Tell me about the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban
How in the hell did the American people allow it to become law & why was it not struck down before its ?sunset?. I was 13 in 1994 so educate me.
0
-
The 1994 Crime Bill had (just) enough support in the Congress to pass, but that was based on huge $$$ incentives and giveaway programs like "midnight basketball" and the famous promise of 20,000 new cops on the streets. The finished bill, with gun restrictions intact, squeezed through the House and the Senate, and President Clinton, who had campaigned on expanding on the 1989 Bush assault weapons ban to include domestic firearms, signed it.
Flash forward to 1996 and not long after the House flip-flop from Democrat to Republican, legislation was introduced that would remove the gun restrictions from the Crime Bill ahead of the sunset. It passed the House, but the Senate never took it up. It hardly mattered since Clinton, who signed the legislation back in 1994, made it crystal clear that he'd veto any attempt to overturn any part of the Crime Bill. There would never be sufficient votes to override his veto, so that was the end of that.
Clinton was out in January 2001 and by that time it became a waiting game as we sweated out the sunset in 2004. By 2003 is was pretty clear that the sunset would in fact occur, and as if by magic, all of those $100+ Glock hicaps were suddenly selling for $30 as sellers tried to unload their hoard of "pre ban" magazines before the bottom dropped out of the market. There were a few attempts to extend the bill or make it permanent, but none got out of committee, much less made it to the floor. On 13 September, 2004 the Crime Bill sunset on schedule, and you know the rest.0 -
Yep, what Mark said. I'll add that the NRA had a hand in crafting the bill and supported it wholeheartedly. It was when that happened that I woke up, and me and the NRA parted company. 0 -
When it came right down to it, the magazine restriction was the most unpalatable part of the Crime Bill. The bill contained a list of so called assault weapons, but most of them were in the '89 Bush ban and already non importable. As far as domestic firearms were concerned, make the stock fixed, take off the bayonet lug and replace the flashider with a muzzle break and just about every rifle could comply with the regulations. The Crime Bill saw the awakening of Short Barreled Rifles, which had been a minor part of the National Firearms Act. For the payment of the $200 tax, not only could you get your retractable/folding stock, bayonet lug, and flashider, you could get a 10 inch barrel or any other length you wanted. Due to what had been low numbers of registrations back then, tax stamps were issued quickly and registrations of SBRs literally doubled overnight... and kept right on rising. We see this today with the large numbers of factory SBRs available to civilian shooters who are willing to wait (now many months) for their tax stamp.
While is was great to get non-neutered rifles back in 2004, many felt that being able to buy (at reasonable prices) full capacity magazines for the firearms they already owned was every bit as good.0 -
The bottom line was that the ban had a zero - or unmeasureable - effect on crime.
As will the next ban.0 -
You may occasionally see magazines with these markings: 
The legislation had numerous exemptions for those of us who were dealers and still needed to engage in normal commerce. One such were "restricted" magazines which could not resold to the public. Each magazine was date stamped and marked as restricted. As a dealer, I could buy these Colt 20 round magazines for $5 while "preban" examples were priced at $40+.0 -
I agree with Mark that the magazine limit restriction hit the most people the hardest. Now, some states have as, or more restrictive rules regarding capacity.
Incidentally, I did find it interesting how some companies, particularly S&W didn't really balk at the magazine limits at the time. I still think this is largely because many/most of their handguns out at that time were right at or under the 10 round limit and they were losing sales to the higher round guns like Glock.
I still refuse to call any magazine factory built for a firearm as high capacity. I instead call them full capacity. Only extended aftermarket mags above the factory design get referred to as high capacity.0 -
As far as the firearms market was concerned, we saw huge interest in big bore semi auto pistols in both .45acp and 10mm. After all, if you only get 10 rounds you might as well make them big ones! Small sized 9mm handguns which had always used small capacity magazines, also staged a comeback and quickly became popular. We can see that today in the large numbers of small framed 9mm pistols on the market like the Smith & Wesson M&P9 Shield, Glock 43, Walther PPS M2, Ruger LC9S Pro, Sig Sauer P290, and a host of others. 0 -
mark christian wrote:As far as the firearms market was concerned, we saw huge interest in big bore semi auto pistols in both .45acp and 10mm. After all, if you only get 10 rounds you might as well make them big ones!
It was certainly around this time that I became a 10mm fanatic, that may have played a part.0 -
Horse Plains Drifter wrote:Yep, what Mark said. I'll add that the NRA had a hand in crafting the bill and supported it wholeheartedly. It was when that happened that I woke up, and me and the NRA parted company.
Wasn?t Bill Ruger a helping hand in this as well to protect his Mini 14?0 -
We also discovered that after a decade without bayonet lugs we really didn't need to hang a knife on the muzzle of our rifles. Fast forward to today and unless someone has built an M4 clone, you seldom see a bayonet lug on a rifle. In fact most metal handguards make it impossible to have the lug. The same could be said for flash hiders. Most shooters currently use muzzle breaks or compensators of some sort. The incredible increase in suppressor ownership, I think that suppressors are now legal in 41 states, means that lots of guys don't care what's on the end of the muzzle so long as they can attach their suppressor. 0 -
I haven't been able to find the article, but I swear I remember Trump saying he wanted to take suppressors off the NFA list. Have you heard anything about that Mark? 0 -
bambihunter wrote:I haven't been able to find the article, but I swear I remember Trump saying he wanted to take suppressors off the NFA list. Have you heard anything about that Mark?
Legislation was proposed a couple of years ago which would have, for the most part, removed suppressors from the NFA and treated them as normal firearms, at least as far as the feds were concerned. With the change in control of the House, any such legislation is dead.0 -
Thanks Mark. That's too bad. I guess I should go ahead and get the ones I have been wanting after I get NFA trust set up. I have an AAC Pilot from eons ago and isn't real effective anymore due to residue build up. I'll never buy another .22lr suppressor that cannot be disassembled. 0 -
In his 2000 book, "The America We Deserve", the Draft Dodger said: "I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."
Until shortly before he decided to run for president, he was a life-long DEMOCRAT.
Neal
"You knew what I was when you picked me up."0 -
nmyers wrote:In his 2000 book, "The America We Deserve", the Draft Dodger said: "I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."
Until shortly before he decided to run for president, he was a life-long DEMOCRAT.
Neal
"You knew what I was when you picked me up."
And The Swill has been a lifelong hater of the 2nd Amendment. People can change if they want if the political winds blow that way. I for one will take Trump over ANYTHING in any line up that is at present from both sides.0 -
Thanks Mark for all the information. I know it but forgot it... :oops: mostly true. :oops: 0 -
Grasshopper wrote:nmyers wrote:In his 2000 book, "The America We Deserve", the Draft Dodger said: "I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."
Until shortly before he decided to run for president, he was a life-long DEMOCRAT.
Neal
"You knew what I was when you picked me up."
And The Swill has been a lifelong hater of the 2nd Amendment. People can change if they want if the political winds blow that way. I for one will take Trump over ANYTHING in any line up that is at present from both sides.
There hasn't been more than a couple candidates that I'd even invite to my house for dinner, let alone desire one of them to lead us. In fact, thinking back during my voting life, there was not one presidental candidate that I actually wanted. A few I wanted to win. Not because I wanted them, but because the other choice was worse. It really is a shame that for many, many years voting on most higher level positions really is a lesser of two evils.0 -
Horse Plains Drifter wrote:Yep, what Mark said. I'll add that the NRA had a hand in crafting the bill and supported it wholeheartedly. It was when that happened that I woke up, and me and the NRA parted company.
I looked and found nothing regarding NRA supporting the 1994 AW ban. I found the "Three Presidents" break with NRA letter by supporting it and that Democrats were still paying a price by taking on NRA by supporting it. That indicates NRA opposed it. Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
"The National Rifle Association (NRA) opposed the ban. In November 1993, NRA spokesman Bill McIntyre said that assault weapons "are used in only 1 percent of all crimes". The low usage statistic was supported in a 1999 Department of Justice brief. The legislation passed in September 1994 with the assault weapon ban section expiring in 2004 due to its sunset provision."
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-11-18-9311180157-story.html
"William McIntyre, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, called the assault weapon ban a "sideshow" that would do little to curb violent crime. "These weapons are used in only 1 percent of all crimes," McIntyre said. "All this legislation will do is keep these weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens."
McIntyre contended that most owners of semiautomatic weapons use them for purposes of "self defense. About 2 million times a year they are used by citizens to protect themselves."0 -
bambihunter wrote:I agree with Mark that the magazine limit restriction hit the most people the hardest. Now, some states have as, or more restrictive rules regarding capacity.
Incidentally, I did find it interesting how some companies, particularly S&W didn't really balk at the magazine limits at the time. I still think this is largely because many/most of their handguns out at that time were right at or under the 10 round limit and they were losing sales to the higher round guns like Glock.
I still refuse to call any magazine factory built for a firearm as high capacity. I instead call them full capacity. Only extended aftermarket mags above the factory design get referred to as high capacity.
I would never use the term "high capacity" as it is arbitrary and legitimizes the term for general use. Even aftermarket extended. We've been screwed by the entirely fabricated "assault weapon" term and "gun show loophole" and ought not encourage the practice. To use it is to play on their terms and that's a certain loser. I suppose "greater than factory" capacity is OK, but it's pretty cumbersome. Whatever magazines I have are of "just enough" capacity.
As an aside, when gunowners assert there's no difference between using a 30 rounder and three 10 rounders, so why restrict the 30 rounders, the eventual response from anti-gunners will be that we're right. So "no one needs three 10 round magazines" will be next.0 -
Warbirds wrote:How in the hell did the American people allow it to become law & why was it not struck down before its ?sunset?. I was 13 in 1994 so educate me.
It happened about the same way the 1934 National Firearms Act occurred and the 1968 Gun Control Act. Congress did it and the people let them.0 -
Warbirds (if you are out there...because we haven't heard back from you) something that you have to remember is that in 1994, Al Gore had only recently invented the internet. It wasn't all that easy to keep up with what was happening on a daily basis with the Crime Bill, and amendments were being made hourly. Print media like gun magazines were months behind. Gun forums? What the hell was a gun forum? One of the few ways to stay on top of things was by using 900 numbers (if anyone remembers those) for legislative updates. Neal Knox (RIP Neal) had a 900 number, and it was so overloaded with calls that I'd set my alarm for 0100 just so I could call in. With todays instant communication and social media (love it or hate it), it is simple to keep updated on anything and everything taking place in and around DC. 0 -
Big Sky Redneck wrote:Horse Plains Drifter wrote:Yep, what Mark said. I'll add that the NRA had a hand in crafting the bill and supported it wholeheartedly. It was when that happened that I woke up, and me and the NRA parted company.
Wasn?t Bill Ruger a helping hand in this as well to protect his Mini 14?
It was Bill Ruger's idea to limit magazine capacity. You bet your bippy.0 -
Something else which changed with the Crime Bill was military style semiautos no longer being treated as the redheaded stepchild of the firearms industry. It seems hard to believe today, but prior to the Crime Bill any firearm which was even remotely mean looking was prohibited at the SHOT Show. Machine guns and suppressors at SHOT? You're joking (or drunk)! Back in early 90's I recall wanting to look at a Mossberg 590 with bayonet lug and heat shield and being told by Mossberg that they weren't allowed to display that model at the show because it was "militarized". It wasn't until 2005 that a small room at SHOT was set aside for what were being called Law Enforcement firearms. That all changed. Despite so called Black Rifles making up less than 10% of firearms sales nationwide, at least 50% of SHOT's display space is dedicated to those rifles and related items like suppressors. 0 -
Midnight basketball! :roll: I had forgotten all about that!
Wasn't Hitlery an honorary referee?0 -
I was thinking it was an 11pm vote just before the Christmas (or some holiday break) and most of congress had already left town ... even then it only passed because of the sunset clause.tomh. wrote:Midnight basketball! :roll: I had forgotten all about that!
Wasn't Hitlery an honorary referee?
The next year, the FBI(?) published a list of the top 10 crime weapons, not 1 of the banned weapons was on it.0 -
Thanks for the discussion- Im just trying to understand what I can do to prevent the legal recurrence of this type of event.
We all know next time there will not be a sunset.0 -
Warbirds wrote:How in the hell did the American people allow it to become law & why was it not struck down before its ?sunset?. I was 13 in 1994 so educate me.
A) people elected representatives. there were more for it than against it. it was illegal just like the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA,1986 MGB, and all those ridiculous laws in CA NY DC MA Chicago etc etc etc. are plainly illegal.
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.?
C) those people support it because they ignore the laws they don't like. unfortunately there are too many of those people and you get what we got here.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
27 comments