View Full Version : Price Gouging and Panic
I was wondering, I got into ar's a few years ago, was it this bad in the panic stages when the clinton ban was about to go into effect back then? Did the prices go through the roof like they are now?
Yes and Yes.
One key difference is...there are a LOT more manufacturers of AR rifles and parts today versus 1994. I also seem to remember quite a lot of people seriously doubting that the AWB would pass back then.
Jay Cunningham
11-30-08, 11:42
We didn't really have the miracle of the Internet back then, either...
We didn't really have the miracle of the Internet back then, either...
Al Gore is the man.
I just don't understand what the purpose of re-intorducing the ban and adding other stipulations to the ban would do other then hurt the economy even more for the businesses that sell and produce the merchandise and the law abiding citizens, this is starting to irritate me more day by day.
I just don't understand what the purpose of re-intorducing the ban and adding other stipulations to the ban would do other then hurt the economy even more for the businesses that sell and produce the merchandise and the law abiding citizens, this is starting to irritate me more day by day.
The firearms business is really just small potatoes in the overall scheme of the economy. If it disappeared completely tomorrow, there would be very little impact on the GDP. Of course I'm excluding the military-who could source it from overseas.
The time to be irritated is long past.
The firearms business is really just small potatoes in the overall scheme of the economy. If it disappeared completely tomorrow, there would be very little impact on the GDP. Of course I'm excluding the military-who could source it from overseas.
The time to be irritated is long past.
your right, I just think about all the hard work and ideas and merchadise these people have come up with to now have to possibly watch their stuff sit on the back burner for another 10 years or so before it can possibly be sold or reintroduced again, but thats my thoughts on it, I may be wrong at least I hope I'm wrong, I just hope this ban doesn't happen again
I just don't understand what the purpose of re-intorducing the ban and adding other stipulations to the ban would do other then hurt the economy even more for the businesses that sell and produce the merchandise and the law abiding citizens, this is starting to irritate me more day by day.
You are attributing rational thought to emotional basket cases. If they used rational thought, we would have little to no gun control to begin with.
The far left will be champing at the bit to run more gun control though. The more I see of Obama the more I see a guy who pandered to the far left base but will do what it takes to stay in power. So I'm not so sure gun control will be at the very top of his list.
However, that doesn't mean the dem leaders in congress won't push it. If you see a change in congressional leadership for the dems take it as a good sign.
Temper my comments with this. I though McCain was going to win, that's way I didn't by another AR in Sept. ;)
On another note.
The NRA should be collecting a ton of info on the gun industry ride now. Number of jobs, raw dollars that contribute to the overall economy.
"Every little bit helps" in an economy like ours should be the mantra.
Not to mention that civillan sales counts for a lot for many of the small to medium sized companies. The loss of many of these small companies will hurt innovation in the firearms industry, having a negative effect on law enforcement and the military.
For example, the SCAR program solicited rifles are smaller companies and as well - and I think losing the innovation of these small companies is a bad thing.
Then again, Obamessia will probably just nationalize the firearms industry ... that will really spark innovation. The "People's Rifle and Pistol Company" or something silly like that ... :eek:
I was only 11 back in 1994, so I can't comment on what it was like during the first ban. I can tell you that when I walked through the stores here in Anchorage yesterday there was no ammo to be found. And, forget trying to find anything "black gun" related...everything has been bought up.
Fear is driving the price of all things firearm related. Same thing was true for gas when it was going for $180 a barrel. Only I don't think firearm prices are going to come down like the price of oil did.
Charles Daly
11-30-08, 17:15
An importer and manufacturer's perspective....
In November of 1993, the US Senate voted for passage of the first AWB. Although it would not pass the House of Representatives and become law for almost another year, its immediate effect on the firearms industry and firearms consumer would forever change the firearms market in the US.
When the US Senate first voted in 1993, Twas' the Night Before" the annual NASGW show, which was being held in Phoenix, AZ that year. NASGW is the National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers, and the annual show, at that time, was a private industry event where the manufacturers and importers of firearms and hunting hard goods displayed their wares to the wholesalers of the same. In the early 90's, years before our company acquired Charles Daly, we were heavily involved in the market for former Warsaw Pact (primarily Hungarian) and Russian manufactured firearms. That November we had a warehouse full Hungarian AKM rifles that we couldn't give away, the market was dead. We had taken delivery of 7,500 rifles all year from FEG and were afraid that if they didn't start moving soon, our little company would have to begin liquidating them. I will never forget the first morning of NASGW when we sold 6,000 guns to approximately a dozen wholesalers in under 3 hours. I made our salesman stop selling them. We were obviously too cheap! That evening we talked it over and decided to take a $50.00 price increase on the remaining 1,500 and we convinced ourselves that wasn't "gouging" since we were never going to be able to import these excellent AKM's into the US, ever again. On the 2nd morning of the show, we sold the remaining 1,500 to one wholesaler, who would have gladly paid $150.00 more!
The next political event to shake the industry and the firearms consumer was passage of "The Brady Law", conincidentally, 15 years ago, today. It would not take effect for 90 days and during that 90 days the crowds were wrapped twice around the block of gun dealers across the country.
Over the course of that period from November of '93 to September 13, 1994, the firearms industry imported and sold 5 years worth of guns in less than one year, in some market segments, notably semi-automatic, so-called "assault rifles" and any handgun that held more than 10 rounds.
Brady went into effect at the end of February '94 and handgun sales went into a slight decline, yet still remained relatively strong, particularly in hi-cap 9mm pistols. Semi-automatic "assault" rifles remained exceptionally strong. During that period our company sold 100,000 Russian SKS rifles, 150,000 Russian Makarov pistols, and over 50,000 FEG pistols. For us, this period is fondly remembered as "the good 'ol days"!
THe AWB went into effect on September 13, 1994. By January of 1995, the market/industry for SKS rifles collapsed; flooded. There were no more hi-cap handguns to sell and we couldn't import hi-cap anything. Domestic manufacturers could still sell semi-autos that would accept hi-cap mags, but such was not the case for importers. Importers under the AWB would now only be permitted to import semi-auto rifles that could only accept 10 round magazines. What followed were the famous "politically correct" AKM's where the magwell had to be re-engineered to only accept a proprietary 10 round magazine. The American consumer wanted nothing to do with a rifle that was restricted to 10 rounds. Since hi-cap mags were "grandfathered" under the AWB, and domestic AR manufacturers could sell a gun that could accept hi-cap mags, the market for imported AK's collapsed. With final insult to injury, KBI almost went out of business when Clinton made a trade agreement with Russia known as the VRA (Voluntary Restraint Agreement) . This was the first time in the history of the US where an American President used the trade authority of the Executive Branch to restrict commerce in firearms. At that time Russia was in desperate need of America's aid, amounting to more than $2 Billion a year in support of the new Russian democracy. Clinton wanted the flow of arms from Russia to the US to stop so he twisted the Russian's arms and the Russians came up with the cockamamie VRA. They agreed to not export certain firearms on a contrived list, a list which didn't include Makarov pistols or SKS rifles.
Clinton earlier had moved on China. The Chinese were inconvenienced mightily each year in our Congress when the subject of MFN (Most Favored Nation) Trading Status would come up for renewal. Many politicians didn't care for the lack of Human Rights of under the Red Communists and each year there was the threat that trade would be disrupted if MFN had to be renewed over and over again. So China was given permanent MFN by Clinton and slapped them on the wrist by banning trade in almost all ITAR controlled items, which included all small arms and ammunition. No more cheap and plentiful Chinese arms and ammo. A few hundred million dollars business finished, overnight.
Now most of the importers were in serious trouble. American manufacturers too, as the market shifted from hi-cap 9's to compact double actions with a 10-round limit, in larger calibers, notably .40S&W and a resurgence in the 1911 specifically and .45's in general. Sales of AR's continued to decline.
85% of our products had been banned by the Clinton Administration.
At this point, I can't speak to exactly what was happening in the domestic AR market, as we weren't involved in it. We were fortunate to acquire Charles Daly during this time, and we saved our company by restructuring around our brand, going into the shotgun business in a big way. Soon we entered the 1911 market under Daly. We struggled, but we survived and after a few years with Daly we prospered once again.
There you have one company's experience with the first AWB. Now comes the fear of the second/permanent one...
Fast forward to this past Spring. We entered the AR segment with CD Defense when we saw an opportunity for us. Then came the election of Barack Obama, the night before the NASGW show opened in Atlanta. Eerie...14 years earlier an NASGW show started the ball rolling with fear of the first AWB; it happens again. In the first 3 hours of NASGW this year we sell our AR production for the rest of the year. Our warehouse inventory is gone and we are backordered for AR's like I would not have thought possible. At the same time, we are coming to market with 3 new handgun lines. I have the distinct deja vu that the next 12-18 months will be very interesting times to be in the firearms business, in much the same way as it was in the fall of '93 to January of '95.
Although, I truly feel that this time around, the run on the market is more pervasive, more universal. It's not just anecdotal evidence anymore, everyone is sold out of everything in two maket segments, just like 14 years ago, only this time I think the fear is worse. I think Americans understand that Mr. Obama is going to have a new AWB and this time around it son't be just about bayonet lugs. He is surrounding himself with an anti-gun "dream team" with his new Attorney General, his vice-president, his Secretary of State, and the Shumer's and Feinstein's get more and more influence with each passing day. And this next AWB will not have a sunset either...which brings me to my prediction.
I don't think the gun industry can make enough guns for the market this time around, before the guns are banned, and banned for good. That's my personal opinion. I would like to believe otherwise, but with what I've seen before, I never thought I would be wishing for a return to the Clinton Years. Obama scares me much more and Bill did eveything in his power to put us out of business.
I think prices will continue to climb, on ammo, magazines and firearms. Not all firearms, but certainly anything defense, hi-cap or tactical in any way. If I was a consumer, I would buy as soon as I could afford it, because they aren't going to get cheaper or more plentiful. I would buy an AR or 2 or 3, lots of magazines, a few hi-cap handguns and some tactical shotguns. Oh, and I would buy a lot of ammunition. I think a political move on certain calibers of centerfire ammunition is inevitable.
As an American citizen I am seriously concerned about a new AWB. I don't think they will come after the guns we have, that could be catastrophic, but I'm not so sure that they (the incoming administration) realize this. At this moment, my thinking is I'll be happy to have everything grandfathered again.
As a maker and importer, here we go again!
Nathan_Bell
11-30-08, 17:47
Tank is empty for most manufacturers, they have been running maxed out all year and were barely keeping up with demand. The panic is just putting the low stock levels down to no stock levels.
Michael -- your statemen should clarify this situation to all: Thanks for the personal recollection and the future prediction. If I didn't live in California I'd order something form you right now!
Thanks also for the excellent comments from an industry professional. I've heard similar stories from my local gun store owner. He told me the pre '94 AWB panic oversold the supply chain so much that sales were very dead for several years after that.
With regard to the recommendation to buy "tactical shotguns", what exactly does that mean? High capacity or pistol grip or semi-auto or all three?
I guess I'm asking what the restrictions on shotguns were during the last ban, and thus what is likely under a new ban?
With regard to the recommendation to buy "tactical shotguns", what exactly does that mean? High capacity or pistol grip or semi-auto or all three?
yes! All three! Semiautos will be axed. Get your Benelli now (even the Benelli-light, the Stoeger if you can't drop a GRAND+ on a shotgun)
An importer and manufacturer's perspective....
Interesting read, thanks for posting! It lends a lot of credence to something I've often heard: bans are good for business when it comes to guns. Certainly not for importers, but for the industry overall.
Gutshot John
11-30-08, 19:34
Semiautos will be axed.
Will be? Not May be?
Based on what information?
The legislation hasn't even been written yet so it seems a bit weird that you should know what it will contain beforehand.
As for the, prices did indeed go through the roof, but you are also right that it saturated the market for the next decade. That being said, I'm buying up everything I can afford, especially ammo, ARs and Glocks.
It's not gouging if the market bears those prices across the board. So far I'm inclined to believe that the firearms industry isn't gouging as a whole. There are maybe individual exceptions, but demand is driving prices.
"the bill hasn't been written yet."
I'm sorry -- they have -- they just haven't passed yet. I'm talking about a new AWB looking very much like the last house and senate bills -- All the NRA insiders agree that the new AWB will probably be an Amalgam of the two bills -- they are very close and I can't see them deviating greatly from them -- HR 1022 as to shotguns:
"`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip;
`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.
`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'."
This sounds like it would effect some military style shotguns, while both bills list "hunting semi-auto shotguns" by name as exempted
and the newer version of the bill HR 6257 bears strikingly similar languge:
"‘(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
‘(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
‘(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.’.
As does this language in the Senate version S 2237:
`(D)(i) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of the features described in clause (ii).
`(ii) The features described in this clause are--
`(I) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(II) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(III) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
`(IV) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.
With a majority in the House, possibly a filibuster proof majority any day in the Senate and a POTUS, since both Senate and house bills have such similar text, it is likely that any new AWB will be taken from these, not writen from whole cloth.
So all i'm saying is if you want a ten shot 1100 tactical or M3, now is the time to find one.
Gutshot John
11-30-08, 21:41
"the bill hasn't been written yet."
I'm sorry -- they have -- they just haven't passed yet. I'm talking about a new AWB looking very much like the last house and senate bills -- All the NRA insiders agree that the new AWB will probably be an Amalgam of the two bills -- they are very close and I can't see them deviating greatly from them -- HR 1022 as to shotguns:
Funny that they're not listed on the NRA-ILA website.
Any bill will have to be reintroduced in the next Congress and language will probably change.
You have no way of knowing what the final version of the AWB will include or not include.
I'm sure there are plenty of antis who would love to outlaw semi-autos, but it still has to survive the political process.
If past history is any indication, those bills went nowhere, and even still any AWB (whether it includes a semi provision), will require the support of 60 senators for cloture in the Senate.
By all means be vigilant, write your Congressmen, but no one knows what the next AWB will look like, nor do we want to create the impression that if semis are somehow "allowed" that it might make the AWB "acceptable".
Their attempts at gun control will be much more subtle, and require a lot more attention than an AWB.
Charles Daly
11-30-08, 23:28
My earlier (and lengthy) post was really addressing the fear of a new AWB, not the language of any final draft. I firmly believe that there will be an attempt at a new AWB, but I agree with Gutshot John, nobody can have a clue as to what it might look like.
I also agree that various attempts at more gun control will indeed be subtle and on many fronts. I can imagine a case being made for tighter control of "military' ammunition. It has proved successful in other countries where it was argued, "what possible use could a law abiding citizen have for military ammo; i.e. 9mm para or 5.56mm or 7.62X51.
I can imagine the dreaded "aresenal" tax. I mean, who in their right mind needs thousands of rounds of ammo or more than 5 guns in their home?
I can imagine a subtle attack on imports, when new members of the Executive Branch realize that there is such a thing as a subjective "sprorting criteria" that all imports must meet. I mean, what could possibly be "sporting" about a 17 round 9mm or 16 round .40S&W pistol?
The question was posed as to what shotguns I thought might be the subject of further controls; pistol grip, mag capacity or semi-auto. Many of you don't realize that it is already illegal to modify an imported shotgun into a gun that would be illegal to import under the sporting criteria. Several importers, including Benelli, finally admitted that the guns they had been selling with capacities in excess of 5 rounds were not import "compliant". Sales of the offending models had already stopped in August. Currently it is legal to import and sell a semi-auto shotgun with a pistol grip, if that pistol grip is an integral part of the buttstock and not removable. I can imagine a new interpretation of that subjective regulation to one that does not allow a pistol grip of any kind. However, I have a hard time imagining an immediate import ban on all semi-auto shotguns.
We had a phenomenal run on the market on the election results. I can imagine a repeat (if there is any product left on the shelves) around inauguration time. Knowing what has already occurred, can you imagine the run on the market when they actually start talking about AWB II?
I don't want to give the impression that I think AWB II is the next step in gun control attempts or that it will be the only attempt. They will come at us from all sides, using every argument in their anti-gun repertoire to beat down/soften up the public into accepting incremental "common sense" controls. Elimination of the "gun show loophole", revision of the "sporting critieria" regs, one-gun-a-month, etc. And lets not forget our new Attorney General and Secretary of State, who will add their esteemed opinions on what must be done to the "scourge" of uncontrolled ownership of firearms in the US, from a "National Security" point of view.
Whatever AWB II looks like, or whatever form attacks on gun ownership come, we are in for the fight of our lives to hold onto the guns we already own, and our ability to buy more of the same. And in the meantime, the fear of the potential success of these controls will continue to insure that the cupboard is bare.
So I reiterate my advice, buy what you can now. They are not going to get less costly or more plentiful in the near term, and they could be regulated out of existence in the long term. If I'm wrong on the first count you can always sell them, assuming of course that they still allow you to dispose of firearms that are your personal property, already a problem in some jurisdictions.
Michael, thank you for taking the time to post that. I can't think of many other industries where the President of a company would be willing to speak so frankly and openly. It is quite refreshing.
1994 was the first year I was able to vote, and I voted against anyone in my state who supported the AWB, although I didn't own a gun at the time and really had to immediate plans to buy one. It was the principle of the matter for me.
During the last ban, were uppers, LPKs, and stocks and such available for sale? Suppose you shot your barrel out, could you replace it with a 16" with a lug, or were you out of luck? Same thing for stocks, lets say the collapsible stock broke, could you buy a new one or did it have to be fixed?
During the last ban, were uppers, LPKs, and stocks and such available for sale? Suppose you shot your barrel out, could you replace it with a 16" with a lug, or were you out of luck? Same thing for stocks, lets say the collapsible stock broke, could you buy a new one or did it have to be fixed?You could buy all the spare/replacement/whatever parts you wanted, except for new standard capacity magazines, just the evil parts were not legally allowed to be put on post-ban guns.
You could buy all the spare/replacement/whatever parts you wanted, except for new standard capacity magazines, just the evil parts were not legally allowed to be put on post-ban guns.
OK, thanks. I was wondering about that, seeing as how people are buying lowers en masse. So new magazines couldn't be made anymore, but the replacement parts could, correct? (I'm trying to get a better understanding of the impact of the expired AWB)
OK, thanks. I was wondering about that, seeing as how people are buying lowers en masse. So new magazines couldn't be made anymore, but the replacement parts could, correct? (I'm trying to get a better understanding of the impact of the expired AWB)
Correct. I think you could even get a replacement magazine body if your pre-ban one was damaged. Stocking up on lowers in hopes of getting around a future AWB is likely a no go however.
Charles Daly
11-30-08, 23:57
...I can't think of many other industries where the President of a company would be willing to speak so frankly and openly. It is quite refreshing.
Thanks for the compliment, but some would argue that I should keep my mouth shut about such subjects.
I just feel that there is so much mis-information out there that someone needs to set the record straight and I don't see many people stepping up to the microphone. Perhpas there is a valid reason why we allow such gross misconceptions to permeate our discussions. I just haven't figured out what those reasons are yet....
So, if anyone here thinks I should zip it up, just say the word and I will take it under consideration. I'm not here to make matters worse and I'm certainly not fomenting fear so my company can sell more guns. If I want to do that I will restrict such sales tactics to the "manufacturer's" forum.
Stocking up on lowers in hopes of getting around a future AWB is likely a no go however.
Interesting. Why do you say that?
Thanks for the compliment, but some would argue that I should keep my mouth shut about such subjects.
You're welcome. I don't really see a good reason to remain silent on this issue.
From what I see, manufacturers like you are in a bad position right now, regardless of what happens. Being inside a bubble isn't always peaches and cream - bubbles end, and end with a bang. Either the AWB will pass and essentially kill off several lines of revenue; or there will be no AWB and a glut of second hand firearms will flood the market and drive prices down too much.
In a way I kind of wish I was still in school for my Masters degree. From what you've said, it seems lots of interesting papers can be written regarding the supply chain dynamics of the firearms industry.
Interesting. Why do you say that?
You're welcome. I don't really see a good reason to remain silent on this issue.
From what I see, manufacturers like you are in a bad position right now, regardless of what happens. Being inside a bubble isn't always peaches and cream - bubbles end, and end with a bang. Either the AWB will pass and essentially kill off several lines of revenue; or there will be no AWB and a glut of second hand firearms will flood the market and drive prices down too much.
In a way I kind of wish I was still in school for my Masters degree. From what you've said, it seems lots of interesting papers can be written regarding the supply chain dynamics of the firearms industry.
Not this matters given current climate but, I would venture gun owners sell their personal firearms at a much lower rate than other standard goods. Just a thought.
Charles Daly
12-01-08, 00:25
...In a way I kind of wish I was still in school for my Masters degree. From what you've said, it seems lots of interesting papers can be written regarding the supply chain dynamics of the firearms industry.
If anyone can get me the book six-figure "advance" I will be happy to start working with the editor and publisher right away! :rolleyes:
Not this matters given current climate but, I would venture gun owners sell their personal firearms at a much lower rate than other standard goods. Just a thought.
In general I agree. I've not sold any of my guns, nor do I plan to. But I think it seems that the general consensus is that alot of people who are buying right now are first time AR buyers who don't really care about the platform, they are getting them to get them. If a year or two passes with no peep about an AWB, they will probably start to unload them to pick up whatever else fancies their interest at that moment.
Interesting. Why do you say that?
The lower had to be built into an "assault weapon" configuration prior to the AWB taking effect otherwise it could only legally be made into a post-ban configuration. Pretty good chance any potential future legislation would include this as well.
The lower had to be built into an "assault weapon" configuration prior to the AWB taking effect otherwise it could only legally be made into a post-ban configuration. Pretty good chance any potential future legislation would include this as well.
OK I'm tracking what you are saying. Thanks for clearing that up.
Please explain how anyone would know whether or not the lowers I have in my safe have been built into a complete weapon, or if they are just sitting there. Simply put they can't unless they come and look. Therefore what you just said is completely false. Also, I am not required to file any other additional paperwork after filling out the Form 4473. The only way that there could be repercussions would be if i popped up on the BATFE radar and they were able to determine that I was building complete firearms and then re-selling them. And that may be a stretch as well.
The lower had to be built into an "assault weapon" configuration prior to the AWB taking effect otherwise it could only legally be made into a post-ban configuration. Pretty good chance any potential future legislation would include this as well.
Some excellent points raised guys and I'd like to echo my thanks to Michael as well. Having been born in the UK I'm all to familiar with the lengths to which the gun-ban crowd will go and am sick the whole limp-wristed bunch. While I don't always see eye to eye with the NRA as they have caved on some issues I think that now more than ever the Government needs to be confronted with united group of outraged gun-owners. The ban in its first form had zero impact on the gun-crime statistics the Brady Bunch whine about - caused mainly by the 20 year-old LA gangbangers they include as "children" in their demographic. Perhaps someone can educate me - why can't there be a constitutional challenge that the ban contravenes 2A?
The lower had to be built into an "assault weapon" configuration prior to the AWB taking effect otherwise it could only legally be made into a post-ban configuration. Pretty good chance any potential future legislation would include this as well.
Please explain how anyone would know whether or not the lowers I have in my safe have been built into a complete weapon, or if they are just sitting there. Simply put they can't unless they come and look. Therefore what you just said is completely false. Also, I am not required to file any other additional paperwork after filling out the Form 4473. The only way that there could be repercussions would be if i popped up on the BATFE radar and they were able to determine that I was building complete firearms and then re-selling them. And that may be a stretch as well.
I never said you couldn't do it, or that the ATF would be tracking you down. If I was wrong about how the old AWB worked I'd like to be corrected, but AFaiK you couldn't LEGALLY build the stripped lower you had sitting around in you safe since 93 into an "assault rifle" during the AWB.
hatt,
You are missing the point. If you already possessed the lower(s) in question before the ban was passed and they sat in the safe for let's say 8 months and you then built them into a pre-ban type weapon there is no way for anyone to know if those weapons were assembled prior to the ban or not. As a matter of fact you could have bough barrels, rail systems or whatever and stuck them in the safe as well, again no one would know.
The same would be true now. I have lowers and other parts sitting in my safe. If an AWB II was passed there is no way for anyone to know what configuration they are in, or if they are even whole weapons. The only they could know is if they saw them before "the ban" and then after "the ban". Plus any future AWB would almost certainly have to incorporate a grandfather clause.
I never said you couldn't do it, or that the ATF would be tracking you down. If I was wrong about how the old AWB worked I'd like to be corrected, but AFaiK you couldn't LEGALLY build the stripped lower you had sitting around in you safe since 93 into an "assault rifle" during the AWB.
hatt,
You are missing the point. If you already possessed the lower(s) in question before the ban was passed and they sat in the safe for let's say 8 months and you then built them into a pre-ban type weapon there is no way for anyone to know if those weapons were assembled prior to the ban or not. As a matter of fact you could have bough barrels, rail systems or whatever and stuck them in the safe as well, again no one would know.
The same would be true now. I have lowers and other parts sitting in my safe. If an AWB II was passed there is no way for anyone to know what configuration they are in, or if they are even whole weapons. The only they could know is if they saw them before "the ban" and then after "the ban". Plus any future AWB would almost certainly have to incorporate a grandfather clause.
I'm not missing the point, we are arguing two different things. I agree you could easily do what you are saying, most likely without any worries from .gov, all I'm saying is that it wasn't, according to the ATF, legal to do what you are saying. When someone asks a question I think we should answer it with what we know, or to the best of our knowledge, to be the correct, legal answer. If they decide to skirt around it a little, that is their choice. We could use another example, lets say you have an AR pistol and a rifle. It isn't legal to put the 10 inch upper on your rifle to see what it looks like at your house, but how are they ever going to know? Same thing. So unless you have something to show that .gov said it was OK to assemble your stripped lower with banned features any time you wanted during the AWB I think we can move on.;)
hatt,
Apples and Oranges are fruits and they aren't the same. Neither is your example. It isn't a question of being legal IMO. Once you have the lower receiver in your possession NO ONE BUT YOU knows what you did with it. As far as I am concerned it is a non-issue. Along those lines what if I purchased a lower and a then 2 weeks later I buy an upper and never put the two together and then an AWB II passes and I then mate the 2 up. Have I now just created an illegal "assault weapon"? Think about it.
Gunrider,
Since that Bill has not passed and Congress is in holiday mode that thing is dead. When the new Congress reconvenes in January they would have to start the whole process all over again or at least that is how I understand it. Bottom line is there is no Federal AWB in effect so who gives a shit what they write into it? Again, I will be totally shocked if any new law is passed and there is no grandfather clause built in. Just who do you think will then go around and start rounding up the millions of "assault weapons" and killer shotguns that are out there?
I'm not missing the point, we are arguing two different things. I agree you could easily do what you are saying, most likely without any worries from .gov, all I'm saying is that it wasn't, according to the ATF, legal to do what you are saying. When someone asks a question I think we should answer it with what we know, or to the best of our knowledge, to be the correct, legal answer. If they decide to skirt around it a little, that is their choice. We could use another example, lets say you have an AR pistol and a rifle. It isn't legal to put the 10 inch upper on your rifle to see what it looks like at your house, but how are they ever going to know? Same thing. So unless you have something to show that .gov said it was OK to assemble your stripped lower with banned features any time you wanted during the AWB I think we can move on.;)
If you were caught with an SBR (that you did not register) then you could easily be prosecuted because they would have the gun in hand and you would have no tax stamp to prove otherwise.
If however you were at the range in 2011 and the BATFE or other LEA questioned you on your assembled "assault rifle" (the lower) was purchased at xxx date and there would be a record of that happening then there is absolutely no way for them to prove that it was made after an enacted ban. I could just as easily keep it in my safe and swap uppers around all day long and no one can prove that the weapon wasn't owned prior to any future ban. Does that make sense now?
I'm not missing the point, we are arguing two different things. I agree you could easily do what you are saying, most likely without any worries from .gov, all I'm saying is that it wasn't, according to the ATF, legal to do what you are saying. When someone asks a question I think we should answer it with what we know, or to the best of our knowledge, to be the correct, legal answer. If they decide to skirt around it a little, that is their choice. We could use another example, lets say you have an AR pistol and a rifle. It isn't legal to put the 10 inch upper on your rifle to see what it looks like at your house, but how are they ever going to know? Same thing. So unless you have something to show that .gov said it was OK to assemble your stripped lower with banned features any time you wanted during the AWB I think we can move on.;)
The sky is not falling. Write your polcitiicans of both parties, join the NRA, etc. Remember that Bush said he would sign another AWB if it came before him. Obama has slected a prety moderate administration so far. A long way from what thw ingnuts siad he would do already.
Along those lines what if I purchased a lower and a then 2 weeks later I buy an upper and never put the two together and then an AWB II passes and I then mate the 2 up. Have I now just created an illegal "assault weapon"?
I would say yes, you have, assuming AWB II follows the provisions of the former "assault weapon" (AW) ban. If you had mated them for one second one minute before the law was passed, you would be good. I myself received a AW configured upper (ADCO changed out a muzzle brake for a flashhider) on the day the old ban expired. I waited until after midnight before installing it.
Bottom line, assembling a lower into a AW after the ban passed was illegal per the old AW ban.
Now you are perfectly correct it would be very hard to prove. Still, suppose they did try to prove it? You would have to lie, probably. Maybe you could plead the fifth, I am no expert. Your friends or family might have to lie for you. Anybody you told of your plans would have to cover for you. Possibly your internet postings on the subject could be recovered. Depending on where you work you could be fired, or get into hot water in your career. Suppose you applied for a LE job and had to take a polygraph saying you had never violated the law?
Now if your are being investigated for this you probably have a hell of a lot more problems than assembing lowers into AWs. I do think it unlikely that someone is going to start investigating your for that, although never rule out never. I also think any such law is silly and immoral.
But keep in mind there is a difference between "legal" and "illegal but hard to prove I did it" :)
The more I see of Obama the more I see a guy who pandered to the far left base but will do what it takes to stay in power. So I'm not so sure gun control will be at the very top of his list.
All I can add to that is Clinton = 8 years... so i doubt he's worried about loosing votes from the gun owners. He didnt have them to begin with and still won.
All I can add to that is Clinton = 8 years... so i doubt he's worried about loosing votes from the gun owners. He didnt have them to begin with and still won.
Clinton won both terms because Perot siphoned off the libertarians and classical conservatives who would have voted for Bush or Dole.
Also, keep in mind that he (Obama) carried Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virgina, North Carolina, New Mexico and Florida. All of these states are by and large pro-2A states and have a huge population who is pro 2A.
Gun control was never, ever mentioned as an issue in any debate or commercial. Yeah it was on the website, but so was alot of other stuff.
Quite simply, he couldn't have won without the support of gun owners. And he knows it.
All I can add to that is Clinton = 8 years... so i doubt he's worried about loosing votes from the gun owners. He didnt have them to begin with and still won.
He had some............
Also, keep in mind that he (Obama) carried Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virgina, North Carolina, New Mexico and Florida. All of these states are by and large pro-2A states and have a huge population who is pro 2A.
Gun control was never, ever mentioned as an issue in any debate or commercial. Yeah it was on the website, but so was alot of other stuff.
Quite simply, he couldn't have won without the support of gun owners. And he knows it.
I hope youre right!
I frequent several "gun oriented" forums, as well as have many friends that are gun enthusiasts.
No one on any of the forums, nor any my friends/acquaintances in real life voted for B.O.
if those people in VA, FL, PA needed a commercial to learn about the issues... well.. no comment on that one, thats just sad.
Not everyone is into guns as a hobby enough to be posting on message boards or such.
I have a motorcycle that I ride for fun; I don't consider myself a biker or anything like that, so I don't read those forums or hang around bike shops. Most of the time it sits in my garage, the way many peoples rifles and such just sit in their closet. But if some elected official was trying to get a law passed banning my motorcycle, you better believe I would get involved. I think the same thing applies to gun owners.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.