WASHINGTON, March 2 — The Senate overwhelmingly rejected a proposal today to provide legal immunity to gun manufacturers and dealers after a successful Democratic-led effort to use the measure to renew a ban on assault weapons and require more background checks on buyers at gun shows.

Authors of the immunity bill said the gun-control provisions that had been added in votes earlier in the day made the proposal so objectionable that they could no longer support it. In the end, both Republican opponents of the assault weapons ban and Democratic opponents of the legal immunity provision voted down the entire bill by a lopsided 90-to-8 margin.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/02/politics/02CND-GUNS.html?ex=1078894800&en=af846075e8279d0a&ei=506 2&partner=GOOGLE

Time to go out and load up on hi cap magazines and flash suppressors. I am so happy right now.

Also:

The votes took on added importance as Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, both Democrats, left their presidential campaigns on Super Tuesday to cast their votes for renewing the assault weapons ban.
President Bush has said he favors a renewal of the assault weapons restrictions. But he has also called for the legislation shielding the gun industry to be kept free of additional provisions that could slow its progress through Congress.
I mean yeah, what the hell does it matter? We haven't had a Constitution for a while now anyway.

So weird, I thought that it was passed. I read on cnn.com earlier today that it had been passed, but now the story is replaced with one that says it was not passed. Strange.

Anyway, maybe now I can get that Steyer AUG I wanted from GunsAmerica.com (the honors system gun seller) for six bucks in change like its supposed to cost instead of five thousand. Honestly, to make me pay out the nose in order to be able to defend my home with a hail of gunfire like that... its criminal.

wait, wait, now I see why I was confused. Hehe, silly stokes, the ban WAS renewed! by a vote of 52-47 http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/02/senate.guns/index.html

a different bill was shot down 90-8

EDIT: ok ok, wait, i keep reading this article... Ok, one bill that had the ban renewal in it was shot down, but the same clause was immidiately then added to another bill, so the status of the ban is still up in the air.

Further EDIT: oh man i can not read about senate proceedings if I have skipped lunch. Upon a third interpretation, it does indeed look to me like the ban was not extended and there isn’t currently another vote up to extend it. So see previous post for my reaction to the subject.

In the first of a series of votes on gun issues, the Senate, by a margin of 52 to 47, approved an extension of the 10-year-old ban on military-style assault weapons, handing a defeat to Republican opponents and gun rights groups that had sought to defeat the measure despite its broad support among law enforcement agencies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/02/politics/02CND-GUNS.html?ex=1078894800&en=af846075e8279d0a&ei=506 2&partner=GOOGLE


Ok, this issue has me so fucking confused. What state is the AW ban in right now? I can't distern if the senate voted to extend it or not @.@

I still havn't eaten anything, but I think, i THINK that what happened is early in the day they voted 52 to 47 to put some amendment on some gun related bill that would extend the assault weapons ban, and the Democrats throught that was pretty fun because the bill they attatched it to would let gun manufacturers not get sued when thier products kill people. Then later in the day, when concidering the bill as a whole the senate voted it down, because it was an odd mishmash of pro-and anti-gun proposals.

i was wonding if i ever moved to the states, would I be able to get a M-2 Browning legaly, ofcause it will only be used for home defence, and duck hunting, and the weapon does have a long history.

I also remember reading that it was legal to have weapon mounts in side your car in some states, which leads me to ponder, if i could legaly make a mount for some form of chaingun inside a SUV, ofcause the mount should be able to extend out the care roof or sides, for rabbit/deer hunting and protection from road robers.

p.s. forgot consield weapon, can i run around with a M82A2 under my jacket, with out being stopped every step i take, and how about M18's as garden gnomes.

Ok, this issue has me so fucking confused. What state is the AW ban in right now? I can't distern if the senate voted to extend it or not @.@
It's confusing, but as far as I'm aware, the Senate voted against it because the bill was poorly written.

i was wonding if i ever moved to the states, would I be able to get a M-2 Browning legaly, ofcause it will only be used for home defence, and duck hunting, and the weapon does have a long history.

Yes, believe it or not. In some states you can get permits to own heavy machine guns. Here in Arizona we have a big old expensive shooting club ( http://www.scottsdalegunclub.com/ ) where you can fire a Browning M2 and much more, even mounted from a hummer if you like! The only other state that I know for sure allows this sort of thing is Navada.

I also remember reading that it was legal to have weapon mounts in side your car in some states, which leads me to ponder, if i could legaly make a mount for some form of chaingun inside a SUV, ofcause the mount should be able to extend out the care roof or sides, for rabbit/deer hunting and protection from road robers.

You can own a hummer and a heavy machine gun, what more do you want? I suppose you'd have to talke to GE if you wanted to get yourself a minigun. . . I have no idea what sorts of laws apply to miniguns and the like, but I assume you might be able to get one in certain states. Interestingly enough there are no laws banning flame throwers or rocket launchers. There are, however laws governing certain types of explosives (again on a state to state sort of basis) so you might be able to work something out there.

p.s. forgot consield weapon, can i run around with a M82A2 under my jacket, with out being stopped every step i take, and how about M18's as garden gnomes.

If you can hide an M82 under your jacket then I don't think you need a rifle, sir, no one is going to pick a fight with you, and I'd wager that bullets would bounce right off of your thick hide. I'm not sure about that particular rifle, but looking on the net I've found that many AR-15 enthusiasts are into moding out their rifle to fire a .50 caliber round, so I imagine that sniper rifles of that unconventional caliber are legal at least in a few states.

I'd like to note, however that as impractical as a hand gun may be for self defense, an assault rifle, and certainly a heavy machine gun are vastly more impractical despite their increased killing efficiency.

I know that there are a lot of people who are much more knowledgeable about fire arms than I, so if any of you are reading I've got a question. Not being a tactician myself, I was curious to know what sort of benefit an assault rifle or submachine gun can offer a private citizen in his day to day life, especially along the lines of self defense. Due to negative media coverage I'm afraid that the only real opinion I've heard is that Assault rifles are completely impractical for any legitimate defense purposes, and really only good for starting a problem, not solving one.

hot hot update action: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113046,00.html


The Senate voted 90-8 to defeat the bill that would deny victims the opportunity to sue gunmakers and dealers when their products are used in a crime. The vote followed a 52-47 vote to attach an amendment that would have renewed for 10 years the assault weapons ban (search) set to expire this year.
So what happened, which was exceedingly confusing, was that the Senate approved the AWB for another 10 years. Then, a bunch of other retarded shit got tacked onto it, and the end product was so frivilous and unweildy that it got denied. 90-8 is pretty damn unanimous, and I think it's clear that the Senate just thought the bill itself (rather than what it seeked to accomplish) was worthless.

The end result is that the 1994 AWB has not been renewed yet. :cool:

The AWB itself banned the weapons themselves, and a few accessories like high capacity magazines and such. Bans on imported arms were independent of it, although they were often associated with it because they went through amidst the whole post-Columbine kneejerk frenzy. It was a worthless piece of legislation, simply because the jury's still out on what an "assault weapon" even is. This Senator sums it up pretty well:

Sen. George Allen, in a reversal from his 2000 campaign, said yesterday that he plans to vote against renewal of a federal ban on 19 assault weapons. Allen said that after reviewing the facts and claims by both sides, "I have concluded . . . that this symbolic ban of 19 firearms chosen for cosmetic reasons is a meaningless, toothless law that has virtually no impact on crime."
Other than that though, basically, all the assault weapons ban does is ban guns based for aesthetic reasons. Angular black shapes make soccer moms cry, or something. For instance, whether or not they have a bayonet lug or a grenade launcher (which doesnt matter because grenades are already heavily restricted). The rule is as follows: if a rifle has a detachable magazine and 2 or more of the following features, its an assault weapon:
Bayonet Lug folding or telescoping stock pistol grip Flash supressor or threaded barrel (note that silencers are already heavily regulated / restricted) Grenade Launcher
Then there are some rules for pistols that deal with unloaded weight, whether or not the magazine attaches outside the handgrip (like on a mauser broomhandle) and threaded barrels.

While I'm opposed to do-nothing feel good laws in general, unintended consequences are a bitch. The law, by itself, does nothing. However, in trying to come up with a definition of 'assault weapons', the people behind such legislation (who wouldn't know a breech from a muzzle) often wind up banning relatively innocuous firearms like Hammerli pistols, T/C contenders, flintlock muskets, and boating flare guns.

"Assault weapon". Isn't that the same as saying "cutting blade" or "wet water" or "stinky bullshit"?

"Assault weapon". Isn't that the same as saying "cutting blade" or "wet water" or "stinky bullshit"?
It's not even that accurate. It's been my experience that people who actually refer to something like a Colt M4 as an "assault" weapon have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, and just want to criminalize the weapon itself.

It's not even that accurate. It's been my experience that people who actually refer to something like a Colt M4 as an "assault" weapon have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, and just want to criminalize the weapon itself.


I believe that an attempt at defining “Assault weapons” is generaly a shameless attempt to help remove all of those guns which were designed specifically for engaging multiple armed people as fast, accurately, or stealthily as possible. This would certainly explain the ban on high-capacity magazines, which certainly make it much easier to kill more people, fully automatic fire, which certainly makes it easier to down a target being that with a single pull of the trigger you generally get three rounds or more into them all at once; also things like flash hides and silencers which makes it a bit harder to detect you. I suppose the philosophy (silly as this may be) is that these sort of purely aesthetic accessories actually do provide some strategic benefit in the pursuit of killing several people in a single engagement, and serve no other purpose than that. I know it seems pretty ridiculous, frankly I don’t know where the idea came from, but every military in the world sure seems hung up on the idea, as well.

Another thing that bugs me is the police. Hey, don’t get me wrong, I love law and order, but I’ve heard that every single police organization in the nation is for the AWB and it’s extenuation. I guess they’re just being selfish about the whole thing, really, if a criminal is going to be shooting at them I suppose they’d rather it be with a low capacity magazine handgun that gives them away right when they fire it, rather than a hale of 7.62x39 rounds fired from an AK-47 which their body armor couldn’t possibly hope to stop. If they looked at it differently, though, and realized that if all citizens in the US were allowed to own such weapons then crime itself would decrease because any citizen would be able to help them out by engaging in long and dangerous fire-fights with angry criminals using their own assault rifles. That’s what I call being a good citizen!

Furthermore it’s absurd to think that criminals won’t be able to get ahold of banned “assault weapons”. After all, they are criminals, right? They’ll probably just steal them! I’m pretty sure that the average gang-banging mexicano homie in the inner city would find it just as easy to get his own full auto Mac11 submachine gun through shady smuggling deals as buying it nice and legally from the gun-shop down the street. Yes, technically the use of these banned “assault weapons” has gone down drastically in the past ten years since the AWB was put into effect, but really what does that fact say when you think about it?

Another thing that bugs me is the police. Hey, don’t get me wrong, I love law and order, but I’ve heard that every single police organization in the nation is for the AWB and it’s extenuation.
Back in 1994, in Hollywood, there was that incredible shootout between two armed bank robbers carrying...guess what...perfectly legal "assault" weapons (semi automatic) and underarmed police officers. The cops were pinned down and utterly outgunned until reinforcements showed up with AR-15s.

AR-15s bought from a local gun shop.

Lucky for them they were still legal for purchase then, and it didn't happen a few years later.

I don't really see the purpose of a Assault weapons ban, A shotgun is alot more dangerous in the hands of a mass murderer than an assault rifle just cause he has to pump it doen't mean he's going to kill less people.
As far as Law Enforcement is concerned the criminals already have pre-AWB weapons and they can still acquire more from over the border. I think Law Enforcement would be just as happy if a law was made requiring "Assault Weapon" owners to have a gun safe so they can properly secure their weapons and make them take a saftey class so the assault weapons owners don't moronically blast themselves when there trying to clean it. A police officer friend of mine (I'm probably going to get flamed for that) just spent half a day filling out a report on accidental discharge. Aparantly old ammo and an even older shotgun is not something to be playing with when your drunk and smoking weed. My friend said the victim(of his own stupidity) looked like spilled spaghetti with extra red sauce.

Where'd They Get Their Guns?
An Analysis of the Firearms Used in High-Profile Shootings, 1963 to 2001

Date: February 28, 1997

Location: North Hollywood, California

Alleged Shooters: Emil Dechebal Matasareanu and Larry Eugene Phillips, Jr.

People Killed: Two (shooters killed by police)

People Injured: 16

Firearm(s): Multiple fully automatic assault rifles including an AK-47 type


Circumstances

On February 28, 1997, Matasareanu and Phillips tried to rob a Bank of America branch office in North Hollywood, California. While trying to escape, the two men engaged in a shootout with police. Though vastly outnumbered, the two men—armed with automatic weapons and wearing body armor—successfully held off law enforcement personnel for hours before being shot and killed by police.


How Firearm(s) Acquired

The weapons were originally bought at a gun show and then illegally resold to Matasareanu and Phillips.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wgun970228.htm

Except for very special circumstances, fully automatic weapons are illegal everywhere in the US.

Here in California, "assault" weapons have been illegal since 1989, thanks to one lone psycho:

Enacted in 1989, the California Legislature's restrictions on assault weapons were the nation's first. Like many public safety laws, this one was rooted in tragedy. Earlier that year, a drifter named Patrick Edward Purdy had returned to his childhood elementary school in Stockton and opened fire, killing five children and wounding 30. Purdy squeezed off more than 100 rounds in one minute before turning the weapon on himself.

http://www.guncite.com/LATimesASW/weapon1a.htm

For me it is more about freedom in general than anything else. I don't have the money for any of these weapons. But I dislike the demonization of a piece of machinery because it looks "evil". And that is really the driving force behind this sort of legislation.

The ignorance about guns here blows my mind. I think this is the bulk of the problem surrounding anti-gun legislation.

First, has anyone done a comprehensive study that proves the Assault Weapons Ban has reduced crime? (I'll answer this one) No, because nobody can prove this.
Also, assault rifles are rarely the choice of the common felon. They are used in only a small fraction of crimes.
Second, Mystech, assault rifles are commonly used for hunting purposes (as silly as this sounds to some of you) in semi-automatic versions. The SKS and AK-47 semi-auto variants both chamber the 7.62X39 which makes for a fine deer round when used at moderate range with soft-point bullets. The AR-15 and it's variants make for a fine varmint (small game) rifle. It's .223 round is highly accurate to 300+ yards. All of the above make for a fine home security system as well. If I were a criminal and saw one of these pointed at me as I tried to break in, I think I would retreat like a Frenchman, and quickly.
Third, no one can legally purchase a Steyer AUG anonymously over the internet,Moose.
Fourth, yes Repo man, in many states a law abiding citizen CAN legally own a full-auto firearm. They must first pass a Federal background check, pay a 200 dollar tax (last I checked), and have their finger prints and photo taken.
Fifth, Mystech, high capacity magazines have not been banned. The manufacture of them in the US has been banned. (only for civilian use) One can still purchase used hi-cap magazines at an albeit high price. And this only applies to handguns.
Sixth, Stokes, I'm pretty sure I'm on your side, but where the hell did you hear about "some rules for pistols that deal with unloaded weight". I think you are mistaken.

Rather than go into the details of the red tape necessary to obtain full auto weapons legally, I just said "Except for very special circumstances, fully automatic weapons are illegal everywhere in the US."
I stand by that statement.

The number of people who are willing to pay the money and allow the invasion of privacy necessary for full auto weapons is very small.
My brother the gun nut has seriously considered getting one, but he told me that you have to allow BATF agents free access to your home. That was too much for him.

The only reason I mentioned them at all was to make sure that Mystech understood that we are not talking about full auto here, which is a common mistake.

Third, no one can legally purchase a Steyer AUG anonymously over the internet,Moose.



http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976353949.htm Gunsamerica, the "honor system" gun classifieds!

Being sold bo "Christian soldier" eh? Man, that sounds like a legitimate seller to me! Hey, but then there's dozens of other people on that site selling AUGs, surely ONE of them is a reputable dealer!

AUGs are expensive little bitches aren't they? Note that this is no ordinary auction site, all they do is match up sellers with buyers and trust you to let them in on a little bit of the money exchanged. I wonder how many of the sellers take cash. Oh, and that's Steyr, sparky.

Mystake,

*yawn*
Again you show your immane ignorance. The site clearly states that one must transfer the guns through a licensed FFL dealer. Being "reputable" is irrelevant. Having a wacky name like "Christian soldier" is irrelevant. Being legal is relevant. It's no different than if I wanted to sell one of my Rugers to my neighbor. I would have to abide by the law and transfer it through an FFL dealer.

Also, “the honors system gun classifieds” refers to ones choice of paying the site a small fee if they help you find a buyer. Don’t try to mislead people. There is enough ignorance regarding guns everywhere already.

Lastly, as a self proclaimed gun expert, I know how to spell Steyr. I was merely spelling it the way your butt buddy Mooseboy spelled it. Sorry, I should have put quotes around it or something when I did this.

First, has anyone done a comprehensive study that proves the Assault Weapons Ban has reduced crime? (I'll answer this one) No, because nobody can prove this.

Except for the National Institute of Justice, which has done a study that proves that the number of crimes involving assault weapons has dropped dramatically. Gun nuts whine and bitch that the report does not also claim that gun related crimes have dropped, but guess what, If im an ATF agent I would far prefer to be assaulted with an 9mm handgun that can be stopped by my body armor, than an assault rifle that will splatter my guts across the back of said armor.

Here is a link to an article about the study, with a downloadable PDF of said study:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=546

And if you are as much of a dope as I think you are, you will protest a link to the brady campaign, so here is a link to awsunset.com an orginization that is just madd as hell about the bradycampaigns smugness in being able to demonstrate that the aw ban is having positive affect.

http://www.awbansunset.com/effects.html



Also, assault rifles are rarely the choice of the common felon. They are used in only a small fraction of crimes.
and even fewer crimes thanks to the law



All of the above make for a fine home security system as well. If I were a criminal and saw one of these pointed at me as I tried to break in, I think I would retreat like a Frenchman, and quickly.

Then tell my pals of the encounter and return to retrieve this penis extension... er, home safety device, for my own criminal needs. Most burglaries are committed when the home owner is not at home (So good luck defending it with your gun) and fire arms are one of the most commonly stolen items in burglaries. A "responsible gun owner" friend of mine had this happen to him just recently in fact.

Blatant ignorance again Moosey! If you were an "ATF agent", and I were a "bad guy" and I wanted to shoot through your bullet proof vest, all I would need is a CZ-52 hand gun and some steel core rounds. This is the most common round available for this gun. Both of these can be purchased together for under 150 dollars.

So, no you can't find any study that proves that the AWB has lowered crime. Ok then.

And BTW, assault rifles can still be legally purchased, just not in certain configurations, not that legality ever stops criminals from obtaining guns. And no, there isn't much armor out there that could stop a .223 or 7.62X39 round, the two most common assault rifle rounds that are used in some of the assault rifles sold just today.

" A "responsible gun owner" friend of mine had this happen to him just recently in fact."

If he is so responsible, why didn't he have his shit locked up? I do, unless I am home.

And BTW, assault rifles can still be legally purchased, just not in certain configurations, not that legality ever stops criminals from obtaining guns.

Well, and I say this emphatically, DUH! Pre-ban weaponry or magazines are, however, now prohibitively expensive due to the lack of new supply. Criminals can no longer get their hands on this stuff for a couple hundred bucks. Its all well and good to theorize that there are ways to kill a body armored police officer with nothing but a handgun, but an informed professional with intent to kill cops, most desperate criminals are not. If I'm going to be shot, I doubt its by an AP bullet.

Also, the folks in the gun culture that I have observed tend to be highly resistant to things like gun locks, or locking up your guns, after all, how are you going to get to it quickly if its locked up? that’s what they tell me anyway.

I believe my "responsible gun owner" friend did indeed have his guns locked up in a lockbox in his closet, but apparently the thieves were armed with sophisticated rubber mallet and chisel technology that somehow baffles many conventional locks.

Using a rubber mallet with a chisel would not even yield good results against even the weakest of locks. Chisels should always be used with a metal hammer. You, Moosey, are indeed the epitome of ignorance. This leads me to believe your whole story about your “gun buddy” is a total load of shit.

Yes, the mallet was indeed my own insinuation, he did however claim that he had his two pistols locked up. But dont wory, after the robery he went out and bought new ones, so his home is still safe from robery...

This flash animation does a good job of summing the AWB: http://www.flashbunny.org/content/assaultweapons.html

You know, in case things like the Bill of Rights aren't important enough already.

This flash animation does a good job of summing the AWB: http://www.flashbunny.org/content/assaultweapons.html

Haha the end of that flash animation is hilarious. Contact your congressman, and the president, do it now. . . for the children! Haha, yes, the children who desperately need their AK-47s? I don't get it, I mean I can think of a good few reasons why one should be in favor of letting the AWban die. . . but for the children? That's some fucked up shit right there.

Oh, and one brief word about assault rifles for home defense: No, don't! Two things you don't want in your own home are high velocity rounds, that could puncture flimsy walls (I know they pretty much make 'em outa paper mache around here) and potentially something or someone dear to you, and you sure as hell don't want automatic fire tearing your place up if a few rounds happen to miss their mark. Hell even if you hit your mark, hitting someone with three 7.62 rounds at close range, you're pretty likely to have some of those rounds come out the other end and smash again into stuff you'd rather not shoot under normal circumstances. That's why small caliber’s are used so often for police work, if the idea is to shoot the badguys you don't want a round that is going to refuse to stop once it clears them.

Haha the end of that flash animation is hilarious. Contact your congressman, and the president, do it now. . . for the children! Haha, yes, the children who desperately need their AK-47s? I don't get it, I mean I can think of a good few reasons why one should be in favor of letting the AWban die. . . but for the children? That's some fucked up shit right there.
I think it's tongue in cheek. Poking fun of the demagogues for whom OH WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN has always been a hallmark of their lexicon. I remember back in 93-94 when they were fighting to get this bill pushed through Congress, and "for our children" was honestly on a lot of the pamphlets.

I think it's tongue in cheek. Poking fun of the demagogues for whom OH WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN has always been a hallmark of their lexicon. I remember back in 93-94 when they were fighting to get this bill pushed through Congress, and "for our children" was honestly on a lot of the pamphlets.

well at least that could hold some water.

“That's why small caliber’s are used so often for police work, if the idea is to shoot the bad guys you don't want a round that is going to refuse to stop once it clears them.”

I would hardly call a .45 caliber 230 grain (in comparison, a .55 caliber ball of lead weighs 250 grains) round, small. The police also commonly use .40 caliber rounds, which are sizeable as well. However, these rounds seem to be used less commonly than the .355 caliber(9mm) these days. With modern hollow point defense rounds these rounds usually don’t over penetrate due to their general slow velocity.

“.Two things you don't want in your own home are high velocity rounds, that could puncture flimsy walls (I know they pretty much make 'em outa paper mache around here) and potentially something or someone dear to you”

Frangible ammo.
http://www.mindspring.com/~bad_karma/gaming/WoD/Gunfondlers/mercury_frangible.htm

A few rounds of frangible in you may not kill you, but it would at least have you running an cryin fo yo mamma.

As for over penetrating with other rounds, the same applies as it always does while shooting a firearm, if you don’t know what’s behind the target don’t shoot. Just like in a car, if you drive irresponsibly, you end up crashing, and have to face the consequences. :(

On the topic of home defense, as a firearms safety instructor (part time volunteer) I cannot, in good conscience, recommend anything other than a pistol for home defense. Unless you live in a football stadium, most hallways in most houses aren't wide enough to fit a long arm of legal length through sideways, and that alone is enough to make a shotgun or any type of rifle a poor tactical choice.

As far as rifle rounds penetrating walls that is true, but hardly more than pistol rounds. Domestic construction is rarely impervious to any sort of ballistic damage. While I was in college some housemates and I had a pistol in .22 short that we were firing into a target backed by a thick phone book, and then the wall. Unbeknownst to us the tiny lead slugs were penetrating the phone book, the wall, and entering my room on the other side. When I went to bed that night, I found a few fragments of lead on my pillow and retraced the steps, amazed at our underestimation.

You could use a M4 carbine for home defense with some Hornady TAP or similar ammunition, which is designed to stop short in walls and things. It would also behoove you to do so with a pistol, regardless of caliber. The bottom line is that, ergonomically, pistols are vastly superior to long arms for home defense.