Assault Weapons Ban

[Canadian Army]

Do you Think the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban would have been repealed at the start of the Twilight War.

I say yes, why I think the NRA and and the Second Amendment Foundation would have pressed the politicians in Washington to repealed based on the fact many Americans would be worried about a possible soviet invasion or attack.

[Webstral]

Excellent question. Pressure from survivalists would have been intense. Pressure from New America and everyone who stands to make a buck from "assault weapons" sales would have been intense. Yet it's hard to say what might have happened in 1996.

[Ronin]

I dont think it would have been unfortunately. Realistically, most folk back in the day didnt expect the war (invasion wise) to reach the continental US. Semi-auto by the eyes of the government at the time (and now) would be pretty enought to defend ones castle.

[Legbreaker]

I'm in agreement with Ronin. There's just no need for automatic weapons in North America prior to the Soviet landings in mid 1997. And that only happened waaaaaaaay up in Alaska posing no real threat to the main US states.
By the time the Mexicans become a serious threat, the rule of law has basically shattered with the November nukes.

[Top-Break]

Originally Posted by Canadian Army

I say yes, why I think the NRA and and the Second Amendment Foundation would have pressed the politicians in Washington to repealed based on the fact many Americans would be worried about a possible soviet invasion or attack.

This is something that really depends on the character and priorities of the Administration and/or Congress. If the Tanner Administration is similar in thinking to the Clinton Administration in OTL, then AWB legislation is a given, especially given the canon admin's law and order focus.

[Webstral]

In the interests of providing a reference point, I will say that the assault weapons ban had nothing to do with automatic weapons or weapons capable of automatic fire at the time of purchase. The term "assault weapon" was adopted by left-of-center politicians and their supporting interests because the term is short enough to remember and menacing to the average American. Initially, there was no definition for "assault weapon". The weapons covered were named specifically. The firearms industry responded by releasing versions of the banned firearms with superficial alterations and a new name. Only at this point did the "assault weapons" crowd attempt to devise a definition for their own term. The ban affected a range of imported semi-automatic weapons, like the AK-47, the MAK-90, and so on. Foreign-made shotguns and semi-auto handguns also were covered as well, I believe.

The federal ban is distinct from the California ban. Here in the People's Republic of California, long weapons are banned for their characteristics. There are five controlled characteristics: pistol grip, folding stock, bayonet lug, detachable magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, and flash suppressor. You can have one of these characteristics on your legal long weapon. More than one makes the weapon a California "assault weapon".

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by Webstral

In the interests of providing a reference point, I will say that the assault weapons ban had nothing to do with automatic weapons or weapons capable of automatic fire at the time of purchase. The term "assault weapon" was adopted by left-of-center politicians and their supporting interests because the term is short enough to remember and menacing to the average American. Initially, there was no definition for "assault weapon". The weapons covered were named specifically. The firearms industry responded by releasing versions of the banned firearms with superficial alterations and a new name. Only at this point did the "assault weapons" crowd attempt to devise a definition for their own term. The ban affected a range of imported semi-automatic weapons, like the AK-47, the MAK-90, and so on. Foreign-made shotguns and semi-auto handguns also were covered as well, I believe.

The federal ban is distinct from the California ban. Here in the People's Republic of California, long weapons are banned for their characteristics. There are five controlled characteristics: pistol grip, folding stock, bayonet lug, detachable magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, and flash suppressor. You can have one of these characteristics on your legal long weapon. More than one makes the weapon a California "assault weapon".

I still look at those gun laws in California and find myself scratching my head...

I dont' suppose they're ever gonna start repealing any of those laws, are they???

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

I still look at those gun laws in California and find myself scratching my head...

I dont' suppose they're ever gonna start repealing any of those laws, are they???

That is the beauty of 50 odd States operating under a Republic. Firearms can be forbidden in one and unregulated in another. It is the Federal Laws that should be the most highly debated.

Maybe after the complete collapse of a bankrupt California and other States have to help out and the Federal Government administers it.

Then again looking at Foggy Bottom, unlikely.

[pmulcahy11b]

You know, a sharp stick can be used as an "assault weapon" in the right circumstances. Look at the phrase "assault weapon" semantically; a weapon used to assault someone. That's potentially anything.

My new rallying cry! BAN EVERYTHING!!!

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

I still look at those gun laws in California and find myself scratching my head...

I dont' suppose they're ever gonna start repealing any of those laws, are they???

When monkeys start flying out of a very sensitive place on my body. Or when California splits into two states, at which point South California will repeal or ignore the existing law.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Webstral

When monkeys start flying out of a very sensitive place on my body.

Your ear-hole? Your nostril? Wait, maybe your belly button? Is that a sensitive place? Mine is kind of sensitive. Sorry, probably TMI...

[Top-Break]

Originally Posted by Canadian Army

Do you Think the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban would have been repealed at the start of the Twilight War.

Probably not. The canon Democrat Tanner Administration, with it's law and order focus (translation=ban guns), would probably veto any attempt at repeal. Not that it really mattered. The 1994 ban was a verifiable sexual congress of rodents, failing to ban anything except "streetsweeper" shotguns. (Which have probably killed more people in the movies than in real life. . .)

Once the shooting starts, importation becomes a moot point. China, the Warsaw Pact, etc are at war, and are no longer in the civilian weapons business. Domestic production as well is likely to be increasingly devoted to war needs. The Chinese are probably buying anything they can lay their hands on, and paying cash to boot.

After the nukes fly, there won't be enough of a Congress to do much of anything, and most of the country won't be listening anyway.

The short answer is no repeal. However, as things go downhill, I would also imagine a large dose of no enforcement.

[boogiedowndonovan]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

I still look at those gun laws in California and find myself scratching my head...

I dont' suppose they're ever gonna start repealing any of those laws, are they???

I doubt it. if anything there will probably be a bigger outcry for more laws.

there was another shooting today.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...nia/50666908/1

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Originally Posted by boogiedowndonovan

I doubt it. if anything there will probably be a bigger outcry for more laws.

there was another shooting today.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...nia/50666908/1

Wow those anti assault weapon style bans are really working in Kalifornia............DOH!!!

[Webstral]

I didn’t see what kind of rifle and what kind of handgun were used, but it hardly matters. If the perp used a Springfield 1903 and a revolver, the legislature will allow itself to be convinced that bolt action rifles and revolvers constitute “assault weapons” because the user doesn’t have to put a new round into the chamber by hand after each shot. By the time I’m 60, they’ll be debating whether a black powder musket counts as an assault weapon, since the use of a powder horn and bag for the ammunition means that the firearm owner doesn’t have to go back to the gun shop after each shot.

I'd give serious consideration to moving to Arizona or Texas if my wife's family weren't so entrenched in the Bay Area. I can't take my kids away from their grandparents over magazine capacity.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I can't take my kids away from their grandparents over magazine capacity.

Give it a few decades...

[Nowhere Man 1966]

I have to concur. Although there will be butterflies that could change things to the point where we'd wonder if the ban would even exist, the Tanner Administration always seemed a bit Clintonian to me. I'd think it cloud remain in effect, although maybe there might be a modification where the ban on large capacity mags could be lifted as a bone tossed to the NRA and others which I'm sure would lobby hard to get it overturned. As the world goes done the toilet in the latter part of the decade, the law will be unenforceable anyhoo.

[Ronin]

I dont see the ban being lifted or modified. But I do agree once the world goes sideways, its all moot.