Should we overturn the 1986 automatic weapons ban?

[Luna Tick]

I researched this a little and was surprised to learn it wasn't President Clinton's 1994 assault weapons ban (expired in '04) that banned automatic weapons. It was a law from 1986 that's still in effect. In short, you can own a so-called assault rifle like an AR-15 or an AK-47, but it has to be semi-automatic. You can still own an automatic one if you can find a grandfathered pre 1986 one, but it will be extremely expensive. In other words, if you're rich, there's no problem in owning a fully automatic assault rifle. If you're poor, you can either settle for semi-automatic or get a conversion kit to convert it to automatic (illegally in almost all cases) and risk getting in big trouble.

I'm wondering if it would just make more sense to allow law-abiding citizens to own fully automatic rifles like the AR-15. Seems like the same people who own a semi auto one without committing murder will be just as responsible with a fully automatic one. Then again, I'm not a gun owner myself and have just started to research this. In any event, vote your opinion. Should the 2nd Amendment give you the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle? Are you for overturning the 1986 ban?

 

[joko104]

Why would you want a full auto AR? Even the Marines gave up full autos in their combat rifles. A full auto just means throwing rounds all over and up in the air. Besides, you can just buy a bump stock.

 

[samsmart]

I researched this a little and was surprised to learn it wasn't President Clinton's 1994 assault weapons ban (expired in '04) that banned automatic weapons. It was a law from 1986 that's still in effect. In short, you can own a so-called assault rifle like an AR-15 or an AK-47, but it has to be semi-automatic. You can still own an automatic one if you can find a grandfathered pre 1986 one, but it will be extremely expensive. In other words, if you're rich, there's no problem in owning a fully automatic assault rifle. If you're poor, you can either settle for semi-automatic or get a conversion kit to convert it to automatic (illegally in almost all cases) and risk getting in big trouble.

I'm wondering if it would just make more sense to allow law-abiding citizens to own fully automatic rifles like the AR-15. Seems like the same people who own a semi auto one without committing murder will be just as responsible with a fully automatic one. Then again, I'm not a gun owner myself and have just started to research this. In any event, vote your opinion. Should the 2nd Amendment give you the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle? Are you for overturning the 1986 ban?

No, I don't think we should overturn that ban.

 

[Goshin]

Yes. It should be overturned.


The ban serves no useful purpose that is not already served by NICS/background checks and the Class III license requirement to own full auto weapons.

 

[Tigger]

It should definitely be overturned. The only limitations that I support on the ownership of firearms in this country are....

1. Proof you do not have a felony conviction, or a drug/alcohol conviction on your record
2. Proof you have not been adjudicated mentally incompetent
3. Proof you are an American Citizen over the age of 18
4. Proof that you can safely store and handle the firearm/weapon in question

If you can prove that you can safely store and handle an M1 Abrams MBT, I have no problem with someone owning one.

 

[joko104]

It should definitely be overturned. The only limitations that I support on the ownership of firearms in this country are....

1. Proof you do not have a felony conviction, or a drug/alcohol conviction on your record
2. Proof you have not been adjudicated mentally incompetent
3. Proof you are an American Citizen over the age of 18
4. Proof that you can safely store and handle the firearm/weapon in question

If you can prove that you can safely store and handle an M1 Abrams MBT, I have no problem with someone owning one.

You think someone with a DUI or public intox conviction should be banned from gun ownership?

Probably it should be a rite of passage to adulthood that every American receive an M1 with 1000 rounds of ammo on his/her 18th birthday. While maybe oppressively restrictive, I think probably not until 21 for RPGs.

As long as we outlawed using those or any other firearms for any illegal activity, there shouldn't be any problems.

 

[joko104]

The next time someone goes off the deep end and want's to take out fellow college students, that person should have the right to pull up with one of these bolted down in the back of his 4x4 dually:



^ I want one of those. Only for hunting purposes.

 

[molten_dragon]

Yeah, it should be overturned. Leave the same restrictions that are currently in place for purchasing ones that are grandfathered in, and let people buy new ones again.

 

[Tigger]

You think someone with a DUI or public intox conviction should be banned from gun ownership?

In a single word.... YES. These people have proven that they cannot be trusted by the general public to follow the rules. Just like someone who has been convicted of marijuana possession.

 

[Graffias]

I researched this a little and was surprised to learn it wasn't President Clinton's 1994 assault weapons ban (expired in '04) that banned automatic weapons. It was a law from 1986 that's still in effect.

You mean the one that "great conservative" Reagan signed into law?

 

[joko104]

Yes. It should be overturned.


The ban serves no useful purpose that is not already served by NICS/background checks and the Class III license requirement to own full auto weapons.

You make a valid point. The reason for the ban, of course, is to stop or reduce manufacturing and to then control them at the production rather than just the ownership end.

Those who have pre-ban weapons and ammo prefer the ban stay in effect to preserve the escalating value of their collectables.

 

[Tigger]

You mean the one that "great conservative" Reagan signed into law?

Ronald Reagan was no more a "Great Conservative" than Josef Stalin was.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

You make a valid point. The reason for the ban, of course, is to stop or reduce manufacturing and to then control them at the production rather than just the ownership end.

Those who have pre-ban weapons and ammo prefer the ban stay in effect to preserve the escalating value of their collectables.

Actually, that ban was done in one of the most under handed and questionably legal ways.
The vote was at night, when most of the congress persons were at home, the vote wasn't even recorded and it was attached to a gun owners "bill of rights" as a poison pill amendment.

Edit: Correction, it was done in the morning not at night.

 

[jamesrage]

I researched this a little and was surprised to learn it wasn't President Clinton's 1994 assault weapons ban (expired in '04) that banned automatic weapons. It was a law from 1986 that's still in effect. In short, you can own a so-called assault rifle like an AR-15 or an AK-47, but it has to be semi-automatic. You can still own an automatic one if you can find a grandfathered pre 1986 one, but it will be extremely expensive. In other words, if you're rich, there's no problem in owning a fully automatic assault rifle. If you're poor, you can either settle for semi-automatic or get a conversion kit to convert it to automatic (illegally in almost all cases) and risk getting in big trouble.

I'm wondering if it would just make more sense to allow law-abiding citizens to own fully automatic rifles like the AR-15. Seems like the same people who own a semi auto one without committing murder will be just as responsible with a fully automatic one. Then again, I'm not a gun owner myself and have just started to research this. In any event, vote your opinion. Should the 2nd Amendment give you the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle? Are you for overturning the 1986 ban?

Yes it should be overturned.Civilians should be able to own what ever firearms that military and law enforcement can get their hands on, it should be limited to whats made before 1986 and you shouldn't have to jump through hopes for what is a constitutional right that says shall not infringe at the end of it. Amazing how the hoplophobes written this into a bill titled the "firearms owners protection act".

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I don't know why anybody would want a full auto but if they do they should be able to have one. If you are worried somebody would use one for a Columbine type massacre you would be better off worrying about somebody sawing off a shotgun instead. A short barrel shotgun is a more efficient killer in tight quarters. 00 buck fires nine well dispersed 30 caliber slugs every time you pull the trigger. It is hard to miss a single target and in a crowd you will make several people fall with every shot. This full auto phobia is largely unfounded and more based on emotion than fact. It takes alot of practice to become proficient with a so called machine gun and the first time you use one in the high stress of a combat situation or I guess in a massacre event you end up shooting more sky than people.

 

[lizzie]

In other words, if you're rich, there's no problem in owning a fully automatic assault rifle. If you're poor, you can either settle for semi-automatic or get a conversion kit to convert it to automatic (illegally in almost all cases) and risk getting in big trouble.

Frankly, if you're poor, you aren't likely to own a nice AR anyway.

As for the question of the OP- it's a good question. Fully auto weapons aren't practical, but should they be banned? Probably not, if the 2nd amendment is to be literally applied.

 

[RadicalModerate]

I don't know why anybody would want a full auto but if they do they should be able to have one. If you are worried somebody would use one for a Columbine type massacre you would be better off worrying about somebody sawing off a shotgun instead. A short barrel shotgun is a more efficient killer in tight quarters. 00 buck fires nine well dispersed 30 caliber slugs every time you pull the trigger. It is hard to miss a single target and in a crowd you will make several people fall with every shot. This full auto phobia is largely unfounded and more based on emotion than fact. It takes alot of practice to become proficient with a so called machine gun and the first time you use one in the high stress of a combat situation or I guess in a massacre event you end up shooting more sky than people.

Lol, spree shooters are some of the most professional shooters around it seems like.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Lol, spree shooters are some of the most professional shooters around it seems like.

Personally I am always amazed at how few people spree shooters manage to kill. I feel confident that if I planned a shooting spree my body count would easily be 100 plus. Maybe that is because I am sane and would never do such a thing, these nuts that do these shootings are thankfully very inefficient.

 

[Tigger]

Personally I am always amazed at how few people spree shooters manage to kill. I feel confident that if I planned a shooting spree my body count would easily be 100 plus. Maybe that is because I am sane and would never do such a thing, these nuts that do these shootings are thankfully very inefficient.

The vast majority of these spree shooters are not the sort of people you see on a Saturday morning out dialing their rifle in to MOA tolerances or spending hours working on putting both rounds of a double-tap from their handgun on top of each other or doing stoppage/rloading drills whlle they're sitting on the couch watching tv at night. They're not the people you see at IDPA, IPSC, ICORE, or CMP matches. Many of them have nothing more than a rudimentary understanding of how the firearm in their hands works at all.

 

[JMarttn]

I think it would be ok. Just make it like they do other NFA rifles (short-barrelled shotguns, and short-barrelled rifles) google it...you pay a $200 'tax' and do the paperwork, along with fingerprints. These go to the local Sheriff for approval, then to the BATFE. The background check process takes 3-4 months on average, you receive the paperwork with a "tax stamp" in the mail. Then you legally own that gun, which is illegal for anyone else to own. Just have to keep the paper (or a copy) with the gun, showing you're legit. You probably end up on some list somewhere, but Hell, aren't we all now practically?

On another note here, other than what some people would call "wow factor", and Hollywood movie crap, full auto is over-rated. The first round or two may hit where you're aiming, the rest typically for most shooters just fly out wherever. Full auto was basically designed to lay a "base of fire" on the enemy, to suppress, and keep their heads down, while you send a group around to flank them or get a better angle.

Have a nice day

 

[Porchev]

I researched this a little and was surprised to learn it wasn't President Clinton's 1994 assault weapons ban (expired in '04) that banned automatic weapons. It was a law from 1986 that's still in effect. In short, you can own a so-called assault rifle like an AR-15 or an AK-47, but it has to be semi-automatic. You can still own an automatic one if you can find a grandfathered pre 1986 one, but it will be extremely expensive. In other words, if you're rich, there's no problem in owning a fully automatic assault rifle. If you're poor, you can either settle for semi-automatic or get a conversion kit to convert it to automatic (illegally in almost all cases) and risk getting in big trouble.

I'm wondering if it would just make more sense to allow law-abiding citizens to own fully automatic rifles like the AR-15. Seems like the same people who own a semi auto one without committing murder will be just as responsible with a fully automatic one. Then again, I'm not a gun owner myself and have just started to research this. In any event, vote your opinion. Should the 2nd Amendment give you the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle? Are you for overturning the 1986 ban?

I don't agree with the restrictions on automatic weapons that came with the 1986 law, but it did have some good things in it:

• Opens up interstate sales of long guns, within some limitations. In-person sales can only be to residents of an adjacent state. Other sales must go through an FFL transfer.
• Allows interstate transport of firearms, provided no local laws are broken in the process.
• Makes it illegal for anyone to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person. Previously, it was only illegal for dealers to do this.
• Provides any prohibited persons can get relief of their disability by applying to the Treasury Secretary. This has been repealed in practice by the program being specifically unfunded in the federal budget.
• It prevents the government from creating a list of gun owners from dealer records.
• Limits the number of inspections on a dealer by the BATF without a search warrant.
• Allows FFL holders to engage in business away from their normal business location. I.E. at a gun show.
• Allows ammunition shipments through the US Postal Service.
• Ended record keeping on ammunition sales, except for armor piercing or prohibited ammunition such as explosive.
• Eliminates the FFL requirement for ammunition only dealers.
• Specifically states that those disposing of personal firearm collections do not need an FFL.
• To get an FFL, firearms do not have to be a principle business activity.

Prevent Tyranny - Right to Bear Arms - 1986 - Firearm Owners Protection Act

---The 1994 law was much worse, and I am glad it had an expiration date. It restricted a lot of semi-auto weapons. More on that one here:

Prevent Tyranny - Right to Bear Arms - 1994 - Assault Weapons Ban

 

[Ikari]

Automatic Weapons should be allowed the same as any other arm.

 

[longview]

If you want to take a full auto out to the range, better bring you folding money, because it will
cost a lot. In bulk I think .223 is about 30 cents each, so $9.00 per mag. This could add up fast.
As far as legal, I think it should be allowed, but the legal bump stocks are almost as good.
For those who have not seen one, the video below shows it is almost indistinguishable from full auto.
Incredible Bump Fire! - YouTube

 

[Shadow Serious]

In a single word.... YES. These people have proven that they cannot be trusted by the general public to follow the rules. Just like someone who has been convicted of marijuana possession.

Yes bu i think that marijuana should be legal too. But you might have a point they may eat their guns.:lol:

 

[beerftw]

Yes bu i think that marijuana should be legal too. But you might have a point they may eat their guns.:lol:

well they definately wouldn't suffer from any iron deficiency after that