Find the assault weapon
Xrlq has a new twist on everyon’e favorite game. But a couple of quibbles. Xrlq says one is subject to total prohibition in California, not to mention the entire country from 1994 to 2004. Not quite.
The federal ban only affected semi-automatics with 2 or more evil features. So, for it to have been prohibited, he would have to add a pistol grip (since ARs don’t function without them) and one other evil feature, such as a telescopic stock.
Regarding the California ban, whether that one is banned or not depends on (and I am not making this up) who the manufacturer of that lower receiver is. Here’s a list. If, for example, that is a Rock River lower, it is banned. If it is Stag lower, it probably isn’t but that’s only because the California AG hasn’t put Stag on its list of evil weapons. Mind you, the same machining company makes both Stag and RRA lowers, they just put a different logo on them.
And, by the way, California is one generation away from making all such weapons illegal:
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 12285(b), any person who obtains title to a registered assault weapon by bequest or intestate succession shall, within 90 days, render the weapon permanently inoperable, sell the weapon to a licensed gun dealer who has a permit from the Department of Justice to purchase assault weapons, obtain a permit from the Department of Justice to possess assault weapons, or remove the weapon from this state.
When someone with such a weapon dies, their heirs must destroy the weapon or sell it.
June 8th, 2006 at 8:50 am
Are you sure about that? I am almost positive that like Cali’s ban, it indeed banned guns with two or more evil features, but also banned a large number of weapons by name. The AR-15 was listed among the “bad” guns on California’s original ban, leading to the invention of the nearly-identical Colt Sporter. And I swear on my mother’s grave (which costs nothing since she’s not dead, and therefore doesn’t have one) that both the AR-15 and the Sporter were banned by name on the federal ban, as well. Are there any other guns that can be assembled from this receiver, which were legal all along? If so, I goofed since it is a Stag.
June 8th, 2006 at 8:54 am
[…] UPDATE: It seems the answer is a little more complicated than I thought. […]
June 8th, 2006 at 8:58 am
It did in fact ban by name 19 specific weapons but that was never applicable due to a variety of reasons. Also, it said something like a specific Colt but not the class of AR-15s. And the gun companies changed the names. Surely, you remember Olympic’s post ban model the PCR-15 (Politically Correct Rifle).
June 8th, 2006 at 9:33 am
And, technically, if your receiver was assembled into a rifle that had a flash hider, bayonet lug, telescopic stock, and pistol grip, it would be banned because of the evil features and because it is a copy of colt ar-15. however, assembled with just a pistol grip, it is no longer a copy. As of now, your receiver could potentially become a copy but currently is not.
June 8th, 2006 at 11:36 am
The Bushmaster XM15 line was virtually indistinguishable from the AR except for absence of a flash hider and bayonet lug.
June 8th, 2006 at 11:43 am
Some of my blog reading suggests that a LOT of folks actually believe the AWB stopped the manufacture and sale of military-looking semi-automatic rifles with 20 or 30 round magazines.
I challenge any of these folk to show evidence that the “ban” made any useful difference or the expiration of the ban has resulted in any measurable detriment.
June 8th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Chuck,
That’s half right. The ban stopped the manufacture of all new magazines greater than 10 rounds (for civilian use). This created a lucrative market for pre-ban “hi capacity” magazines that were manufactured prior to 1994.
Now that the ban is gone, we’re seeing lots of mags flood the market that are stamped LEO only because they were made during the 10 year ban.
June 8th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Of course with detachable mags, the ban is meaningless. You could often buy a new rifle with a new 10 round mag and a used pre-ban 20 rounder bundled in.
June 8th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
I sure do wish people would quit saying (writing) that the federal AWB banned any rifles, it did no such thing. It only banned the new manufacture of rifles with certain features; NO existing rifles were banned. It also did not ban the sale of existing rifles.
By using language that implies that the rifles that existed were banned we give the impression that the rifles in use now were all created after the AWB expiration. This has the unfortunate result of implying that any use of an “assault weapon” that occurs now was able to occur only because of the ban expiration.
June 8th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Bob, i think we’re aware of that but it’s easier to say ‘banned’ than ‘prohibited from new manufacture for civilians’. At least, that’s why I use it.
June 9th, 2006 at 6:07 am
So, cruising the Cali obits could be a profitable venture, no?