Another unsigned gun editorial
A while back, some apologists for Bush’s actions on the assault weapons ban were stating that he was playing lip service but had no intention of acting to see it extended. Well, the anti-gunners think the same thing, only with much more hysteria:
To fuzz up the issue and soften his political image, Mr. Bush continues to pay lip service to backing the reauthorization of the gun restrictions, which he endorsed as a presidential candidate in 2000. In reality, he knows that he is dooming the assault weapons ban by refusing to instruct the Republican Congressional leaders to get a renewal bill to his desk, pronto.
Additionally, this hysterical piece makes reference to Uzis and AK47s, which are not banned by the assault weapons ban. It even throws in the word terrorism.
July 18th, 2004 at 10:39 am
Well, you gotta stick with the formula.
July 18th, 2004 at 12:11 pm
Sure they are. There’s identified by name at 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(30)(A)(i),(ii).
July 18th, 2004 at 5:55 pm
So, why can i buy this one (it’s even a norinco) legally?
Because the ban doesn’t affect them unless they’re ak47s/uzis that also have the features listed. That’s the way it’s enforced, anyway.
July 18th, 2004 at 9:31 pm
Are you sure they’re not pre-ban? That’s what I’ve always assumed when I saw those for sale.
July 18th, 2004 at 9:43 pm
That is a post ban with no bayo lug, no falsh hider, and no pistol grip. A pre ban would run about $1K.
I have an ar15 that i assembled myself legally. It’s a post ban. AR15s are mentioned too. But if they lack those features, they’re not banned. Hence, ARs and AKs are not banned at all. Just ARs and AKs with two or more evil features.