Owners may keep existing weapons.
Bans magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, which allow shooters to quickly fire many rounds without needing to reload. Owners may keep existing magazines.
Click to expand...

I heard that the assault weapon dies with the owner though. Other provisions on the webpage seem to oppose this claim.

Bans stocks that are “otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability of a firearm.”
Click to expand...
I have an ar-15 with an adjustable stock; I don't consider it to be very enhancing at all.

Bans assault pistols that weigh 50 or more ounces when unloaded, a policy included in the original 1994 ban.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why this was ever a thing. Think the Desert Eagle handguns in 44 magnum or 50 AE. Hardly anyone really wants to drag these things around to commit violent crimes with.

Bans assault pistol stabilizing braces that transform assault pistols into assault rifles by allowing the shooter to shoulder the weapon and fire more accurately.
Click to expand...
Those Sig arm braces really aren't a problem.

Bans Thordsen-type grips and stocks that are designed to evade a ban on assault weapons.
Click to expand...
This replaces certain AR style pistol grip stocks with one that lacks an actual pistol grip. https://www.thordsencustoms.com/frs-15-enhanced-stock-kit-od-green/ What's next, banning any solid projectile because it evades a ban on lead?

There is no actual bill number or test available right now.

Ranb
 
I predict a sharp uptick in sales of AR-type rifles and accessories just upon introduction of the bill.
I haven’t visited my Reddit gun forum yet....

Manufacturers will be rubbing their hands in glee.....
 
Guns facilitate for citizens an important right....to kill people. Under certain circumstances, citizens are allowed to kill people. These rules aim to make them less good at killing people. I cannot abide something that is trying so hard to attenuate the right to kill people.
 
I don't understand why things like barrel shroud or stock are regulated. Or even overall length. ARs all fall into the category just because of the magazine.

I think the weight on the pistols is to prevent some guns being called pistols, when they are really not. Like assault rifles without stock. That might not really be an issue in large scale, but it's certainly making fun of the regulation.
 
BobTheCoward said:
....These rules aim to make them less good at killing people. I cannot abide something that is trying so hard to attenuate the right to kill people.
Click to expand...
What part of the bill does what you claim? The guns/mags don't actually go away. If the bill passes the House many more of the potentially banned guns will be sold.

HawksFan said:
We have assault pistols now? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Assault pistols were part of the AWB of 1994. Hawaii still has their assault pistol ban on the books. Certain shotguns are also "bad".

Dr.Sid said:
I don't understand why things like barrel shroud or stock are regulated. Or even overall length. ARs all fall into the category just because of the magazine.
Click to expand...
It is to regulate certain semi-auto rifles like the AR-15. This law doesn't go as far as the WA State law which regulates ALL semi-auto rifles other than antiques as assault rifles.

I think the weight on the pistols is to prevent some guns being called pistols, when they are really not. Like assault rifles without stock. That might not really be an issue in large scale, but it's certainly making fun of the regulation.
Click to expand...
In my opinion the Desert Eagle and the LAR 45WM are actually concealable hanguns; provided you are a large person. The AR-15 pistol is just stupid I think. :)
 
Last edited:
Ranb said:
What part of the bill does what you claim? The guns/mags don't actually go away. If the bill passes the House many more of the potentially banned guns will be sold.


Assault pistols were part of the AWB of 1994. Hawaii still has their assault pistol ban on the books. Certain shotguns are also "bad".
Click to expand...

I didn't claim the bill did anything.
 
Ranb said:
In my opinion the Desert Eagle and the LAR 45WM are actually concealable hanguns; provided you are a large person. The AR-15 pistol is just stupid I think. :)
Click to expand...

It's commonly done. You take AR or AK without stock, with short barrel, and you call it a pistol. Then you add brace, and you have 'legal' short barrel semiauto rifle and you don't need SBR stamp.
I think this point is aimed specifically at this.
 
Last edited:
Crossbow said:
Your response makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I commented on the intent of the writer of the law. Ranb asked what part of the bill I think accomplishes that. But I don't think the bill accomplishes it. Further, I don't think the intent of the law's writer matters.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
I am curious what that is, not curious enough to google my self but curious.
Click to expand...
This is what assault pistols used to be as defined from 1994-2004. As far as I can tell this Wikipedia article is accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Click to expand...
As far as I know the AR-15 handguns (short barrel and no stock, just the buffer tube extending back) were not a thing back in 1994. I saw my first at-15 pistol only ten years ago.

As far as I know the offensive pistols were the Uzi's, TEC-9's and others that did not fit the usual pistol with the "magazine in the pistol grip" model. The heavier handguns of the traditional design were also caught up in the ban as well as some nicer target pistols like the Browning Buckmark in 22lr.

Some states have their own assault weapon definitions based in part on the AWB94.
 
Information Analyst said:
Presumably "pistol" versions of AR-15s and AKs, which again seem specifically designed to exploit legislative loopholes..
Click to expand...
I'm not aware that this is why they exist. I think someone just built their own at-15 handgun one day and it caught on a tiny bit with others.

I personally know some people who bought an at-15 pistol and then registered it as a short barreled rifle. They used it occasionally as a pistol while waiting 3-12 months for ATF approval of the tax stamp application so they could attach the shoulder stock and have a real rifle.

The Sig Arm Brace was as far as I can tell a legitimate accessory invented by a disabled man who wanted better control over his ar-15 pistol. The ATF at first agreed that an ar-15 equipped with the brace had no limitations on it's use (in the hand or on the shoulder) but later changed their minds and said using it as a shoulder stock made it an SBR requiring a tax stamp.

Personally I think the AR-15 pistol is as stupid as the Can-Am Spyder and the Polaris Slingshot. :)
 
BobTheCoward said:
....But I don't think the bill accomplishes it. Further, I don't think the intent of the law's writer matters.
Click to expand...
Legislative intent can matter at times. If the intent is spelled out it can make a difference in the way the courts or the attorney general defines the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom