Could they have gotten their AR-15 had the 1994 assault weapons ban still been in effect?

[brewens]

That's a bit of research I haven't seen. Maybe it's been looked at and I missed it.

Of course including any of the similar weapons one of these shooters, school or otherwise may have used.

If they used some other type gun that would have been legal under the ban, everyone would have at least had a better chance. It could be they wouldn't even do it if they didn't have their badassed assault rifle.

[quartz007]

1. How many AR-15's are out there already?

I do not remember for sure but I think AR-15's were banned when Columbine massacre took place.

We need much stricter gun laws, but that is a very long range solution. In the meanwhile millions of school kids are sitting ducks for mentally deficient people with guns. We can't wait for long range solutions. Needed immediately is one armed guard for each 1000 student size, at a minimum.

[Hoyt]

3. Guards are better than arming teachers. Might as well start banning these type weapons even if it

takes decades to produce results. Every year we wait to do anything, puts another 10 million guns on the streets that we'll have to deal with sooner or later.

Also, folks keep talking about "banning" production. We need to prohibit ownership of these type weapons. My understand is that is what AG Sessions is working on with respect to bump-stocks.

You have a prohibited rifle, you get fined, possibly imprisoned, and it should be a felony where they can take all your guns.

[quartz007]

18. Banning alone will not solve the problem

Crack cocaine is banned
Prostitution is banned
Murders are banned
Whiskey was banned in 1920's, and that made
Al Capone very rich.

Banning alone has not stopped anything.

What is really needed is stiff prison sentences
for possession of prohibited items.

So, ban all assault rifles and mandate 20 year prison
for possessing, and you will see a difference.

[Hoyt]

24. Agree. I think most gunners will turn them in if they lose rights to own any guns, including

six shooters. I’m good with 20 years, maybe after one conviction, loss of gun owning privileges, big fines, some jail time, etc.

But, you are right, banning most guns, particularly semi-auto, is not enough. But, it’s a big part of the resolution.

[Abnredleg]

6. AR-15s style weapons were never banned

And millions were sold during the existence of the AWB. That’s why it was allowed to die - everyone perceived it to be worthless.

[pnwmom]

9. No, the law did ban a number of AR-15 type weapons.

And "everyone" did not perceive it to be worthless. The problem was that Bush was President in 2004 and the GOP refused to renew the law.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ar-15-semi-automatic-history-why-used-mass-shootings-2018-2#but-us-civilians-rarely-purchased-semi-automatic-weapons-until-the-1989-school-shooting-in-stockton-california-which-killed-five-people-and-wounded-29-more-4

In 1994, Congress passed the federal assault weapons ban, which lasted for 10 years and included a number of AR-15 models.

The 1994 assault weapons ban, however, was complicated. It banned 18 kinds of firearms, such as certain AK-47 and AR-15 models, but it didn't ban all semiautomatic weapons.

[X_Digger]

12. No, it banned certain features. One could take a potentially banned item.. and make it not.

Grind down the bayonet log. Pin the flash hider. Pin the collapsible stock. Put a thumbhole stock on. Et voila, compliance achieved.

[Hoyt]

25. And gunners did that to circumvent intent of legislation. Need to make sure gunners

can’t do that next time. We need to quit coddling gun addicts.

[X_Digger]

31. You mean they complied with the law? Fancy that.

Laws don't run on intent. Only someone ignorant of how laws work would suggest that.

[Hoyt]

36. No they circumvented the intent of the law. Yes, many laws are interpreted on "intent."

[Flaksie845]

38. No, not really, that's not a normal way to interpret laws.

The actual written text of a law is how it is the primary thing that determines how it is interpreted. If a law states that a "Sports Car" is defined as a "Red vehicle that can reach speed of more than 130mph", then a judge will use that definition, even if it leads to odd conclusions like "a blue Bugatti Veyron is not a sports car". It is not normal practice to interpret a clearly written statute as something other than what is clearly written, even if the results seem a bit off.

[Straw Man]

47. So what was the "intent" of the law?

Please be specific.

[X_Digger]

59. No, they complied with the law. There's no 'sorta, kinda' in following the law.

Going at 56 miles per hour is not following the 'intent' of the speed limit.

[Hoyt]

66. Appreciate your gunner's opinion on the matter.

[X_Digger]

67. So Hoyt, is going 54 miles an hour ignoring the 'intent' of speed limits?

Do tell.

How low must one go before they're not ignoring the 'intent'?

[Hoyt]

71. Honestly, XDigger, with all the guns you have and the time you spend with them, I think

you are well aware of the types of guns which are a problem for society. That was the intent of the AWB.

Then, millions of gun profiteers and white wing gunners like these started looking for ways around it, including voting in white wing legislators.

[X_Digger]

72. So, no answer? That's what I'd expect from a former robber..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

As a former robber, I locked the door to keep people out, especially police.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

73. I'm rather sure that "circumventing the intent of the legislator writing the law"...

...means that the legislator in question wrote poorly.

IMHO laws a meant to be used by the courts as criteria upon which to fix guilt in criminal trials. This is serious. You don't just slap your forehead and say, "Oops I screwed up. What I meant was..."

When Leonard Tose needed a lot of write offs to which didn't actually cost money because he blew off way too much on gambling because he stupid, he did what any red-blooded (1%er) American would do. He found a loophole. Since he owned the Eagles, his accountants depreciated his players and took the tax deduction for it. The following year the IRS closed that loophole by disallowing the depreciation of humans.

I could go on but rules are rules not a nexus for, "Oh wait, this is what I really meant..."

[spin]

80. Gun manufacturers simply removed the objectionable cosmetic items from ...

their products and continued to sell them.

Before the first Assault Weapons Ban passed few shooters had any real interest in AR-15 style rifles. They were considered to be underpowered, inaccurate and prone to malfunction.

At the range I was at a few shooters became curious enough to buy an AR-15 style rifle and see what all the fuss was about. They reported back that the weapon was quite accurate and reliable. As the weapon gained in popularity a number of companies started to make aftermarket parts for the AR-15 that didn’t require a gunsmith to install. Soon it became known by shooters as the Swiss Army Knife of rifles. The fact that it is so easy to modify is one of the main reasons it is so popular.

The AR-15 is used for competitive target shooting and also for hunting. It is a great firearm to use while hunting feral hogs which do considerable damage to the environment as they are an invasive species. When prepared correctly the meat from a wild hog can be very tasty. AR-15s have been used for deer hunting but many hunters view it as underpowered. However the weapon can be easily modified to shoot a more powerful round by the owner.

In passing I have never owned an AR-15 as I am not interested in competitive target shooting or hunting. I live in a small town so I would be hesitant to use an AR-15 for home defense as it might endanger my neighbors. If I do move to a rural area and find feral hogs tearing up my property I might consider buying one to eliminate these pests.

It is truly unfortunate that all the media publicity and the fact that the AR-15 is a common weapon in violent video games has convinced people with serious mental issues to obtain one to commit a mass murder. Banning the manufacture and sale of these firearms or even confiscation would not eliminate mass shootings. The shooter who killed 32 people and wounded 17 others in the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre used two semiautomatic pistols. Still it seems obvious to me that we need to improve our gun laws and our mental healthcare system as well as provide adequate, well trained security at places such as schools where large numbers of people gather.

It could be argued that we need gun laws similar to those in the UK. Even if such legislation could pass in Congress it will likely not happen overnight and perhaps not for a decade or two. In the meantime it makes sense to me to try other measures that can be easily implemented now. Our schools need to be safe places for our children. That should always be our first priority.

[flotsam]

56. They certainly were banned along with AK47s-see link below

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

[X_Digger]

61. No, it banned certain features. One could take a potentially banned item.. and make it not.

Search for 'ban compliant AR-15'.



This gun was ban compliant because it only had one feature- a pistol grip.



This rifle has zero 'features'.

[apnu]

40. They are everywhere and easy to acquire.

Here is on crime scene photo of Stephen Paddock's room in Las Vegas



There were 24 weapons recovered from Paddock's room at the Mandalay Bay Hotel.

https://www.ktnv.com/news/las-vegas-shooting/list-guns-and-evidence-from-las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock

[tirebiter]

2. AR 15 seems to fit the definition of banned weapons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud. Some firearms are specified by name.

The pistol grip and the clip capacity seem to have a romantic appeal for those who like to shoot a lot of people. The M1 carbine has most of the features in the Assault weapons ban but the lack of that pistol grip seems to make it a non starter

[Abnredleg]

5. Lawmakers are getting better at drafting legislation

that avoid the huge loopholes that were in the 1994 AWB.

[pnwmom]

10. Right. Most AR-15 style weapons were banned under the law.

[hack89]

39. No. The Sandy Hook shooters rifle was legal during the AWB

just like it was under CT's even stricter AWB.

[pnwmom]

41. So? I don't know about that particular rifle, but MOST AR-15 style weapons were banned --

unless they were manufactured before 1994. Also, magazines with more than 10 bullets (his had 30) were also banned unless they were manufactured before 1994.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/?utm_term=.626e2931c7b5

[hack89]

42. It was an AR-15

This is what it looks like:

A Bushmaster XM15-E2S was used during the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_XM-15

All the gun manufacturers had to do was remove the illegal features and rename the guns - that is how the Colt AR-15 became the Colt Targetmaster for example.

[flotsam]

57. Possession was grandfathered

"The Act included a "grandfather clause" that allowed for the possession and transfer of weapons and ammunition that "were otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of enactment". Wiki

[X_Digger]

63. New ones were created that didn't meet the definition of an 'assault weapon'.

Read your own link that you posted.

[hack89]

69. No. Google AWB compliant rifles

AR-15 production spiked two years into the supposeded “ban”.

[X_Digger]

13. So dealers removed the 'features' and made them 'ban compliant'. n/t

[tirebiter]

23. yeah but they didn't sell so well without those pistol grips-go figure

The point is to lower the casualty numbers and during the 10 year ban those numbers did go down. After the sunset of that ban the casualty numbers doubled in the next 10 years. By those standards I call the ban a success.

[X_Digger]

30. See my post below- they sold better during the ban than before. n/t

[pnwmom]

43. Mass shootings went down and have increased again since the ban expired. nt

[X_Digger]

60. Attaching statistical significance to a rare event with wide variation is not sound math.

There were more mass shootings during the ban than before. Does that mean the ban caused them? No, of course not.

I've got a couple books on statistics that I can recommend if you'd like to educate yourself on the subject.

[pnwmom]

64. That isn't true. There were fewer mass shootings during the ban than before or afterwards. n/t

[X_Digger]

65. It's quite true. Check Mother Jones' database of mass shootings.

It's only true if you only count two years pre- and post- ban. If you expand the range, there were more during than before.

Statistics- you can either manipulate them and pretend they say what you want, or you can educate yourself.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

55. George Tirebiter, is that you?

It seems that most "ban-era" ARs had pistol grip and detachable magazine. They usually lacked flash spreader and bayonet mount, which were pretty much useless features anyway. These guns had the same "power" as any modern AR.

The M1 Carbine is strange sort of hybrid rifle, with pistol-strength (low-power) bullets, so not popular except maybe to collectors. I've never heard of anyone using one for hunting.

[Abnredleg]

4. Yes

Connecticut has an AWB based on the Federal law that is still in effect. The Bushmaster used in the Sandy Hook murders was legal under the Connecticut law, and would have been legal under the 1994 AWB. The 1994 law did not to stop the sale of AR-15 style weapons because it was so poorly drafted that gunmakers easily worked around it.

[Chuuku Davis]

8. So just ban

and confiscate all semiautomatic weapons

[GulfCoast66]

19. I am a big fan of gun control

But your suggestion is a nonstarter.

Almost all waterfowl hunters use auto loader shotguns. Which hold exactly 3 rounds.

To create effective gun regulations someone has to actually understand the mechanics.

And before you write me off as a gunner, I favor limiting all center fired rifles to a limit of a 6-8 round magazine. And make resale of existing magazines above that a felony unless to the government which would allocate funds to buy them back. And would like the same for handguns but like NY learned, 10 rounds might be the limit courts would allow.

[quartz007]

20. They can't even find the 10 most wanted

but you think they can find millions of assault guns in order to confiscate?

[Adrahil]

7. Short answer: yes.

The 94 AWB largely focused on cosmetic features. The only really functional features the 94 ban addressed were the pistol grip, which makes the rifle more comfortable to shoot, and the magazine capacity. Of those two, the magazine ban was probably the most effective.

Arms companies typically xhanged their weapons to be ban compliant, and renamed them. For example, Colt produced a ban compliant AR-15 that they called the Match Target rifle (and indeed, it was pipular as a competitin target rifle). But all the offending parts were available aftermarket. Although illegal to do so, some folks did mod their rifles after purchase to be close to the pre-ban configuration. And some “ban features” were considered gimmes... no one cared about a bayonet lug. And lots of people were fine with a pinned-in-place muzzle break instead of a flash hider.

The magazine ban was more effective. People were allowed to keep “pre-ban” magazines or even purchase them, and some companies made a LOT of them before the ban went into place. Even so, bu the time the ban was lifted, the price of one 30 round magazine was about $50, so it was having an effect.

[X_Digger]

11. Yes. It would have had a pinned stock, and had the bayonet lug ground down.

There were more AR-15 type rifles sold *during* the "ban" than before. (per President Clinton's DOJ report.)

[pnwmom]

14. Why did you post a graph, trending down, that ended three years before the law expired?

[X_Digger]

15. Because those who wanted them were able to acquire them? Add the numbers to the left v the right.

You'll see that all the "ban" did was make them more popular.

Those numbers have only gone up since then. There's also the dot bomb downturn from '99-'00, a lot of people lost their disposable income during that point.

I expect you'd see a similar drop in '07-'08.

[pnwmom]

16. If the numbers have only gone up since the ban ended, that would suggest the ban helped. n/t

[X_Digger]

17. The ban helped make them popular. Compare 1989 to 1999.

What part of "there were more sold during the ban than before" don't you get?

[quartz007]

21. Yap, ganja is cool because it is banned!

[aikoaiko]

22. Yes. I bought my first new AR15 legally during the ban.

It didn't have a flash suppressor or bayonet lug. Neither of these features would have impacted any recent massacres.

I bought second-hand 30-round magazines for $30 that should have cost $10.

[brewens]

29. Did you get that magazine conveniently, just like buying a stock AR with one now?

If it was that easy, then I see why they let the ban expire.

[aikoaiko]

62. They were always available at every gun show and online, but for higher prices.

Glock mags with a capacity of 10+ were very high priced because the pistols' popularity really took off in the 1990s before many civilians had purchased 10+ mags for Glocks. THere was a limited supply.

It wasn't unusual to see 32 round Glock 9mm magazines to sell for $100-125.

The 1994-2004 AWB did not do what many people wanted it to do.

[Canoe52]

26. Who cares, for the greater good of society and the value of individual lives, ban all guns.

[EX500rider]

46. You mean banned like in Jamaica or Mexico where they have 4 to 10x's the homicides?

No thanks. Only law abiding people would turn them in and homicides would climb as gangs and muggers and home invaders had nothing to fear.

[Canoe52]

48. Wow, first time Ive heard that argument on this side of the aisle!

Somebody has been hitting the vodka early, me thinks.

[EX500rider]

49. Nothing untrue about it.

Jamaica bans firearms and has 10 times the homicide rate of the US.

Banning US firearms will cause none of the criminals to hand in their weapons but they will certainly have less to fear from a dis-armed populace.

Which part is not true?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[Canoe52]

50. Nothing, you win the argument! Ding ding ding, give that person a Kewpie Doll!

[EX500rider]

54. Awesome rebuttal....I'd want my debate club money back.

But of course what else could you say?

Jamaica
When Jamaica gained independence in 1962, the murder rate was 3.9 per 100,000 inhabitants, one of the lowest in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Jamaica

Jamaica outlaws guns in 1974.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Jamaica
By 2005, Jamaica had a murder rate of 58 per 100,000 people. That year, Jamaica had the highest murder rate in the world.

US Criminals
Criminals are already prohibited from owning firearms so make them illegal won't cause them to have any less.
Criminals are currently worried about being shot while breaking & entering, or car jacking or mugging etc.
Dis-arm US populace, criminals worry less or more about being shot while committing crimes?

[Canoe52]

58. Dont stop now! But I want a cut of what you are making off this.

[EX500rider]

77. I don't make anything pointing out obvious facts..

...I have noticed your rebuttals have been quite fact free though.

[PaulX2]

27. Keep Your Assault Rifles - You Just Can't Take Them Out Of Your House

And need to replace all your magazines with 6 round magazines or go to prison if caught with a high capacity.

The government will replace your 50 / 100 round drum with a 6 round magazine for free.

All magazines country wide 6 rounds.

Downgrade for free.

Background checks for every single gun sale, and the buyer must have a gun owner license or else prison for seller and buyer.

Not that hard to make a big dent in gun deaths.

[Lee-Lee]

35. How do you think that will make a dent in gun deaths?

You an have this, but can’t take it out of your home....

Ok, so are you saying that someone intent on murder would suddenly decide not to because on the way to murder they would violate another law? Really?

And 6 round magazines? Most gun murders in the US are just a couple shots. The few intent on mass-murder will obtain larger magazines anyway because these days you can make your own with a 3d printer.

Your supposed “solutions” wouldn’t stop a single person intent on murder. Not the common crime that accounts for 99% of gun homicides and not the cases of mass murder either.

[PaulX2]

28. The Vegas Shooter Would Pass All Background Checks - Period

Military weapons should not be available for purchase anywhere.

Period.

You can keep yours, but you can't take it outside.

Go ahead and defend your home.

Don't kill 20 kids because you had a bad day, or a fight with your wife / parents.

[quartz007]

44. The Parkland shooter had his AR-15 at home!

That did not stop him from bringing it to the school in a Uber taxi!

Nope, only thing which will work immediately is armed guards at every school INSIDE the building.

Longer range, ban all assault guns and impose mandatory prison time for possession. Without ma ndatory prison, banning alone will be ineffective.

Crack cocaine is banned.
Murder is banned.
Rape is banned.

But there is no shortage of any of above banned items.
Because punishment is not severe enough.

[Nevernose]

52. Or kill yourself, for that matter

Suicides are half of gun deaths, and we know from many methodologies and examples that people without guns usually don't just find another way to do it.

We talk around the issue of guns and suicides and pretend like "oh, well, can't be helped" when in reality it's a serious issue that's also addressable. We can't solve the problem or eliminate it, but there are steps we can take to seriously lessen it.

[EX500rider]

78. "that people without guns usually don't just find another way to do it."

Then how does Japan have a higher suicide rate the the US?

[Demsrule86]

32. No they couldn't.

It would have been banned.

[Lee-Lee]

34. Totally wrong. See my response below.

[Lee-Lee]

33. Yes. People who say otherwise dont understand the law

All the 1994 AWB did was ban certain models of rifle by name- do makers changed names- and tried to ban so called “assault weapons” by making a list of features and saying if you had more than X number of features it’s banned.

So you could still buy guns made before the ban that were labeled pre-ban. Same for magazines.

Those “pre-ban” guns and magazines fetched a slight premium in price.

But you could still buy AR style rifles. They still worked the same. You just couldn’t have the bayonet lug on it, you couldn’t have a threaded barrel with a flash hider, and you couldn’t have the collapsible/adjustable stock that made it a few icees shorter it longer.

That’s it. It fired the same. It took the same magazines. It worked exactly the same.

I got my first AR during the ban when I was a deputy. I had the option of getting a ban-compliant one or since I was LE getting one with the “evil” features. Since I wanted to keep it if I left the job I got a compliant one and I carried it instead of a shotgun as my long gun on duty.

Magazines, you could still buy all the 10rf mags you wanted, and word is that is was was used at Parkland anyway because they were all he could hide on is bag the others were too big, so despite the hype magazine size really isn’t a factor in shootings like this. And one big change from the 1994 banners to today is that back then you couldn’t easily make your own magazine. Now with the advent of 3d printing anyone with a $300 3d printer from Costco can make a magazine. So for all intents and purposes a ban on magazines at this point is literally a waste of time because anyone can circumvent it.

[Demsrule86]

45. Under the assault weapon ban specific guns including the AR- 15 were banned... now

gun manufacturers played fast a loose and circumvented the ban...but we can write a better bill this time...we know their tricks. Specific guns were banned by name in the bill.

Now the AR 15 was adapted by the military and used in Vietnam-called it the M16 . Now the original AR -15 you have to press the trigger each time but add a bump stock which uses the recoil and it is basically the same thing. You can kill many people in a short amount of time.

In Sandy Hook it was used to mowed down little kids andi it does such terrible damage that those kids needed to be identified by DNA and teeth if there were any left. The AR-15 has a high muzzle velocity, and a 223 round, if it hits bone it produces a horrifying ricochet through the body. It was designed as a weapon of war to kill the maximum amount of people in the shortest amount of time. No civilian should have one period.

[Flaksie845]

37. From this lawyer's perspective: ABSOLUTELY

The 1994 AWB restricted weapons by either name or by a features list. The named list restricted "any of the [named] firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber". The "Colt AR-15" was a named weapon, BUT, under the final interpretation of the legal text (I don't know who actually made that determination), merely changing a weapon's name from "Colt AR-15" and changing the weapon enough so that it met the "features test" was sufficient to make the weapon not an "assault weapon". If you walked into a gun store in the 1990s, and wondered how the "Colt AR-15" was an illegal assault weapon and yet there could still be racks of guns that looked almost exactly like AR-15s, down to fully interchangeable parts, that was what happened. This was like making it illegal to buy or possess "heroin", but interpreting the law so narrowly that it would be legal to sell the exact same substance under the name of "schmeroin".

As far as the "features test", an "assault weapon" was defined as a semiautomatic rifle that could accept a detachable magazine AND had at LEAST two of the following features:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to
accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher

I believe that original, preban AR-15s had a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, possibly a threaded barrel, and a bayonet mount. Typically manufacturers, after changing the name of course, would remove the flash suppressor and replace it with a muzzle brake or just leave a smooth barrel. The bayonet mount was also disposed of, not that bayonettings were ever really a thing. The small changes meant that the resulting weapon was also not technically a true "duplicate" of the original AR-15, though the weapon fired the same ammunition, from the same magazines, usually had some or ALL of its internal parts fully interchangeable with original AR-15s, and was visually virtually identical. If the manufacturer had put a muzzle brake on the weapon, the only visual change would be the loss of the bayonet lug and a change in the configuration of the holes in the little cage device on the barrel tip, a difference that only a trained gunsmith would probably be able to visually notice.

Edit: As you can see in X-Digger's post #11, one of the gross/comical ironies of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban was that AR-15s increased in popularity and sales DURING the ban. You can even see in the graph a dip in production right after the ban passed, followed a steep uptick in production as manufacturers realized that the sheer extent of the loophole meant that they could sell XM-15s, LAR-15s, and all sorts of other weapons quite literally built using the manufacturing specifications for the Colt AR-15.

Edit2: It does kind of amaze me that seemingly no pro gun control person ever went into a gun store in the late 1990s and asked "Why are they still selling AR-15s here?" This was not a secret loophole. I was living in a fairly blue state at the time and remembered gun stores during that era nakedly selling racks of "ban-compliant" or "post-ban" weapons.

[DBoon]

51. You heroin analogy is very good

You can ban a substance, and clever chemists would make a "ban compliant" mind altering substance with similar properties

[Adrahil]

53. This why technical knowledge of guns is not esoteric bullshit.

Also, its not like it would been hard to introduce new design that was ban compliant and still very deadly.

[gopiscrap]

75. welcome to DU

[rickford66]

68. If grenades were legal, the NRA would say well you could still kill with an AR15 instead

[GaryCnf]

70. "Their" "AR-15"

Absolutely

The ban was drafted by either idiots or people looking to score political points by passing a bill that (1) had no adverse impact on anyone who was familiar with the AR platform (hence no political backlash strong enough to actually cost them on election day); and, (2) sounded good to people who weren't (hence a political benefit from people who thought the bill actually accomplished something.) Not to be overly cynical, but I suspect it is some people's current support for the backers of the AWB who still remain in Congress that we see so many replies claiming otherwise.

That being said, the task of drafting a weapons ban that would both decrease the likelihood of that number of victims during future random mass shootings would be as large as the numbers from pre-ban shooting and not saddle taxpayers with a massive bill to cover the reimbursements to existing owners who had their weapons taken under the Takings Clause of the Constitution is much easier than our DU AR fans want you to know.

Step 1: Ban the manufacture and importation of (1) any weapon capable of accepting a detachable magazine; (2) any weapon with a fixed magazine with a capacity greater than 5 rounds; and, (3) all so-called "speed loading" cartridge holders.

Step 2: Require anyone currently in possession of a detachable magazine to either plug the magazine to limit its capacity to 3 rounds (just like they ALREADY DO for shotguns used to hunt waterfowl). Because there would be no physical taking of anyone's property, a "taking" for constitutional purposes would require a showing that limiting the capacity of the magazine had significantly impaired the value of the magazine. Since there is zero real tangible value to filling high capacity magazines to the top and limiting one's capacity to mow down 27 school kids is not a constitutionally-protected activity, the three round limit would cost us as taxpayers nothing.

Easy

[Kaleva]

74. The AWB banned the name "AR-15" but not the gun itself.

Gun manufacturers easily got around the AWB by making a few cosmetic changes and giving it new names, such as the the "Colt Sporter".

Below is a Colt Sporter, an assault weapon which was legal to buy new when the AWB was in effect:

[gopiscrap]

76. probably not

[AncientGeezer]

79. Yes...the rifle was legal..cosmetics were made illegal