It can't find any answers to this question.
The proposed AWB, sorry.... How the Clinton ban affect them?What AWB?
The proposed AWB, sorry.... How the Clinton ban affect them?
Such a ”ban” these days should be DOA due to several rulings and court cases since it was enacted in the 1990s.The proposed AWB, sorry.... How the Clinton ban affect them?
I don’t believe it would have any affect at all.The proposed AWB, sorry.... How the Clinton ban affect them?
Any reasonable, thinking, person should see that it would fall under heller’s in common use provision and bruen’s lack of historical equivalence. In the 90s ARs and similar were around 1% of the guns owned now it’s something like 20%. (Edit to add, in common use, even by police, for protection of self and others, too, not just sporting purposes). I would also hazard a guess that they would be protected by Miller because they have a military purpose as I believe Stoner developed the AR for the military.Can you name any rulings that would prevent the Feds from writing up a law just like the '96 bban?
Then I guess the folks of NY just don’t want to be rid of it badly enough. Did the founders of the empire vote their way out from under the British? No. How many totalitarian regimes have been brought down by voting?And yet here we are, nearly 30 years since the AWB was enacted, and it is still in place, with none of the provisions removed.
The challenges it has faced were undoubtedly set under what is called intermediate scrutiny where it could be argued that the State has an interest, allegedly in safety but we know better. The use of that standard has been struck down. To the best of my knowledge it has never, yet, been challenged under the historical equivalent standard. A lot of these “bans” and other BS have fallen once challenged under that standard.The opposite is true, there is precedent that it can pass and withstand any challenge.
Back to how it might affect NFA, I'll agree with Dale for the most part.
Most types of NFA items aren't semi-automatic not mag-fed. (Silencers, pump shotguns, lever guns, etc.).
But any AWB that comes next WILL include a restriction on magazine capacity. And while that won't affect NFA weapons, it will make many of them slightly less fun.
It would not surprise me if they point to 96 for Bruen and just lie about the numbers like they did the brace ban for Heller.Any reasonable, thinking, person should see that it would fall under heller’s in common use provision and bruen’s lack of historical equivalence. In the 90s ARs and similar were around 1% of the guns owned now it’s something like 20%. (Edit to add, in common use, even by police, for protection of self and others, too, not just sporting purposes). I would also hazard a guess that they would be protected by Miller because they have a military purpose as I believe Stoner developed the AR for the military.
Of course none of this means that some communistic tyrant isn’t going to ignore all that and make a BS proclamation because they want to. In which case I wouldn’t have any issues with that tyrant being hauled out and given a career change, either.