Hypothetical AWB + NFA...?

If it doesn't fit in any of the other forums, post it here!
User avatar
Tenzing_Norgay
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 1:55 pm
Location: Your mom's house, Trebek!

Hypothetical AWB + NFA...?

Post by Tenzing_Norgay »

I'm a little too young to remember the last AWB. If it ever were to happen again (which it could, given the current state of affairs :evil: ) what happens to our NFA items? Were they excluded in the last debacle?
- I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you... -
Clyde621
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2018 11:15 am
Location: St. Cloud

Post by Clyde621 »

Last ban did not touch licensed nfa items.
User avatar
MikeFL86
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:09 am
Location: Orlando

Post by MikeFL86 »

Clyde621 wrote: Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:38 pm Last ban did not touch licensed nfa items.
So a registered SBR AR would be fine but a regular AR could potentially be banned?
User avatar
Odessaman
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:50 pm
Location: NW Hillsborough County

Post by Odessaman »

Don't gamble that new laws will be anything like past laws. Legislators aren't bound by any such requirement.

Although the '94 AWB did not apply to NFA items, and it did not outlaw possession of "evil rifles" and magazines that were already owned, don't assume that would be the case with any new legislation. The '94 ban was written to prohibit new manufacture, importation or sale of certain items after the effective date. When the "bump stock ban" was passed here in Florida last year, many wrongly assumed there was a built-in "grandfather clause" that allowed you to keep what you already owned. That was a potentially disastrous error, because the language outright banned "possession" - period.

These laws are largely written by morons who have no idea which end is the muzzle (or what a "barrel shroud" is) and sometimes we've been fortunate in that regard - so far. But now the radical Progressives are emboldened to go further than ever before to disarm law abiding citizens, and while I see obvious (to me) errors in some of the proposals I've seen so far, don't just sit around and hope for the best - remember, voter apathy almost lost us some very important races this last election.
User avatar
MikeFL86
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:09 am
Location: Orlando

Post by MikeFL86 »

Odessaman wrote: Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:11 pm Don't gamble that new laws will be anything like past laws. Legislators aren't bound by any such requirement.

Although the '94 AWB did not apply to NFA items, and it did not outlaw possession of "evil rifles" and magazines that were already owned, don't assume that would be the case with any new legislation. The '94 ban was written to prohibit new manufacture, importation or sale of certain items after the effective date. When the "bump stock ban" was passed here in Florida last year, many wrongly assumed there was a built-in "grandfather clause" that allowed you to keep what you already owned. That was a potentially disastrous error, because the language outright banned "possession" - period.

These laws are largely written by morons who have no idea which end is the muzzle (or what a "barrel shroud" is) and sometimes we've been fortunate in that regard - so far. But now the radical Progressives are emboldened to go further than ever before to disarm law abiding citizens, and while I see obvious (to me) errors in some of the proposals I've seen so far, don't just sit around and hope for the best - remember, voter apathy almost lost us some very important races this last election.
And it's a crapshoot as to whether or not the ones we won will produce anything of lasting value given that big GOP donors in this state are anti-gun.
Miami_JBT
Posts: 845
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:17 pm
Location: Big Bend
Contact:

Post by Miami_JBT »

Pre Ban guns could be made into SBRs or SBS and were legal. So were outright pre ban NFA guns. But if you got a post ban configuration AR-15 or AK and registered it as a SBR. It was still holden to the AWB. No threaded barrel, no bayonet lug, no folding/telescopic stock.
Communism - 20th Century Mass Murder Champions
R.I.P. Edward Avila - AR15.COM Founder
Check out my gun blog - https://www.newwavefirearms.com
Florida State Director for Gun Owners of America - Join GOA
Miami_JBT
Posts: 845
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:17 pm
Location: Big Bend
Contact:

Post by Miami_JBT »

Odessaman wrote: Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:11 pm Don't gamble that new laws will be anything like past laws. Legislators aren't bound by any such requirement.

Although the '94 AWB did not apply to NFA items, and it did not outlaw possession of "evil rifles" and magazines that were already owned, don't assume that would be the case with any new legislation. The '94 ban was written to prohibit new manufacture, importation or sale of certain items after the effective date. When the "bump stock ban" was passed here in Florida last year, many wrongly assumed there was a built-in "grandfather clause" that allowed you to keep what you already owned. That was a potentially disastrous error, because the language outright banned "possession" - period.

These laws are largely written by morons who have no idea which end is the muzzle (or what a "barrel shroud" is) and sometimes we've been fortunate in that regard - so far. But now the radical Progressives are emboldened to go further than ever before to disarm law abiding citizens, and while I see obvious (to me) errors in some of the proposals I've seen so far, don't just sit around and hope for the best - remember, voter apathy almost lost us some very important races this last election.
When I spoke with Sen. Montford. He honestly taught that grandfathering was in the bill. :?
Communism - 20th Century Mass Murder Champions
R.I.P. Edward Avila - AR15.COM Founder
Check out my gun blog - https://www.newwavefirearms.com
Florida State Director for Gun Owners of America - Join GOA
User avatar
Odessaman
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:50 pm
Location: NW Hillsborough County

Post by Odessaman »

Miami_JBT wrote: Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:38 pm When I spoke with Sen. Montford. He honestly taught that grandfathering was in the bill. :?
That doesn't surprise me in the least - I think it's a rare legislator who actually reads and understands the bills they support, much less the practical effects of them once enacted. Most probably rely on summaries written by staffers - or worse - lobbyists.
User avatar
Skoll
Posts: 868
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 2:39 pm
Location: New Mexico, formerly WPB

Post by Skoll »

We have to pass it to see whats in it, guys.
"The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted."
User avatar
SteyrAUG
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 2:17 am

Post by SteyrAUG »

MikeFL86 wrote: Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:40 pm
Clyde621 wrote: Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:38 pm Last ban did not touch licensed nfa items.
So a registered SBR AR would be fine but a regular AR could potentially be banned?
That is what happened.

In the states where a rare combination exists, a standard semi AR-15 might be banned but M-16s are still completely transferable.
Post Reply