Senate Passes "Assault Weapons" Ban

[Joe]

Dammit!

[SirNitram]

So much for the repeated assurances of 'It'll die in the Senate, so it doesn't matter if Bush/Kerry/Whoever supports it'. Oh well. Stupider laws stay on the books.

[BoredShirtless]

46 Senaters voted against closing the "gun show loophole". 46 Senaters need their heads examined.

[SirNitram]

46 Senaters voted against closing the "gun show loophole". 46 Senaters need their heads examined.

Is that the bit where you can get a gun at a gun show without the mandatory background checks?

If it is, it's not that they need their head examined. It's they need to stop getting paid off by whatever group is making a killing...

[BoredShirtless]

46 Senaters voted against closing the "gun show loophole". 46 Senaters need their heads examined.

Is that the bit where you can get a gun at a gun show without the mandatory background checks?

That's the one.

If it is, it's not that they need their head examined. It's they need to stop getting paid off by whatever group is making a killing...

Sure some were paid off, but not close to half the Senate. Some of them think they have a good reason, I'd love to see what those are.

[SirNitram]

46 Senaters voted against closing the "gun show loophole". 46 Senaters need their heads examined.

Is that the bit where you can get a gun at a gun show without the mandatory background checks?

That's the one.

If it is, it's not that they need their head examined. It's they need to stop getting paid off by whatever group is making a killing...

Sure some were paid off, but not close to half the Senate. Some of them think they have a good reason, I'd love to see what those are.

I lost that level of faith in politicians to not be utterly corrupt... Mmm. I never had that much naivete. Still, not much to be done.

[Glocksman]

This amendment makes the bill DOA in the House, unless the conference committee to reconcile the differing versions strips out the offending amendments.
I never thought I'd say this, but thank God for Tom DeLay.

My fucking Senators voted for the renewal.

Goddam that whore Feinstein.

As much as I think we need the liability bill, I'd rather see it dead than the AWB be renewed.

[Glocksman]

46 Senaters voted against closing the "gun show loophole". 46 Senaters need their heads examined.

Your title fits you.

THERE IS NO 'GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE'!

Any FFL holder who sells guns at a gun show must comply with the Brady act and run a NICS check on any firearms purchaser.

And if there's an unlicensed person dealing in guns at a gun show, that's already illegal, as it's a crime to deal in firearms without an FFL.

The only thing this amendment does is force sales between private individuals to go through an FFL to conduct the transfer and as I mentioned above, if the person is found to be 'dealing' in firearms as opposed the 'occasional sale', it's illegal.

God forbid that I decide to sell one of my rifles to a friend and not add $30-$50 to the price to run him through a government background check.

[Glocksman]

I've got to leave for work, but based on the voting in CSPAN2 right now, I'd say the bill is dead.

We needed this bill, but I'd rather see it die than deal with the poison pill amendments.

[Glocksman]

The AWB amendment did motivate me to do one thing though.
I ordered 8 spare magazines for my AK.

One of the wholesalers I deal with has a deal for 4 AK 30 round magazines with pouch for $25.

[Nathan F]

The AWB amendment did motivate me to do one thing though.
I ordered 8 spare magazines for my AK.

One of the wholesalers I deal with has a deal for 4 AK 30 round magazines with pouch for $25.

Where at?!

I don't personally have an AK, but at that price...

[Ma Deuce]

46 Senaters voted against closing the "gun show loophole". 46 Senaters need their heads examined.

No, its the 52 senators who voted to renew the AWB that should have their heads examined (to see if anything is in there at all). Fuckers.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Sheesh, those were just amendments to the actual bill, which would have blocked certain liability suits for gun manufacturers.

When the bill was brought to the floor of the Senate for a vote on the entire package, it failed 90-8.

[Ma Deuce]

Sheesh, those were just amendments to the actual bill, which would have blocked certain liability suits for gun manufacturers.

When the bill was brought to the floor of the Senate for a vote on the entire package, it failed 90-8.

Did you read the whole article? The AWB is going to be extended for another 10 years, which is the point of this whole thread .

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Did you read the whole article? The AWB is going to be extended for another 10 years, which is the point of this whole thread .

No it isn't! That was an amendment to the bill that failed! What about the legislative process don't you understand?

[Sea Skimmer]

Did you read the whole article? The AWB is going to be extended for another 10 years, which is the point of this whole thread .

The real question is did you read more then the first paragraph of it? The AWB extension was tacked onto a rather popular piece of legislature, which would shield gun manufactures from bullshit lawsuits. The whole thing was promptly killed when this happened. It is NOT being extended because the altered bill was voted down.

[Rogue 9]

I would note that that particular legislation would shield gun manufacturers and retailers from almost all lawsuits, frivolous or no, unless I read it incorrectly. Stupid legalese.

[Ma Deuce]

Did you read the whole article? The AWB is going to be extended for another 10 years, which is the point of this whole thread .

The real question is did you read more then the first paragraph of it? The AWB extension was tacked onto a rather popular piece of legislature, which would shield gun manufactures from bullshit lawsuits. The whole thing was promptly killed when this happened. It is NOT being extended because the altered bill was voted down.

Okay, I stand corrected . Now please excuse me while I go clean this splattered egg off my face.

[Nathan F]

I would note that that particular legislation would shield gun manufacturers and retailers from almost all lawsuits, frivolous or no, unless I read it incorrectly. Stupid legalese.

It would stop cities and people from suing the gun makers for crimes committed with their firearms, not for defective products, as I understand it. This is to stop the widespread lawsuits that are attempting to drive the gun industry down the hole, an industry that has been part of the American economy for well over 200 years.

[Glocksman]

The AWB amendment did motivate me to do one thing though.
I ordered 8 spare magazines for my AK.

One of the wholesalers I deal with has a deal for 4 AK 30 round magazines with pouch for $25.

Where at?!

I don't personally have an AK, but at that price...

Centerfire Systems

It's right on their front page.

[The Kernel]

I guess I must be the only one who really doesn't give a shit about the AWB.

Why is everyone so up in arms about this? Is there any particular purpose that an assault weapon has for you? I enjoy guns as much as the next person, and I own several, but I see no legitamate need to own assault weapons.

[Vympel]

I guess I must be the only one who really doesn't give a shit about the AWB.

Why is everyone so up in arms about this? Is there any particular purpose that an assault weapon has for you? I enjoy guns as much as the next person, and I own several, but I see no legitamate need to own assault weapons.

You're about to get a lecture on the definition of 'assault weapons' methinks- something I've never really paid attention to myself (I personally don't know what exactly the exact issue is either), because I'm Australian and therefore don't care.

[Glocksman]

True assault weapons are fully automatic and thus tightly regulated under the 1934 National Firearms Act.

What the 1994 'Assault Weapons Ban' banned wasn't assault weapons, but AW look-alikes. For example, a preban AR-15 looks just like a military M16, but is semi auto only. The postban AR is missing the bayonet lug and flash hider which are 'assault weapon features' under the AWB. Everything else on both the preban and postban rifles is the same.

Were drive by bayonetings a problem?
Did someone die because a rifle had a flash supressor?

The AWB is more properly called the 'Soccer Mom weapons ban'.

The other objectionable aspect of the ban is the restriction on standard capacity magazines for any firearm, including those chambered in .22 long rifle.

For example, my Glock 19 came with 15 round magazines when I purchased it back in 1993. However, thanks to the AWB, I cannot purchase new standard capacity magazines. I'm limited to 10 round magazines. Standard capacity mags are available on the used market, but they go for $50-$75 each. Before the 1994 ban, the mags were $15 each.

Now what's the practical reason behind the 10 round limit? Anyone with a little practice can swap magazines out on a pistol or AR type rifle pretty fast.

Hell, I used to (I don't practice near as much any more) be able to empty a 15 round mag, drop the empty, snap another mag in, and empty 15 more rounds out of it into a group the size of my fist at 10 yards in 14-15 seconds. With 10 round magazines, that's only 20 rounds on target in about 12 seconds rather than 30 rounds in 17 seconds.

So just what is this ban supposed to have accomplished in the first place?

[Glocksman]

that's only 20 rounds on target in about 12 seconds rather than 30 rounds in 17 seconds.

Typo:
That should read 'in 15 seconds', not 17 seconds.

[BoredShirtless]

46 Senaters voted against closing the "gun show loophole". 46 Senaters need their heads examined.

Your title fits you.

THERE IS NO 'GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE'!

Yes there is. See below.

Any FFL holder who sells guns at a gun show must comply with the Brady act and run a NICS check on any firearms purchaser.

And if there's an unlicensed person dealing in guns at a gun show, that's already illegal, as it's a crime to deal in firearms without an FFL.

Wrong. From http://www.cdfactioncouncil.org/gunshow%20loophole.htm:

....as the law currently stands, private dealers who are not "engaged in the business" of selling guns for a profit are not required to have a license. Thus, these unlicensed sellers at gun shows are not required to keep a record of sales or to perform Brady background checks on potential buyers.

Comprende? All an unlicensed dealer has to do is tell the authorities that he isn't making money from his sales. And if he doesn't have the receipts from when he bought them, what can the authorities do? Nothing, that's what. That's called a "loophole".

The only thing this amendment does is force sales between private individuals to go through an FFL to conduct the transfer and as I mentioned above, if the person is found to be 'dealing' in firearms as opposed the 'occasional sale', it's illegal.

The authorities can't tell whether some guy at a gun show is selling "occasionally" or "for a profit" without a paper trail. Which means he needs to either be a licensed dealer, or sell through a licensed dealer. Plus, conducting a background check shifts the blame from the seller to the government if the buyer goes berzerk, which is a good thing unless you like the insides of court rooms. Deal with it.

God forbid that I decide to sell one of my rifles to a friend and not add $30-$50 to the price to run him through a government background check.

So sad, too bad.