View Full Version : AWB2 and Upgrade Sequence
Hey guys,
First off - I really appreciate this community. Lots of good info, little to no trashtalk, and very free with the information.
My 6721 is on layaway through the holidays, I expect to pick it up mid January or so.
I've been looking at things I want to upgrade and so far I've decided on Grip. Stock, Rail and Optics.
I also read up on some info on the first AWB and am concerned about being able to purchase these upgrades in the eventuality of an AWB2. I know most of this is speculation, but my question is:
Will I be able to purchase peripherals such as pistol grips, collapsible stocks and Law Enforcement/Military Only Optics if such a ban is passed?
Sub Question: Should I let these concerns drive the sequence of my purchases in relation to non-AWB related upgrades (eg Rails)?
Any and all info welcome.
Thanks again.
If you're that worried about a potential ban, I'd be worrying about getting a decent supply of quality mags and ammo to go with the rifle and not be worrying about a new stock, rail or grip at this point. No one knows what a possible future ban will consist of but it is going to be very doubtful it will ban accessories for your "assault rifle" you already have.
LibertyCola
11-25-08, 00:06
Buy mags and lowers, assuming it is similar to the last ban but that is an unknown at this point.
Don't worry about a future ban. None of us know what it will look like but rest assured it will be more restrictive then the first. Buy what you want in the configuration that you want.
RogerinTPA
11-25-08, 10:04
Totally agree with your statement. Qaulity Mags & Ammo should be the first priority.
If you're that worried about a potential ban, I'd be worrying about getting a decent supply of quality mags and ammo to go with the rifle and not be worrying about a new stock, rail or grip at this point. No one knows what a possible future ban will consist of but it is going to be very doubtful it will ban accessories for your "assault rifle" you already have.
It won't make any difference, the next AWB will not have a grandfather clause, so you will not be able to keep what you have currently.
It won't make any difference, the next AWB will not have a grandfather clause, so you will not be able to keep what you have currently.
There's a competition to see who will have the most stuff to turn in. That's the only sense I can make of it.
Gutshot John
11-25-08, 13:08
It won't make any difference, the next AWB will not have a grandfather clause, so you will not be able to keep what you have currently.
I'm sorry but you have no way of knowing whether it will or will not, more importantly to omit a grandfather clause would make it not only impossible to pass, but also completely unconstitutional. There exists not structure or precedent to accomplish what you're saying.
Even if it did, constitutionally you can't seize private property without "due process" and "just compensation". More importantly you can't make a legal product, retroactively illegal. The cost alone is more than enough to put the kybosh on omitting a grandfather clause.
There may be a ban, but they cannot make it retroactive even if they wanted to.
I'm sorry but you have no way of knowing whether it will or will not, more importantly to omit a grandfather clause would make it not only impossible to pass, but also completely unconstitutional. There exists not structure or precedent to accomplish what you're saying.
Even if it did, constitutionally you can't seize private property without "due process" and "just compensation". More importantly you can't make a legal product, retroactively illegal. The cost alone is more than enough to put the kybosh on omitting a grandfather clause.
There may be a ban, but they cannot make it retroactive even if they wanted to.
LOL......"due process"??....good one. Apparently most of us missed it, but ever since the Patriot Act was instituted, there is no such thing as due process, if they arrest you under this act.
If the government decides you're a "domestic terrorist".....maybe b/c you own an EBR or too much ammo.....they can pull you in under the Patriot Act, seize your property, and imprison you indefinitely without counsel, trial, or any access to media to plead your case.
And the best part? B/c you will likely never have a trial, no one can ever rule that the Act is un-Constitutional in the first place.
Look, I'm all for surveillance of potential non-citizen terrorists, but to suspend the Bill of Rights for citizens is another thing entirely.
"Those who would give up liberty for temporal security deserve neither" (to paraphrase Franklin).
Sorry for the rant. This is scenario is unlikely (but not impossible).
JMO,
Sean
The funny thing in all of this chicken little stupidity is that a Ban is NOT ONE BIT more likely with Obama Jenkins than it would have been with the old man.
Gutshot John
11-25-08, 13:44
LOL......"due process"??....good one. Apparently most of us missed it, but ever since the Patriot Act was instituted, there is no such thing as due process, if they arrest you under this act.
Nonense.
If the government decides you're a "domestic terrorist".....maybe b/c you own an EBR or too much ammo.....they can pull you in under the Patriot Act, seize your property, and imprison you indefinitely without counsel, trial, or any access to media to plead your case.
No...please see the recent decision in the Supreme Court, Hamdan et al.
And the best part? B/c you will likely never have a trial, no one can ever rule that the Act is un-Constitutional in the first place.
Fantasy.
Look, I'm all for surveillance of potential non-citizen terrorists, but to suspend the Bill of Rights for citizens is another thing entirely.
No one has suspended the BoR, try again.
"Those who would give up liberty for temporal security deserve neither" (to paraphrase Franklin).
Yet another meaningless quote taken out of context.
Sorry for the rant. This is scenario is unlikely (but not impossible).
JMO,
Sean
Nope it's pretty much impossible.
It won't make any difference, the next AWB will not have a grandfather clause, so you will not be able to keep what you have currently.
And THIS is why it is hard to believe much of anything you read on the internet. You get some yahoo behind a keyboard making highly unlikely predictions based on zero actual evidence and stating is as a fact. :rolleyes:
I agree that an outright seizure of weapons is pretty unlikely - I'm not worried about that any time soon.
Ban on new purchases? Almost a certainty at some point. But it's not going to take effect as Obamaessia walks off the stage at his innaugeration.
"Fortunately" (sarcasm) the rest of the country is falling apart, and that gives those who are fortunate enough to still be employed (knock on wood) time to stock up some more.
How much time? Anyone's guess.
BOHICA.
Let's not forget the words of Senator Feinstein:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." (60 Minutes 1995).
Anything is possible...
Let's not forget the words of Senator Feinstein:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." (60 Minutes 1995).
Anything is possible...
This is the enemy. This is how they think.
The funny thing in all of this chicken little stupidity is that a Ban is NOT ONE BIT more likely with Obama Jenkins than it would have been with the old man.
While I agree that a lot of the RINO's were not as supportive of 2A rights as a lot of people assumed they were, I'd have to disagree with that and call it an exaggeration.
A large subset of the Dems have a permanent hard-on for gun control legislation, and they've already proven themselves more than willing to tread on much more controversial ground than simple gun control. At this point no one but Obama and his closest advisors really know what he thinks he can get passed.
Let's not forget the words of Senator Feinstein:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." (60 Minutes 1995).
Anything is possible...
I seem to recall from my American History classes that "Good King George" attempted the same thing once upon a time....
Wonder if "Good King O" studied the same history I did?
While I agree that a lot of the RINO's were not as supportive of 2A rights as a lot of people assumed they were, I'd have to disagree with that and call it an exaggeration.
I wouldn't. Bush flat out stated he would sign another AWB if it came before him. Maybe he was just playing his odds, but he stated it.
And THIS is why it is hard to believe much of anything you read on the internet. You get some yahoo behind a keyboard making highly unlikely predictions based on zero actual evidence and stating is as a fact.
And so who's the bigger idiot, the guy panic buying because of some allusion to an AWB, or the guy making sarcastic comments about the panic buyer's lack of preparation?
These "what if" threads deserve the kind of pure sarcasm that I penned. They're moronic and wildly speculative, at best.
At least markm got it.
Jay Cunningham
11-25-08, 16:35
These "what if" threads deserve the kind of pure sarcasm that I penned. They're moronic and wildly speculative, at best.
I couldn't have said it better.
;)
It won't make any difference, the next AWB will not have a grandfather clause, so you will not be able to keep what you have currently.
I think you are right. This is why I have been telling everyone to buy NFA weapons or form 1 their lowers.
C4
AirmanAtwood
11-25-08, 16:54
I'm sorry but you have no way of knowing whether it will or will not, more importantly to omit a grandfather clause would make it not only impossible to pass, but also completely unconstitutional. There exists not structure or precedent to accomplish what you're saying.
Even if it did, constitutionally you can't seize private property without "due process" and "just compensation". More importantly you can't make a legal product, retroactively illegal. The cost alone is more than enough to put the kybosh on omitting a grandfather clause.
There may be a ban, but they cannot make it retroactive even if they wanted to.
Do you not remember louisianna after katrina? They confiscated legally owned firearms. And not just AR's and AK's, but ALL firearms
That was a very small scale and it was done at the direction of some idiots. Multiply that x 20 million or so and all of sudden things look different. If you thought zombie flicks were scary you ain't seen nothing until someone tries door to door confiscation.
Do you not remember louisianna after katrina? They confiscated legally owned firearms. And not just AR's and AK's, but ALL firearms
Gutshot John
11-25-08, 17:50
Do you not remember louisianna after katrina? They confiscated legally owned firearms. And not just AR's and AK's, but ALL firearms
First you might not remember that Katrina was a "Natural disaster", and the circumstances were exceptional. We're talking about an AWB as the law of the land.
Second iirc such seizures were found to be a violation of the law and police authority.
Third you're saying that all legally owned firearm in New Orleans were seized?
I don't think so.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.