If you could repeal one and one only, either an "Assault Weapons Ban" or some sort of "Approved Firearms Roster", which would it be?
I'm stumped, to be honest. Getting rid of the AWB would mean I could buy new full capacity magazines, put a functioning collapsible stock on my Bushmaster, or buy an under-folding AK clone from any number of locations around the country. It would be grand to not have to constantly worry if a magazine were pre-ban, or if putting a new stock on a rifle would constitute a felony. Just being able to order magazines through the mail would be a huge positive step. Not to mention no longer being limited to neutered magazine choices for new handguns.
But then... Having a much wider variety of handguns to choose from would be nice, too. Not have to search high and low for the exact gun you want; being able to choose from the entire spectrum of handguns available rather than just those that kow-tow to the state... Being able to buy a Glock for $500, new, or a Kel-Tec for under $250. Ruger LCP. Springfield XD. North American Arms. CZs! The list is long and distinguished. On the downside, though, is that I'd be broke inside of a month...
Talk about a Hobson's Choice! Would you rather be limited in magazine capacity and additional features your firearms could have, or in what handguns you can purchase? I know, I know, it's a lot like asking "would you rather be shot in the leg or the arm?" - there's just no good answer. I'm just curious where each respective intrusion on our second Amendment rights falls on other folks' spectrum of needs. I honestly can't say which regulation I'd rather see fall by the wayside, but if pressed I'd say the AWB - not being able to buy a new Glock is annoying, but at least it's not a felony.
So, what say you?
That is all.
20 comments:
Maryland has an approved roster and some sort of AWB. Don't know the exact details but I know that they're there as I have customers in MD.
As far as which one to repeal... both. Never give up, never surrender.
I would tend to agree with you.
For me at least it would be easier to deal with just not being able to have something than have to worry about committing a felony by accidentally adding a "forbidden" part to a weapon that I already have, since I am a inveterate gun tinkerer. Neither law is right, but I can see a bunch more pitfalls in the AWB law.
Ross,
OBVIOUSLY the goal would be to repeal both; hell, I'd like to see VT/AK carry laws combined with a full repeal of the 1934 and 1968 Gun Control acts.
But of the two, if you could choose, which one?
Michael W,
That's what it comes down to for me as well - which one will inconvenience me vs. which one will land my butt in jail...
Get rid of the AWB first. That way, what you & others might currently own would have those restrictions lifted. Then work on doing away with the approved roster.
I'd get rid of neither and move north of the border to NH like I did and get all of that. :) /me pats his Kel Tec.
I'm with Jon B. I moved to NH from NY 21 years ago and don't give either a second thought.
Yeah, but the way NH has been going - no guns in the statehouse rammed through in the middle of the night, frex - I wouldn't get too cocky that "it can't happen here".
Treat it as a purely theoretical exercise, then...
Jay, as a MA resident can you buy a rifle out of state ? Any rifle ?
And with the C&R, once off-list pistols are 50 years old, you can order them directly. You wouldn't be selling so you'd be okay keeping them, correct? Something to think about.... Sitting in the retirement home and the brown truck brings you a Kahr :-)
Would you like to be stabbed in the eye or in the nuts?
What sort of freedom does that decision offer you?
I want to back up and overturn the 1934 gun control act. That was the beginning of this slippery slope we're on.
Besides, I want, really want, a 1928 Thompson.
As a current Kalifornia resident I would pick the AWB without hesitation.
Then again, the hand gun registry doesn't really effect me as much because I've always been more of a "Rifle Geek".
As for ASM826's query...
Definately the eye, but I'll have a knife too.
and ditto on the Thompson though I'd be willing to settle for WWII vintage
Wally,
I can buy any rifle that doesn't run afoul of the assault weapons ban. I can't buy a new AK with an underfolding stock or a new Bushmaster with collapsible stock, frex.
And the very first thing I did when I got my C&R was to order a CZ-52. JUST BECAUSE I COULD.
ASM-826,
Preachin' to the choir on that one. I'd like to see VT/AK style carry laws (read: NONE) with a full repeal of every gun law from '34 on.
What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" don't they get???
Here in CA I'd say AWB first. I'd love to have some USGI 15 round magazines for my M1 Carbines. I also don't plan on buying more pistols anytime soon so the roster tends to affect me less.
That's a great question. Both of these injustices should be rotting in Hell, but if I HAD to choose only one, I'd get rid of the roster. To my mind, staying on the legal side of the AW law in my beloved Clownifornia is much less onerous than private companies being forced to submit their legally marketed products to the state government to grovel and beg for permission to engage in commerce that is perfectly legal in the rest of the country.
Plus, I regard the handgun as politically essential as the last line of defense against tyranny, even more so than the rifle.
Being limited to only those two, I would repeal the AWB first. They both are bad, but inability to put regular magazines and accessories on any gun hurts more than restriction on purchase of some guns, plus at the moment CA roster has a pretty decent list of what's approved.
However, specific to CA, there's a couple of new laws that will hurt a lot more than both AWB and approved roster combined:
First, there's the "microstamping", which makes it illegal to sell any semi-auto pistol made after 1/1/2010, unless it has microstamping (at the moment - no such pistol exists)
And second - "ammo law", which starting Feb 2011 will require a fingerprint on purchase of handgun ammunition, and will make ammunition purchase over internet illegal. Bye-bye cheap bulk ammo.
As bad as the AWB and roster are, they are nothing, compared to these two.
I'd approach from a different perspective than "what currently personally inconveniences me" - I'd say, rather, which one is more likely, by its repeal, to effect a repeal against the other?
If you could repeal the "approved firearms roster" under free trade and commerce, would that provide enough support from new folks buying guns and then wanting to diversify to repeal the AWB? Or if the AWB were repealed as redundant - given the weapons would not be added to the approved firearms roster... would that provide any extra support to revealing the roster itself?
The AWB. There are lots of guns you can get that CAN accept high-cap magazines in Mass, so it would benefit that side, Plus they make those rifles in that configuration for a reason, to fuck with it is wrong!
Also there are several ways to get a non-compliant handgun in Mass, they're not easy or common, but in the end, there are people with Springfield 1911s, or XDs or various Taurus handguns, ect, and its not a crime if they got the gun through a legal channel. Meanwhile it is a crime to simply posses an Assault Rifle or post-ban magazine, so there is no way around that law.
Still after reading your post about the PM9 being sold in Mass only with the manual safety, I'm with Ross, BOTH!
Strictly speaking, JayG, that kind of dilemma is actually a "Morton's Fork". Hobson's Choice is more of a "take it or leave it" situation, wherein you only have one option, and your choice is either to do something or nothing.
[/pedantry]
Sorry. Watched too much Early Edition as a child.
However, as to the question at hand, the AWB. Yeah, the registered list is a pain in the ass, but I think I would be more interested in being able to procure regular-capacity magazines for the guns I have first, before we started delving into the realm of new and exciting guns. That, and I tend more towards rifles than not these days, so flash suppressors and ergonomics are good things :).
Couldn't an approved firearms roster be used to effect an AWB? Just take all AKs and ARs off the approved list and done?
If so, then definitely get rid of the approval machinery first.
In MA (and CA to the best of my knowledge), the "Approved" roster deals with handguns only.
The "Assault Weapons Ban" deals with rifles, so it's mostly a rifle/handgun split. The AWB also deals with magazine capacity, though, so it affects both.
Couldn't an approved firearms roster be used to effect an AWB? Just take all AKs and ARs off the approved list and done?
That's kind of the way it was originally implemented in CA, but didn't work out too well for the gun-banners. There was a long set of legal battles:
At first, there was a list of "prohibited" rifles, and every manufacturer and their aunt started making basically same rifles under different names.
Then there was SB23, which added ban by feature (pistol grip, etc), and every manufacturer and this time their uncle started offering models without "offending" features.
Then there was Kasler v. Lockyer, that basically said that the AR and AK series ban applied to all "similar" weapons.
Then there was Harrott v. County of Kings that basically said that "similar" is a vague term that doesn't mean anything, and that to ban a weapon you have to have both its make and model explicitly listed. It didn't overturn the ban by feature though.
So, now we have a ban both by list and by feature, but the process to add a new weapon to the list is pretty complex, and has to be both by make and model. There hasn't been an addition to the list in years. They now seem content to ban just by feature.
Post a Comment