1994 AWB "watered down" Someone help me out, please

D

doofus47

New member
So I was listening to NPR today and they interviewed (I believe) Tom King of the NRA. Whoever it was from the NRA, they did a pretty good job of pointing out some basic fallacies, facts and FBI stats about "assault weapons" and gun violence.

Anyhow, the NPR interviewer offered that the original AWB was "watered down" to the point of being ineffective.

I'll admit that I wasn't paying enough attention in 1994. Can someone more familiar with the legislative process at that point in time please explain to me how the original AWB was the product of "watering down" rather than just being poorly written?
 
I'll admit that I wasn't paying enough attention in 1994. Can someone more familiar with the legislative process at that point in time please explain to me how the original AWB was the product of "watering down" rather than just being poorly written?
Click to expand...

They made an exception for the Mini-14. Everyone knows how deadly those are.
 
It depends on who you ask. Because of the (perceived) overly specific nature of some terms, manufacturers were able to market rifles nearly identical to those banned by simply changing a few parts.

Other folks claimed that by allowing pre-1994 guns and magazines to remain legal, the ban carried little weight because so much of that stuff was already in circulation.

You'll notice that both of those are things Feinstein is attempting to "fix" in her new version of the legislation.
 
Anyhow, the NPR interviewer offered that the original AWB was "watered down" to the point of being ineffective.

I'll admit that I wasn't paying enough attention in 1994. Can someone more familiar with the legislative process at that point in time please explain to me how the original AWB was the product of "watering down" rather than just being poorly written?
Click to expand...

Allow me to translate: "While we know that the original AWB didn't make any difference in crime, we're not going to admit that it didn't work because that's not politically expedient. Instead, we'll just claim that the original was watered down and that we didn't go far enough."
 
Allow me to translate: "While we know that the original AWB didn't make any difference in crime, we're not going to admit that it didn't work because that's not politically expedient. Instead, we'll just claim that the original was watered down and that we didn't go far enough."
Click to expand...

You forgot:

"This one will be so much better it WILL SAVE BABIES. You are not against it are you? Do you hate babies?"
 
The 1994 AWB banned a certain number of features that a rifle could have. Durring the ban you could still buy an AR-15 or AK-47 but it had to have a certain amount of US parts. The guns were delivered with a 10 round clip. The flash hider, baynet lug and collapsable stock were often eliminated to reduces the number of "evil" features.
The result was that you could still get an AR-15 and 20-30 magizines were still available, but expensive.
The ban was useless. It only aggrivated people and did nothing stop the supply of "assault" weapon.
The impact on crime was zero.
A true AWB would stop the sale of all semi-automatic rifles regardeless of design or original purpose. Thus the Browning automatics (hunting rifles), the Ruger Mini-14 and other non-military type weapons would also fall victim to the ban.
An other aproach might be to ban semi-automatic weapons with a detachable magazine. You could still get an AR-15 but the mag would be fixed and you would have to top load it.
The big killer in the US is not long guns. The big problem is pistols. Here they seem to be focusing only on magazine capacity.
This is were things get foggy. Read the second ammendment. It does not give you the right to anything more than a right to bear keep arms for any other reason than to protect your state as part of a well orginized militia.
As odd as this sound, the Federal government could ban EVERYTHING except military type weapons. You could even be prohibited from owning a firearm if your state disqualified you from ever serving as part of a militia.
We have a long history of hunting and an expectation of armed self defense but these are traditions, not law.
Keep in mind that even if a law is unconstitutional it may not be overturned. After all, any reasonable reading of the constitution would have outlawed slavery but it persisted for over 80 years before that hapened.
We will get what what the Congress thinks we want.
 
Last edited:
DLB, I suggest you go re-read the Heller and MacDonald decisions. The 2nd Amendment does a lot more than simply protect the state-run militia's arms. It sounds like you are arguing almost exclusively from the Miller case's ruling.
 
Yeah, the Supremes have come out and said that we have a right to own firearms in the general use. Or something like that. That's why they can't ban handguns.
 
DLB, you have read too much Brady stuff..quit buying into their garbage,

In Heller the Supreme Court said that weapons in comon use could not be banned, and that it was an INDIVIDUAL right to own and bear arms.

Therefore, I say (my opinion) the more AR/AK's sold the better, as the more comon they become, the more difficult they will be to restrict.
 
I don't think he's buying what Brady is selling, just not up with the times.

Especially since even if correct, many hunting weapons have a direct link to military weapons. At least one branch is retro-fitting Remington 700's in 300 Win-Mag as their next sniper platform. Boom, Deer Rifle.
 
Yeh, I'm up with the times. This court has chosen a broader interpertation than would normally be expected from the Supreme Court. I like it, but I also know that it could be reversed later on. It would only take one or two new people on the court to go the other way.
 
Yep Jim! I have one of those nasty "sniper rifle" remy 700...bought it back in 1964. It is an excelent 1000M rifle..:)
 
Yeh, I'm up with the times. This court has chosen a broader interpertation than would normally be expected from the Supreme Court. I like it, but I also know that it could be reversed later on. It would only take one or two new people on the court to go the other way.
Click to expand...

In theory, yes. In practice it would undermine the standing of the court. SCOTUS has no real power to enforce a ruling aside from strong tradition. Remember Andrew Jackson's quote, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"

A fast reversal would reflect on the court poorly, as it would be seen as a political tool of the party in power, thus rendering it less effective. The court is supposed to be above the politics. A reversal is unlikely.
 
Thanks for the feedback. My impression as well was to obfuscate failure by declaring that it was "watered down."

I just wasn't sure if my impression was b/c I wasn't paying attention. I like to check my feel good assumptions.
 
I believe when they say watered down they mean the anti's did not get all they wanted banned . Just like the one coming up , we all have seen what the summery is and I believe it will look nothing like it ( watered down ) . One of the things I think that will be different is . There will not be a sunset/expiration on this one .

It depends on who you ask. Because of the (perceived) overly specific nature of some terms, manufacturers were able to market rifles nearly identical to those banned by simply changing a few parts.
Click to expand...

Yep ^
I bought an AK right after the ban had started that had a thumb hole stock . That was the only thing that was different from a regular one . I still have pre ban 30 round mags for the AK and 10/22 .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top