Hypothetical AWB + NFA...?

[Tenzing_Norgay]

I'm a little too young to remember the last AWB. If it ever were to happen again (which it could, given the current state of affairs ) what happens to our NFA items? Were they excluded in the last debacle?

[Clyde621]

Last ban did not touch licensed nfa items.

[MikeFL86]

Last ban did not touch licensed nfa items.

So a registered SBR AR would be fine but a regular AR could potentially be banned?

[Odessaman]

Don't gamble that new laws will be anything like past laws. Legislators aren't bound by any such requirement.

Although the '94 AWB did not apply to NFA items, and it did not outlaw possession of "evil rifles" and magazines that were already owned, don't assume that would be the case with any new legislation. The '94 ban was written to prohibit new manufacture, importation or sale of certain items after the effective date. When the "bump stock ban" was passed here in Florida last year, many wrongly assumed there was a built-in "grandfather clause" that allowed you to keep what you already owned. That was a potentially disastrous error, because the language outright banned "possession" - period.

These laws are largely written by morons who have no idea which end is the muzzle (or what a "barrel shroud" is) and sometimes we've been fortunate in that regard - so far. But now the radical Progressives are emboldened to go further than ever before to disarm law abiding citizens, and while I see obvious (to me) errors in some of the proposals I've seen so far, don't just sit around and hope for the best - remember, voter apathy almost lost us some very important races this last election.

[MikeFL86]

Don't gamble that new laws will be anything like past laws. Legislators aren't bound by any such requirement.

Although the '94 AWB did not apply to NFA items, and it did not outlaw possession of "evil rifles" and magazines that were already owned, don't assume that would be the case with any new legislation. The '94 ban was written to prohibit new manufacture, importation or sale of certain items after the effective date. When the "bump stock ban" was passed here in Florida last year, many wrongly assumed there was a built-in "grandfather clause" that allowed you to keep what you already owned. That was a potentially disastrous error, because the language outright banned "possession" - period.

These laws are largely written by morons who have no idea which end is the muzzle (or what a "barrel shroud" is) and sometimes we've been fortunate in that regard - so far. But now the radical Progressives are emboldened to go further than ever before to disarm law abiding citizens, and while I see obvious (to me) errors in some of the proposals I've seen so far, don't just sit around and hope for the best - remember, voter apathy almost lost us some very important races this last election.

And it's a crapshoot as to whether or not the ones we won will produce anything of lasting value given that big GOP donors in this state are anti-gun.

[Miami_JBT]

Pre Ban guns could be made into SBRs or SBS and were legal. So were outright pre ban NFA guns. But if you got a post ban configuration AR-15 or AK and registered it as a SBR. It was still holden to the AWB. No threaded barrel, no bayonet lug, no folding/telescopic stock.

[Miami_JBT]

Don't gamble that new laws will be anything like past laws. Legislators aren't bound by any such requirement.

Although the '94 AWB did not apply to NFA items, and it did not outlaw possession of "evil rifles" and magazines that were already owned, don't assume that would be the case with any new legislation. The '94 ban was written to prohibit new manufacture, importation or sale of certain items after the effective date. When the "bump stock ban" was passed here in Florida last year, many wrongly assumed there was a built-in "grandfather clause" that allowed you to keep what you already owned. That was a potentially disastrous error, because the language outright banned "possession" - period.

These laws are largely written by morons who have no idea which end is the muzzle (or what a "barrel shroud" is) and sometimes we've been fortunate in that regard - so far. But now the radical Progressives are emboldened to go further than ever before to disarm law abiding citizens, and while I see obvious (to me) errors in some of the proposals I've seen so far, don't just sit around and hope for the best - remember, voter apathy almost lost us some very important races this last election.

When I spoke with Sen. Montford. He honestly taught that grandfathering was in the bill.

[Odessaman]

When I spoke with Sen. Montford. He honestly taught that grandfathering was in the bill.

That doesn't surprise me in the least - I think it's a rare legislator who actually reads and understands the bills they support, much less the practical effects of them once enacted. Most probably rely on summaries written by staffers - or worse - lobbyists.

[Skoll]

We have to pass it to see whats in it, guys.

[SteyrAUG]

Last ban did not touch licensed nfa items.

So a registered SBR AR would be fine but a regular AR could potentially be banned?

That is what happened.

In the states where a rare combination exists, a standard semi AR-15 might be banned but M-16s are still completely transferable.