Do you support the AWB? - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

RoboCop · 07-03-2003, 02:49 PM

Do you support the 1994 AWB? Next September of 2004 it will be decided to renew it or let it die.

Personally, I have conflicting views on it. One part of me wants the AWB to just die, so that law abiding citizens could own them... BUT, another part of me says "well sh*t, now it could be easier for criminals to get ahold of these weapons" which is something that some police can't deal with.

What do you think?

J-WS6 · 07-03-2003, 02:58 PM

I do not, nor will I ever support such a pointless ban.

How does a pistol grip or folding stock make a gun more leathal?

Im all for gun controls, I dont think everyone should be able to own a gun, but the AWB is just plain stupid. I think the laws now minus the AWB are fine. Although I would like to be able to own a Full Auto. (My local PD wont sign off)

Bill R · 07-03-2003, 03:03 PM

How do flash hiders and bayonet lugs make things more dangerous for officers?

CinaC · 07-03-2003, 03:11 PM

I don't support the bill, and I hope it and whatever pointless piece of legislation that prevents me from purchasing a magazine with a +10 capacity DIES!

Mike Tx · 07-03-2003, 03:22 PM

I look for it to be renewed. The politicians will suddenly "find" support for it after a few high profile shooting occur, each one using machine guns or high caliber weapons. You wait.

But no I don't support it.

JKT · 07-03-2003, 03:26 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by RoboCop:
[QB]Do you support the 1994 AWB? Next September of 2004 it will be decided to renew it or let it die. [QB]<hr /></blockquote>No. I think it's assnine and serves no real purpose other than to exert more governmental control over the Law-Abiding citizens of the US.

Bart · 07-03-2003, 03:41 PM

i support the ban. why? because i dont own any automatic weapons and i dont plan on buying any. therefore, i really dont give a crap. besides, theres too many morons out there who legally possess these types of weapons. we dont need anymore.

CinaC · 07-03-2003, 03:43 PM

It is very unlikely that I will ever own, say, a minivan. But as much as I detest those vehicles, I don't think "I'll never own one so what do I care" is a very good reason to make it illegal for others to own.

Believe it or not, Bart, there are more people than you in the world, and it's pretty selfish of you to think only of yourself, don't you think?

SpecOpsWarrior · 07-03-2003, 03:48 PM

It was garbage legislation that did nothing to "save the children"!

I guess Biily C and the gang thought they were really gonna do some good when they banned those evil AR-15's, AK-47's and Spas shotguns, among others!

But all they really ended up doing was banning flash suppresors, bayonet lugs, collapsable stocks, and the manufacture of standard capacity magazines (I hate the term hi-cap, we only have two kinds of magaizens, standard capacity, and low-cap mags). Now we have Clintonian mags that only hold ten rounds, and then we have a marketplace that is flooded with used standard capacity magazines at inflated prices!

Yeah, that piece of legislation really saved some lives!

The ONLY form of gun control that I am in favor of is keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and those with mental defects. I like the idea of an instant background check, but when anybody can buy a used gun without a background check, then it creates a situation where the background check isn't really keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. What we need are stricter laws about crimes committed with firearms, felons in possession of firearms and aggressive prosecution of criminals that break those laws.

[ 07-03-2003, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: SpecOpsWarrior ]

SpecOpsWarrior · 07-03-2003, 03:51 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bart:
i support the ban. why? because i dont own any automatic weapons and i dont plan on buying any. therefore, i really dont give a crap. besides, theres too many morons out there who legally possess these types of weapons. we dont need anymore.<hr /></blockquote>The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 didn't ban automatic weapons.

You should educate yourself on your constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and how it is being infringed!

SGT Dave · 07-03-2003, 03:57 PM

I ABSOLUTELY do not support it, but as Mike said, COOINCIDENTALLY, there will be a couple of mass shootings in the next year that the media will go out of their way to cover, and all the polititians will suddenlt decide to support it.

All it done was to drive the prices up so high most working cops couldn't afford to privately purchase them as we'd done in the past.

Just because Podunk PD issued me a shotgun does NOT mean I'm "well armed." Any encounter past 40-50 yards OR with a suspect using body armor means I'm SOL with the handgun and shotgun.

They word it though to make it sound like SUCH a great thing-like it saves SOOOOOO many lives

BULL-PU**Y!!

PelicanDriver · 07-03-2003, 03:59 PM

Don't renew it. Only law-abiding citizens will obey it or any other unconstitutional gun control law.

Bart · 07-03-2003, 04:01 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CinaC:
It is very unlikely that I will ever own, say, a minivan. But as much as I detest those vehicles, I don't think "I'll never own one so what do I care" is a very good reason to make it illegal for others to own.

Believe it or not, Bart, there are more people than you in the world, and it's pretty selfish of you to think only of yourself, don't you think?<hr /></blockquote>that thing about me not caring because i didnt own one.... that was just sarcasm.

J-WS6 · 07-03-2003, 04:08 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bart:
i support the ban. why? because i dont own any automatic weapons and i dont plan on buying any. therefore, i really dont give a crap. besides, theres too many morons out there who legally possess these types of weapons. we dont need anymore.<hr /></blockquote>You really need to read up on your laws.

the National Firearms Act banned automatic weapons more than 50 years ago.

[i]Since 1934 the Federal Government has regulated the ownership of machine guns and several other types of weapons.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 provides for the registration, and the taxing of the transfer, of a class of weapons described as NFA Title 2 weapons (sometimes referred to as "Class 3 weapons"). These include machine guns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, silencers (also known as suppressors) and also a class of weapons known as "Any Other Weapon" (AOW). An example of an AOW is, but not limited to, a smooth barreled pistol or a short barreled combination gun.

The transfer tax on machine guns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and suppressors is $200. The transfer tax on AOWs is $5. This transfer tax is a one time only tax and not an annual tax. Each time an NFA weapon changes hands, the tax is charged.

The paperwork required for the transfer of an NFA weapon consists of an application form with the applicant's photograph attached and a fingerprint card. These are submitted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in duplicate along with the transfer tax. The finger print cards are forwarded to the FBI for a background check; not very different from a background check that would be performed for a "Secret Level" security clearance. The background check and transfer process takes about 3 months or so depending on the examiners

Watchman · 07-03-2003, 04:13 PM

Bart.

As already stated, the "Assault Weapons BAN" aint about "assault" weapons.

Its about a piecemeal attempy to eventually ban all guns. Its the morons that dont care because they dont have any that are making it possible.

For your information,real assault weapons are already very regulated. Citizens in most states can legally own them, I have several firends that do.

Since you seem not to know the difference between an assault weapon and a semiautomatic, let me help you. A semi auto(which is what the ban is about) shoots only one shot with each pull of the trigger. A full auto shoots as many as you want with one pull of the trigger.

Now I know that the TV talking heads dont make that distinction, so at least now that you know that, you ought to sound a little more intelligent of what you speak.

If it's possible.

[ 07-03-2003, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Watchman ]

PeacefulDragon · 07-03-2003, 04:14 PM

I also do NOT support the AWB, for the same reasons that everyone else has stated.

However, I am a little more optimistic that it will not be renewed. With conservatives in control of the House, Senate, and Presidancy, I think there is a good chance that the AWB will be allowed to die.

Bart · 07-03-2003, 04:16 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by SpecOpsWarrior:

You should educate yourself on your constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and how it is being infringed![/QB]<hr /></blockquote>my rights arent being infringed upon. i can carry whether the state issues me a license or not. no seriously, i think there should be stricter gun laws for all types of firearms. since this country is too far gone to ban firearms outright, i feel that there should be a stringent qualifications test one must pass before being allowed to carry a weapon. but things being the way it is now, i doubt that will happen either so i'll settle for the current legislation we have on the books right now and i'll support any other ban that the so called intellectuals in washington have in mind.

Bart · 07-03-2003, 04:22 PM

did i mention that i think SUV's should be subject to the gas guzzlers tax. i wonder how many people are going to flame me for that one. LOL.

Watchman · 07-03-2003, 04:23 PM

i'll support any other ban that the so called intellectuals in washington have in mind

And when police like yourself actually go around collecting firearms, you'll more than likely be one of the first to get killed in the line of duty doing what you were just "ordered" to do.

Oh well...to each his own.

Bart · 07-03-2003, 04:32 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
[i]And when police like yourself actually go around collecting firearms, you'll more than likely be one of the first to get killed in the line of duty doing what you were just "ordered" to do.

Oh well...to each his own.

<hr /></blockquote>when i pat down a scroat on the street im already running that risk you speak of and i do it with a smile on my face.

J-WS6 · 07-03-2003, 04:52 PM

There are alot of people that think that the assult weapons ban covers automatic weapons - especially in florida.

I watched a program recently where, a certain County Sheriff, was demonstrating why all 'assult weapons' should be banned by firing some full-auto weapons, including a Full Auto Ak47.

You'd think that someone in an elected law enforcement position would be able to distinguish between a weapon that is covered by the NFA and one that is covered by the AWB.

drunkhunter · 07-03-2003, 05:29 PM

No, I do not support the ban. It is absolutely rediulous. Furthermore, if/when the order ever comes down to start collecting them from the public, I'll shuck my pretty blue suit the government gave me and switch sides.

Watchman · 07-03-2003, 05:32 PM

J=WS6,

You'd think that someone in an elected law enforcement position would be able to distinguish between a weapon that is covered by the NFA and one that is covered by the AWB.

You can see by some of these posts above that even rank and file dont have a clue sometimes.

Bart:
when i pat down a scroat on the street im already running that risk you speak of and i do it with a smile on my face.

That post went right over your head eh ?

Drunkhunter got it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lictalon · 07-03-2003, 05:59 PM

Wow...the first LEO I've met on this board that really scares me... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

<blockquote>quote:<hr />my rights arent being infringed upon. i can carry whether the state issues me a license or not. <hr /></blockquote>I appreciate the attempt at sarcasm, but in all seriousness, it's hard to argue that the people who wrote the constitution would agree to a total ban on firearms. Even the current government feels that some government control is allowable, but not an outright ban.

And yet, amusingly enough, the 1994 bill did ban several guns by name. I'm sorry, but if they can ban 20+ guns there, what's to prevent 30 more later? And then another 30? Argue that a total ban wouldn't be an infringment...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />no seriously, i think there should be stricter gun laws for all types of firearms. <hr /></blockquote>I am simply amazed that a cop, who sees the limitations of the law everyday, would make that kind of argument. The ONLY people who obey are the people YOU don't have to worry about. The ones who might cause a problem aren't going to worry about another law...they've already decided they're not interested.

Or maybe there's the thought that only agents of the state should have weapons? I can't express how much that idea terrifies me.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />i feel that there should be a stringent qualifications test one must pass before being allowed to carry a weapon. <hr /></blockquote>I'm okay with that...to carry a weapon, I can agree to some requirements (nothing about owning a weapon, mind, or transporting it to the range) though I do so only because I know it won't make a difference. The people who carry weapons everyday will do whatever is reasonable in order to continue carrying them.

The trick, of course, is making sure that is is reasonable. Asking a civillian to shoot the same standards as the local PD seems fine...but I would strongly oppose any legistlation that enforced a test without spelling out what the test requirements are to be without the local or state officials being able to change them at whim:

State Tester: "Yeah, I know last year you had to hit the bullseye ten times at thirty feet, but this year it's gonna be fifty times at a thousand yards..."

<blockquote>quote:<hr />i'll settle for the current legislation we have on the books right now and i'll support any other ban that the so called intellectuals in washington have in mind <hr /></blockquote>Well, it seems like you have a nice sense of distrust for our elected officials, and yet you're still willing to support them? Something's not stirring the kool-aid...

If you're wearing a uniform, your job isn't just about enforcing the laws on the books. Your job is about Justice. You were hired for your discretion as much as anything else...And the excuse that you were just following orders isn't going to garner much sympathy. That was tried at Nuremburg...

Kudos to all the LEOs out there who think about the intent, ramifications, and effectiveness of the laws passed, and for being willing to apply their own intelligence and morality to the words on paper. Every officer in uniform should be willing to do so.

[ 07-03-2003, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Lictalon ]

Mike Tx · 07-03-2003, 06:07 PM

Bart, you are the kind of cop, if indeed you are a cop, that when I finally decide to tell you what I think of you, other people assume I hate all cops. Do us a favor and give it up dude.