Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GRUNHERZ on September 13, 2004, 04:41:56 PM
-
The biggest thing I hear about this ban wrt the political campaign is that Kerry thinks that white suburban women voters will respond well to his support of the ban..
OK I'll accept that..
But why are white suburban women worried about rifles? They are least likely people in the world to see a rifle let alone be the victims of one...
Why?
-
Television.
-
The 'assault weapon' ban was never about rational thought. Anyone who feels less safe now that it has expired is beyond hope.
-
Originally posted by ra
The 'assault weapon' ban was never about rational thought. Anyone who feels less safe now that it has expired is beyond hope.
Exactly. The bill was purely symbolic in nature to begin with.
-
The Oprah said so.
-
Enjoy your assault rifles guys.
btw.. congrats on 16000 ripley :)
-
Rifles are the next step in the anti gun plan of attack.
Machine guns, hand guns, assault rifles have been taken care of and now its the time for rifles.
Shotguns, muzzle loaders, pellet/BB guns and sling shots will follow.
The one little step at a time approach.
In 15 more years we'll be totally at the mercy of government.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Enjoy your assault rifles guys.
btw.. congrats on 16000 ripley :)
nilsen,
Without looking it up, will you tell me off the top of your head what the difference between one of these "Once- banned" assault weapons and a deer rifle is?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
nilsen,
Without looking it up, will you tell me off the top of your head what the difference between one of these "Once- banned" assault weapons and a deer rifle is?
Not that i care, but i bet i can see the diff between a deer rifle and an AK47.
I have no idea tho of the details around what would be considered an assault rifle in the US. :)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
nilsen,
Without looking it up, will you tell me off the top of your head what the difference between one of these "Once- banned" assault weapons and a deer rifle is?
answer this....
why do they call them ASSAULT rifles
-
True "assault rifles" are capable of full automatic fire.
There is no difference between deer hunting rifles and what the press considers assault rifles since they are mostly semi auto fire only (like my M14 and my M1 carbine).
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Not that i care, but i bet i can see the diff between a deer rifle and an AK47.
I have no idea tho of the details around what would be considered an assault rifle in the US. :)
Thats exactly it. The bill had to do with the APPEARANCE of the rifle, it is no more lethal than anything that IS legal. Fully automatic assault rifles are still illegal.
This was nothing more than a feel-good measure.
Good riddence.
-
Originally posted by SLO
answer this....
why do they call them ASSAULT rifles
Cosmetic looks.
Next question....
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Thats exactly it. The bill had to do with the APPEARANCE of the rifle, it is no more lethal than anything that IS legal. Fully automatic assault rifles are still illegal.
This was nothing more than a feel-good measure.
Good riddence.
I see.
So they are regular assault rifles, but you can only fire them in semi-auto mode?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I see.
So they are regular assault rifles, but you can only fire them in semi-auto mode?
More like they are regular deer hunting rifles made to look like an assault weapon that can only be fired in semi-auto mode. ;)
With that in mind, my dad's M1 Garand (semi-automatic "assault" rifle" :rofl ) made a very good deer rifle for years that he hunted.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
More like they are regular deer hunting rifles made to look like an assault weapon that can only be fired in semi-auto mode. ;)
With that in mind, my dad's M1 Garand (semi-automatic "assault" rifle" :rofl ) made a very good deer rifle for years that he hunted.
Ok, so they are replicas that are semi-auto. Are they the same quality, and made by the same companies that make the "real deal" for the military? Just a different production line that fits them with semi-auto "fireing system"?
-
"But why are white suburban women worried about rifles? They are least likely people in the world to see a rifle let alone be the victims of one... "
You answer your own question Grun.
It's pretty easy to be all for banning something when it doesn't affect you anyway.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by SLO
answer this....
why do they call them ASSAULT rifles
Let me explain.
"ASSULT RIFLES" have been BANNED since the 1930s an ASSULT RIFLE is a selective fire weapon capable of Fully Automatic fire.
"ASSULT WEAPONS" is a term that was created by the gun banners to classify Semi Automatic weapons that have specific visiual characteristics.
Now those visual characteristics are just that...visual...they do not change the way the weapon fires, operates, lethality, bullets or rate of fire. The differece is only superficial.
Examples of those visual characeristics are such as. Bayonet lug, Bayonet, pistol grip, flash suppresor, detachable magazines of greater than 10 rounds.
the ban was useless and the difference between a pre and post ban AR-15 was merely the bayo lug and the flash suppresor. The gun was basically the same.
Now instead of calling them Assult Weapons call them SUR's (Sport Utility Rifle). It would be a better, more accurate classification.
_____________________________ ___
Nilsen
Not that i care, but i bet i can see the diff between a deer rifle and an AK47.
I used my russian SKS wich was the predecessor of the AK-47. It uses the same round as the AK-47. That round is ballisticly equivalent to the 30/30 winchester "A popular hunting round". I used the SKS to kill a nice 6 point buck last year. Was a clean shot from about 35 yards away. If I owned an AK-47 it would go to the woods with me also. And now I could apply the Bayo to the end just in case the deer gets sparky!
RHIN0
-
Would a "regular" hunting rifle with a 20 clip mag modification and a bayonet fitting be classified as an assault weapon?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Would a "regular" hunting rifle with a 20 clip mag modification and a bayonet fitting be classified as an assault weapon?
No.
-
"Would a "regular" hunting rifle with a 20 clip mag modification and a bayonet fitting be classified as an assault weapon?"
Yes
Pretty stupid, isn't it?
Someone should post a pic of a pre- and a post-ban AR-15 and see if he can tell them apart. Sometimes I'm not even sure.
J_A_B
-
i see 2 different answers..
Let me try another one:
If i took my G3 and tinkered with it (or got a pro gun person/company to do it) so it would only fire semi..... would it be reclassified from assault rifle to assault weapon and be legal?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Nilsen, stop flashing your G3 in front of the gun nuts. It's not nice to make them drool all over the floor like that.
:D ;)
:D
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
i see 2 different answers..
Let me try another one:
If i took my G3 and tinkered with it (or got a pro gun person/company to do it) so it would only fire semi..... would it be reclassified from assault rifle to assault weapon and be legal?
I wasn't thinking of the G3 as a "regular" hunting rifle. Here is what it takes to be an assault weapon under the ban:
"Specifically, a rifle is considered an "assault weapon" if it can accept a detachable magazine, and possesses two or more of the following features:
* Folding or telescopic stock
* Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor or threaded barrel
* Grenade launcher"
So the way I read it, an M-1 Garand with a bayonet attachment is not an assault weapon under the ban. A G3 semi would be an assault weapon under the ban, but should be legal now.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well, technically the H&K G3 is not an assault rifle. It's a battle rifle since it uses a full sized rifle cartridge. Other then that its pretty much the same.
Cartridge size was never a factor in the ban.
-
Yeah that's where the different responses stem from. By "regular" rifle I just figured he meant a post-ban weapon.
As I suggested above, someone should post some pics of pre- and post-ban weapons and see how well he can tell them apart. There was a website that did exactly this but I lost the address.
Nilsen--
Do not think of the law as meaning any specific weapon. It doesn't. It is strictly about certain features as Ra's post shows.
J_A_B
-
Fully automatic assault rifles are still illegal.
When are you guys gonna stop posting incorrect information?
Fully automatic weapons are NOT illegal! Doesn't matter if it is a fully auto handgun, submachine gun, rifle or tripod mounted .50 cal Browning.
While a few states have passed laws against them, they can be purchased and owned by the average citizen in many states. It just requires compliance with the laws for owning a Class 3 weapon. Meaning, you have to buy a $200 tax stamp and fill out all the required paperwork.
Dago
-
G3 is an assault rifle.
7.62mm (.308 Win) is .30 caliber bullet of .30-06 in a smaller case.
Among the other features of its magazine, bayonet lug, pistol grip, flash suppressor (really a muzzle break) and most all...
the way it looks!
Nilsen...just a personal question here out of curiosity.
Do you own your G3 or does your government? I'm assuming that it's issued to you as a military weapon that will be returned to the armory when you discharge out.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The biggest thing I hear about this ban wrt the political campaign is that Kerry thinks that white suburban women voters will respond well to his support of the ban..
Just like Bush (“It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society.”) did in '99?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Just like Bush (“It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society.”) did in '99?
Bush was "W"rong.
-
I don't think the US military has a classifcation of "assault weapon" or "assault rifle". The US Congress however, is much more creative.
-
All the military style rifles are all classified assault weapons.
Even mean looking shotguns that are labeled assault shotguns are assault weapons.
The assault rifles are the ones that are selective fire. That's the difference. Not cartridge power.
Under your definition my M1 carbine would be an assault rifle.
It's an assault weapon but not an assault rifle.
-
Hmm, thats funny. evreyone I know hunts with a bolt action. Dont see many auto's in the field (pretty useless actually).
blkmgc
-
Remington makes nice auto loading rifles
-
Originally posted by Blooz
Remington makes nice auto loading rifles
Very true. But I dont relish the idea of spending 500-700 bucks for a rifle(+ scope) to be banging around the scabbard of my 4 wheel ATV...only to need 1 shot to do the job.I use a Savage 110 bolt in 30-06 for just about all of my hunting. 6 deer so far...6 shots.
So I guess if they want to bundle semi hunting rifles w/ assault rifles ( as stupid as it obviously is) then so be it.
-
To the media the Remington guns are sporting rifles. They don't have the right "look" to fit their definition.
The media likes to label the military style rifles as "assault weapons" just based on the look of them.
As stated before, it's just cosmetics.
-
Many different opinions here i see. There really should be (an prolly is) a US offical website that lists the accurate answer. When the issue is covered by some kind of law the details should be stated clearly so everyone could look it up. I have a feeling that atleast the gunstore owners must know the details.
Anyways Blooz, the AG3 was not mine but belonged to the Navy. I dont have it at home anymore either cause the goverment decided that these weapons should no longer be stored at peoples homes. I returned it and my Glock a few years ago, and thats ok. Didnt really need them. :)
-
Not that i care, but i bet i can see the diff between a deer rifle and an AK47.
Who says you can't hunt deer with an ak-47? Lots of people do every year.
For those of you who are mis-informed or confused about the ban, here is a little article I wrote for another webpage.
Ok, now we all know there are quite a few gun enthusists here. We talk about guns alot. However, there are probibly just as many if not more people who either don't like or simply don't care about guns. I'm sure those people are as tired of gun threads as some are of political threads. I'll try to keep this as short, factual and educational for those people.
Most of us gun nuts already know what the end of the 94 awb means, but I'll try to educate those of you who have never read the laws as to what it really means. So, even if you don't like guns, please take a few minutes to read along, you will probibly learn something. If you want more info look here http://www.atf.gov/whatsnew.htm
First off, you may have heard about the end of the ban on the news or in the paper. Most likly you've heard how criminals and terrorists will all be running around will full auto ak47's mowing down cops and innocents. This is simply put, a lie.
The ban regulated certain features available on SEMI auto rifles and to a lesser extent shotguns. FULL auto's are regulated by the 1934 national firearms act and 1986 Firearms Owners' Protection Act. They are still LEGALLY available but in very small numbers for very high prices. The 94 ban IN NO WAY AFFECTS the ownership of machine guns legal or not.
The features regulated in the 94 ban are almost purly cosmetic. With the excpection of a bayonette they IN NO WAY affect the lethality of the banned weapons. And how often is a bayonette used in a crime anyway?
Also keep in mind "pre-ban" (guns made before sept 94) were NOT subject to the ban. And still available, although at a higher price than "post ban" (after sept 94) guns. So, guns with all the "evil features" have been legally available all along, you just had to pay a few bucks more for an older gun.
The ban also names a few guns which were no longer legal to sell. The "ak-47" is one of them. However, ak-47's (semi- auto versions) have been available since the ban because companies changed the names of them. WASR-10, SAR-1, MAK-90, VEPR, etc.. are all ak-47's. So, no the streets WILL NOT BE "FLOODED" with ak-47's now that the ban has expired. As they were still LEGALLY available all along.
The ban also limited the production of "high capacity feeding devices." In short, magazines of over 10 round capacity. These were still produced for "law enforcement only" throughout the ban. Also, it has been legal to sell them just not to produce them. All throughout the ban standard capacity mags (10+ rounds) have been legally available, just at higher costs. The only difference now is we don't have to pay the premium for 10+ round mags.
In short, all the AWB did was make it a hassle for LAW ABIDING citizens to own what they wanted. Everything banned was still available, it just cost us regular folks more to buy.
As for crime, the federal government's own studies showed that the ban did NOTHING to prevent crime. Thats becaise CRIMINALS don't obey laws like the rest of us. They will get whatever weapons they want on the black market, because thats what CRIMINALS do.
I hope this may have shed some light on the subject for some of you. Or alteast let you know where us gun lovin folks are coming from.
-
Originally posted by TPIguy
Who says you can't hunt deer with an ak-47? Lots of people do every year.
For those of you who are mis-informed or confused about the ban, here is a little article I wrote for another webpage.
Nobody says you can't hunt deer with an AK-47.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Nobody says you can't hunt deer with an AK-47.
A RPG-7 is better , with a RPG-7 there is almost no near miss :D
-
I listened to ol habus howard stern yesterday... he is on his hate Bush streak because the censors are making him play by the rules so...
he is vitriholic about the evil Bush allowing the ban to expire.. he was covering kerrie and friends meeting to do something to keep the worthless ban in place... the whole segment was done to a soundtrac of machine gun (full auto) fire inm the background...
He played a soundbite from sarah brady... a person who knows less about guns than beele and is the chief anti gun nut spokeswoman in the country... her and howard both agreed that letting the ban expire was just mean.... criminals and even law abiding citizens would be shooting everyone up with machine guns..
he then playued a clip by that toady for the NRA, Wayne LaPeirere, who, unfairly, sited 5 or six studies including the governments own that showed that the ban had zero effect in recucing crime.
lazs
-
even better... that egotistical tool howard stern claimed that he sure wished he could get LaPierre on the show to debate him on the whole assault riffle issue...
howrds crew of butt smoochers all cheered him on hoping to protect their paycheck yet another week..
can you imagine? stern, knowing nothing about fiorearms and especially about so called assault weapons or the law... was going to debate the the man who probly knows more than anyone in the country about it.
Habu.... sorry bud... your stern is an egotistical, deluded and whiny tool...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
he then playued a clip by that toady for the NRA, Wayne LaPeirere, who, unfairly, sited 5 or six studies including the governments own that showed that the ban had zero effect in recucing crime.
lazs
It was never about reducing crime...so of course it didn't work. If we wanted to actually reduce crime, we'd have to call it what it is and risk hurting people's feelings. Politically taboo, of course..but the assault weapons ban seemed to rub some placebo salve on the wound in lieu of actually having the stones to address why in the last 30 years people (especially young people) have been wigging out and killing each other.
-
no... I still believe it is about incrementalism... They know better than to try to ban all guns at once but make no mistake... that is the sworn agenda of the brady bunch.
incrementalism is taking rights away a little at a time... it works... proof is that most people here think that machine guns are illegal. they are so hard to get and keep that they may as well be.
lazs
-
less guns in civilian hands is a safer country.
Even hunting rifles should be regulated very carfully. Anyway, why would you need an AK47 to hunt a deer?! you need hi power ammo because it is steel plated? and you need the 30 bullets clip for the M16 to shoot the entire herd?
If you are talking about the right to defend yourself in your home, you need a small handgun. You will not charge theives down the staircase with meter long M16, that has the muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s and can shoot through the walls and kill people out in the street.
Bozon
-
In 15 more years we'll be totally at the mercy of government.
====
In 15 years we might as well join the EU.
Watch out for liberal democrats, they are a cancer to our freedom.
If you are talking about the right to defend yourself in your home, you need a small handgun.
====
Oh how very kind of this person, giving me permission to own a handgun. What this poster fails to understand (or chooses to ignore) is that the same people who tried to interfere with my right to own a really cool looking semiauto rifle are the SAME people who will destroy my right to own a handgun. They are the same people who want to strictly regulate airguns and spitwad straws.
We surrendered our right to freely own a fully automatic firearm. The gunhaters will not stop until we are all the equivalent of european government handled wussies.
-
bozon... sorry... all the studies in the U.S. prove that you are wrong... the more guns in the hands of civilians in the U.S. the less crime. wishing it were different or using "common sense" or your "feelings" doesn't change the data.
lazs
-
This NRA article pretty much sums it up.
Gun prohibition almost always moves by incremental steps. Restrictions that would have seemed outrageous if proposed by themselves can appear "reasonable" when they merely advance existing restrictions a few more steps.
Gun storage laws are. . . unenforceable without massive government intrusions into the sanctity of the home.
In Canada, prohibitionists, such as then-Justice Minister Alan Rock, have used gun storage laws as a justification for imposing universal gun registration, since registration "will create a sense of accountability on the part of the firearms owner to comply with some of the safe storage laws that are in effect."
As the next step, the anti-gun lobbies in Canada have begun pushing for "community storage." Rather than keeping your guns in a safe in your home, you would have to keep your guns at a police station. When you wanted to use your gun for the day, you could check it out from the police station.
The anti-gun groups point out that a gun in the home could be stolen, or could be misused in a domestic incident. There is no reason, they argue, for guns to be kept in a home 365 days a year, when the gun may only be used a few days a year.
To counter the anti-gun groups, gun owners in Canada can hardly argue that removing guns from the home makes it impossible to use the guns for home defense. They gave up the moral case for self-defense years ago by arguing that gun ownership was justified for sporting purposes, but not daring to assert that gun ownership is justified for defensive purposes. And by agreeing to "safe storage" laws, the Canadian gun owners gave up the practical ability to use a gun for self-defense in a sudden emergency.
With so much ground already conceded, Canadian gun owners are reduced to arguing minor points, such as how a centralized gun storage repository might be more vulnerable to theft.
Even conceding on the "community storage" issue will do gun owners no good. In 1996, the British Parliament banned almost all handguns, but allowed owners of single-shot .22s to keep the guns locked in central repositories at gun ranges. The new restrictions only briefly sated the appetite of the British anti-gun lobbies. In 1997, community storage was replaced by its logical consequence, complete prohibition of all handguns.
The Future
Who can believe that the right to keep and bear arms could survive "community storage," with gun owners needing to ask government bureaucrats for permission to obtain access to their own guns? Who can believe that the American anti-gun lobbies, who so consistently imitate the programs of their foreign cousins, will not begin demanding community storage, once they have laid the foundation with "safe storage" laws?
Storing guns safely is the duty of every gun owner. What makes for safety depends very much on individual circumstances. Safety is, and always has been, the concern of organizations such as the National Rifle Association. In the hands of anti-gun lobbies and government bureaucrats, though, "safe storage" becomes an Orwellian term designed to negate the many safety benefits of the right to bear arms. Home safety is the responsibility of the family, not the state.
Sources: Some material herein is from Dave Kopel`s award-winning book The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Control Policies of Other Democracies? (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books). Extensive information about Canada`s repressive gun laws is available on the world-wide web at http://www.nfa.ca/ (National Firearms Association of Canada) and http://cdn-firearms.ml.org/ (Canadian Firearms Digest).
-
Anyway, why would you need an AK47 to hunt a deer?!
Well you don't NEED one, you could use an SKS instead. Either makes a fine deer rifle upto 100-125 yards.
you need hi power ammo because it is steel plated
Actually 7.62x39 is fairly low powered when compared to most hunting rounds. Even the old 30-30 has more power.
and you need the 30 bullets clip for the M16 to shoot the entire herd?
Well since an M-16 goes for $15,000+ not too many use one for hunting. Besides, the .223 round is severly lacking power for anything bigger than a coyote. If you REALLY wanted to use one, you don't have to load all 30 rounds. Infact most states have a limit on how many rounds you can have in your gun if you're hunting.
But unless you're hunting varmits an AK clone is a much better deer rifle.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
bozon... sorry... all the studies in the U.S. prove that you are wrong... the more guns in the hands of civilians in the U.S. the less crime. wishing it were different or using "common sense" or your "feelings" doesn't change the data.
lazs
Amen
And why would anyone want to hunt with a cheaply made POS military rifle. The likelyhood of missing or not making a clean kill with mega mass produced garbage ammo and a stamped firearm is much higher than using a decant same cost hunting rifle with a designated hunting load. I'd feel irresponsable using one for hunting.Although I wont take away from the 03A3, Kar98(not crap copy), enfield, or M44.
-
Another point for the less educated to ponder: One well placed bullit fired from A finely tuned Winchester or Remington bolt action
deer rifle can do far more harm to thre democratic system than any cool looking semi auto or full auto for that matter. Heck,look what JWB did to lincoln with a crap muzzle loading lead ball shooting single shot "handgun"
Make no mistake, if you support the AWB then you support total firearms prohibition by proxy and are a ignorant person.
-
Originally posted by bozon
If you are talking about the right to defend yourself in your home, you need a small handgun. You will not charge theives down the staircase with meter long M16, that has the muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s and can shoot through the walls and kill people out in the street.
Bozon
Nah, the little woman prefers a 12 guage w/ a shorter barrel, pistol grip and #4 shot for home defense. All she has to do is to shoot near the intruder to get a hit. Won't even go thru much of a wall.
Plus the sound of a shotgun round being pumped into a breech is unmistakeable.
As said above, the ban was solely cosmetic.
h
-
I would warn of the pistol grip on the shotgun.
Had one on my Ithaca 37 (7rds, 20"bar, 00buck)
When I practiced my home defense plan I found that the pistol grip snagged on everything and was also a problem when shooting from the prone position.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Another point for the less educated to ponder: One well placed bullit fired from A finely tuned Winchester or Remington bolt action
deer rifle can do far more harm to thre democratic system than any cool looking semi auto or full auto for that matter. Heck,look what JWB did to lincoln with a crap muzzle loading lead ball shooting single shot "handgun"
Make no mistake, if you support the AWB then you support total firearms prohibition by proxy and are a ignorant person.
AMEN and look what LHO did to JFK with a crappy Italian bolt action in Dallas. I know many men who are target shooters and proficient hunters that can and do consistently make 300 meter + shots on deer with their high quality bolt action rifles.
-
Originally posted by Blooz
I would warn of the pistol grip on the shotgun.
Had one on my Ithaca 37 (7rds, 20"bar, 00buck)
When I practiced my home defense plan I found that the pistol grip snagged on everything and was also a problem when shooting from the prone position.
Interesting--we went to a class where the instructor showed us how to fire a pistol grip shotgun prone. The first way was on your back looking over the shoulder, grip pressed off side of your chest, second was on the belly, right palm pressing pistol grip forward and down--his point was that you were not trying to get into a classic down-the-barrel aiming position in that situation.
He also said #4 shot was better than #00 because there were more pellets therefore wider spread and the pellets were not substantially less deadly than the #00 while they had less possibility of penetrating walls. more importantly, my SO likes the feel of it and she's comfortable--different strokes--it is a Mossberg mod 500 I believe.
h
-
Ah, you know about those.
Not many people do.
Neighbors here are at a distance that 00 wouldn't have much energy left by the time it got to their house.
At least you got the right line of thinking!
Well done!
-
All the assault rifle ban did was say that you had to have 7 american made parts on your rifle. ANd you could not have muzzle breaks for your assault waepons. All it does is let me put all the stock parts back on my STG. simple as that.
-
Originally posted by VOR
The Oprah said so.
:rofl
-
A brief description of what the assault weapon ban actually "banned":
In 1994, the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was passed. This law banned rifles that had detachable magazines and two or more of the following characteristics:
A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A bayonet mount
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one (a flash suppressor reduces the amount of flash that the rifle shot makes. It is the small birdcage-like item on the muzzle of the rifle)
A grenade launcher.
Alot of people seemed to have misconceptions about what exactly the bill was about. It also banned clips with greater than a 10 round capacity, but that was independant of the weapons.
As many have pointed out, however, the "ban" only pertained to the manufacture of the weapons and did not affect any weapons that were already produced. That includes clips with greater than a 10 round capacity. I do not have a single 10 round clip with my AR-15. 20 round is all I use. All were purchased new within the last 5 years.