2018 Assault Weapons Ban - Full Text

[nad63]

Possibly, Midway had IMI 556 for .24-.26 a round, I ordered ONLY 2400 rounds and next morning (yesterday) price shot up to .37 a round. No mo sale...

Price you quoted was a special sale price. I got some too because of that special. Now it’s back to the pre sale price I do believe.

 

[rhino]

McCain and some other R[STRIKE]H[/STRIKE]INO's could vote with the enemy. Not enough to matter other that hopefully solidify their demise.

Fixed it.

 

[NyleRN]

Purple rhino's excluded

 

[solarpimp]

Read the bill in the op. It doesn’t ban semi automatics. It’s just the next progression of the 94 awb. All of those years (68, 86, And 94), significant legislation was passed to severely limit 2a rights. Those years are all directly correlatable to this bill. And gun owners just rolled over and took it in 100% of those instances when similar legislation was passed.

Without a "Sunset" like the 94 AWB

 

[jaybus]

Holy Commerce Clause bastardization Batman!

Notice the "in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce" part? That is the only thing giving them jurisdiction. What if we had an arms manufacturer that sold solely within the state in which they operated? In that case, the Commerce Clause would not apply to them. It would be difficult for a state to find a way to stop them. Think of it this way, if a national / foreign manufacturer cannot operate in the US due to Commerce Clause revisions, then they can still make a cut of the profit by licensing their patents to small (or even REALLY small), in-state manufacturers. Likewise, it won't be illegal for Ruger to sell or transfer parts and pieces to a small manufacturer in another state. Most of the parts can be made where they are now. It is only the assembly of specific firearms that has to be completed in-state. Could be a great business opportunity for small machine shops.

 

[snorko]

Nah, the government gets around that. Basically, by choosing not to sell your product across state lines, you are affecting the supply across state lines and thus affecting interstate commerce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

 

[AJMD429]

16 ‘‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import,17 sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting18 interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault19 weapon.20 ‘‘

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession,21 sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon oth22erwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date23 of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018.

THAT is just the typical way the anti-gunners BUY OFF THE TYPICAL "GUN OWNER".....

Nearly all adults who are pro-gun already own "all the stuff they really need" (I didn't say 'want'), so AT LEAST 99% of 'gun owners' will breathe a sigh of relief, and not bother to SCREAM at their legislaturds.

If even one-percent of gun owners wrote their legislators, that would be 800,000 letters on the issue, but federal legislators I've talked to say it is unusual to get even 1,000 letters on a topic, and then most of them are 'pre-fab' ones that ARE tallied and responded to, but don't really have as much persuasive power as individually-composed letters.

SO - collectively 'gun owners' are pretty useless in the defense of the Second Amendment.

Hopefully sites like INGO will help change that - but - even then, do you think more than 10% of US actually write our legislators, newspapers, and so on...???

 

[slamminsam]

i really don't think they will get the assault ban in place but however i do think that they will put the high capacity magazine ban back inafect

 

[Expat]

Notice the "in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce" part? That is the only thing giving them jurisdiction. What if we had an arms manufacturer that sold solely within the state in which they operated? In that case, the Commerce Clause would not apply to them. It would be difficult for a state to find a way to stop them. Think of it this way, if a national / foreign manufacturer cannot operate in the US due to Commerce Clause revisions, then they can still make a cut of the profit by licensing their patents to small (or even REALLY small), in-state manufacturers. Likewise, it won't be illegal for Ruger to sell or transfer parts and pieces to a small manufacturer in another state. Most of the parts can be made where they are now. It is only the assembly of specific firearms that has to be completed in-state. Could be a great business opportunity for small machine shops.

I don't know. Remember the SCOTUS ruled that a guy growing crops for his own livestock was still part of interstate commerce.

 

[PSYCOM]

When will we recognize our "Domestic Enemies", and do something about this?

 

[chipbennett]

I don't know. Remember the SCOTUS ruled that a guy growing crops for his own livestock was still part of interstate commerce.

Wickard v Filmore, linked above.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

When will we recognize our "Domestic Enemies", and do something about this?

What do you have in mind?

 

[Gabriel]

What do you have in mind?

Posting harsh criticisms on the interwebs.