Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: It's confusing

  1. #1
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    150

    It's confusing

    Now that the awb was sun setted in 2004 is 922r still applicable?

  2. #2
    Guns Network Contributor 04/2013 El Laton Caliente's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    In the East Texas woods
    Posts
    6,158
    Yes, but it has been rewritten under a different designation. The AWB is different from the 922r import requirements.
    We found out what "dealing" with progressive lefties is all about. Our side gives up something, they give up nothing and the progressives come back in a month or a year and want us to give up more... rinse and repeat...

  3. #3
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    150
    Never mind. I just realized it is part of the 1968 law which is still in effect.

  4. #4
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    150
    By the way didn't the 1968 gun control act ban importing assault weapons? If so what did Bush1 ban in 1989? Also,other then hicaps, what did Clinton ban in 1994? It seems the 89/94 acts bans things already banned.

  5. #5
    Administrator imanaknut's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana, a state that is trying to remain free.
    Posts
    12,280
    What Bush1 did was force ATF into following the letter of the law per the 1968 GCA. His executive order demanded that they enforce the import ban which is what led to the Bush-hole stocks, neutered gas and sight blocks on many AK variants, among other things. Up until 1989 ATF had pretty much ignored the import parts count and evil feature rule.

  6. #6
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    150
    Thanks for the education imanaknut. What about the 1994 act? Seems also redundant. When it comes to these types of weapons I'm on a grade school level while you guys graduated college.LOL.

  7. #7
    Administrator imanaknut's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana, a state that is trying to remain free.
    Posts
    12,280
    william jefferson clinton on the other hand did his ban through congress, which led to the republican taking the congress for the first time in 40 years. Having a majority in house and senate he forced through his ban based on names of the firearms, which is why no more Norinco AK/AKM type weapons, as well as others, were allowed to be imported in any configuration.

    The 1994 AWB was more a ban on standard capacity magazines, which our news media likes to call "hi-caps". To them anything over clinton capacity (10 rounds) is a high cap even though a 30 round mag is standard for an AK, 20 or 30 standard for the AR15/M16, etc.

    Bush the Idiot seemed to believe that the evil features of a firearm caused honest people to become baby killing criminals, unless the long gun had 10 or less foreign parts, then it could look evil yet not be evil. He was that stupid, and the law on the books, not once but twice, also known as Title 27CFR 478.39 lives as one of the most useless laws or "codified federal regulations" ever written.

  8. #8
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    150
    So let me get this straight: 1968 bans aw. Bush1 makes atf enforce it. Clinton gets congress to rubber stamp it. They can come in sporterized (defanged). You can use US parts to refang them. Unbelieveable.

  9. #9
    Administrator imanaknut's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana, a state that is trying to remain free.
    Posts
    12,280
    Pretty stupid isn't it, and like I said, writing it once was not enough, it is in federal code twice!

  10. #10
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    150
    What is really sad is that the uniformed fall for it. My father once told me that if the government thinks you are not gullible then you become dangerous to them.

  11. #11
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    150
    Meant unINformed not uniformed.

  12. #12
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    150
    What was the thinking behind 922r? Why ban aw. Then bring them in sporterized. Then have the ability to convert them back.

  13. #13
    Administrator imanaknut's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana, a state that is trying to remain free.
    Posts
    12,280
    While technically anything used to assault another person is an assault weapon, be it a baseball bat, knife or shovel, the news media and ATF decided to demonize firearms that look like military weapons by calling semi-autos as assault weapons. They then took it further to define an assault weapon as one that has certain features that they defined as evil, like the bayo lug, threaded barrel, etc.

    Why did the government do this? You have to go back to the thinking during the Lyndon Johnson era, where there were a few political assassinations and other unrest. Johnson wanted to make sure that he as supreme leader would be able to control the country by coming up with these rules which became the 1968 Gun Control Act. While the 1934 NFA pushed the bounds of "shall not be infringed" by not banning firearms but taxing them, legal per the supreme court, Johnson and company flat out stomped on the constitution with the 1968 GCA.

  14. #14
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    150
    I was born in 1947 so I grew up smack dab in the middle of all that. I understand about control the people aspect but why give people a way to convert the rifle back to it's "evil" look using US parts? I don't get that part of it.

  15. #15
    Administrator imanaknut's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana, a state that is trying to remain free.
    Posts
    12,280
    Quote Originally Posted by fez View Post
    I was born in 1947 so I grew up smack dab in the middle of all that. I understand about control the people aspect but why give people a way to convert the rifle back to it's "evil" look using US parts? I don't get that part of it.
    Neither does ATF!

  16. #16
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    150
    My coffee just blew out my nose.LOL. You are a nut. Hey,thanks for all the historical info. Makes firearm ownership much more interesting.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •