The Firearms Forum banner

What does "pre-ban" mean since 2004?...

10K views 13 replies 10 participants last post by  100 Bullets 
#1 ·
I've debated about asking this question but I think I need to do so.

Pre-ban made a lot of sense to me in the time of 1994-2004 since there was a wealth of money being made off of AR-15s with flash hiders (I don't know why with modern flashless powder but there was... :confused:). I knew what the dealers meant when they said "pre-ban" and it meant a premium on the price.

When AK dealers said "pre-ban" it meant that you'd actually get a pistol grip or folding stock instead of a Maadi or MAK90 thumbhole stock (same action). With that said, what the heck does "pre-ban" mean since the sunset expiration of the 1994 'assault weapons' ban? :confused:

Are the guns made before 1994 worth more money now? Are they more collectible than what is made now? :confused:

Really, I don't get it and that is why I beg for an explanation... Perhaps I'm just obvlivious to something staring me in the face?... :confused:

If there is no reason any longer for referring to guns as 'pre-ban' then perhaps those that refer to sporterized rifles as pre-ban are doing more of a detriment to the hobby than good?... I'm only asking the question?... :confused:
 
See less See more
#2 ·
It means very little for domestic or domestic built weapons, preban to me is pre 1989. They have not gone down and are still very much in demand.

Newer built AK`s are a far cry if your looking at kit guns built on American receivers and without chrome lined barrels (also built here because of the barrel ban)

Upper end AK`s over $650.00+ like KREBB`s and such are quality built and priced the same......most over $1,000.00
Chrome lined bores and barrels, many using stashed original barrels along with upper end ones bringing up the slack.

No more real AUG`s/AMT`s/VALMENTS/GAL`s/AKS-M`s-RPK/ect......

Bottom line to your question.......NOTHING!
 
#3 ·
Pre ban is before Sept. 13 , 1994. Several States wrote the Ban regulations into state law in case the 10 yr. ban was not extended which it was not. Now those states still have mag. capacity, folding or collap. stock, supressor and bayonet regulations on guns made after Sept. 12, 2004. Hope this answered your question.
 
#4 ·
Pre Ban to me means that the guns I purchased before the ban were legal because I could still own them, even though they were no longer being sold because of the ban. If you bought a gun in 92 that fell under the 94 ban, then you had to keep your proff of sale handy to prove that your gun was pre ban/legal. Now that the ban has expired, and not been renewed, it doesn't matter.
 
#5 ·
You guys have all pretty much iterated my thoughts on the matter. Since the guns and accessory combinations that were banned in 1994 are now legally produced and obtained I know of no reason to put posts about 'military-styled' weapons here. I know that not everyone does that but I think that the terminology puts an unjustified negative connotation on these guns.

Thanks for the responses.
 
#6 · (Edited)
And yet I see that people still post on here about guns made wayyyyy after the 1994 ban. I think that train of thought and negative connotation of 'pre-ban' does a disservice to this type of firearm as far as public perception goes... Oh well... :eek:
 
#7 ·
Sorry to inform you guys but there are several states that still have some kind of odd ball ban. I live in CT and we have our very own Assault Weapons Ban. No AK47s, Mac90, Colt AR15s, UZIS, Streetsweepers and a whole lot more. NY and MA have some kind of bans also.

You don't want to know what I paid for an Olympic SGW Lower just because it was preban and that allowed me to put an adjustable stock on my AR.

So if any of you guys out there have an older Olympic SGW AR, I will gladly buy you a new lower or two if you want to trade!!
 
#10 ·
I think that is a pretty accurate statement.
I just created the thread to highlight the fact that there's little meaning to 'pre-ban' any more. You'll often see people post in this forum about brand new military-style guns. I see no point in that... In fact, I think it's counter-productive to our cause to post about military-styled guns in a forum called 'pre-ban'. It's just a negative impression that doesn't bode well for gun owners to the unknowing opponents of such guns.

I have learned something in this thread about how ugly guns are treated in the commie states however.... Very interesting... :)
 
#11 ·
Some people live in Communist states where they have their own state ban. It is their own fault for not being aggressive enough with their elected state officials. Even though the federal ban has ended, pre-ban does still have meaning. Currently guns can have the all the "military" type features but need to have a required number of US made parts to be compliant. Pre-bans do not need US made parts.
 
#12 ·
Some people live in Communist states where they have their own state ban. It is their own fault for not being aggressive enough with their elected state officials. Even though the federal ban has ended, pre-ban does still have meaning. Currently guns can have the all the "military" type features but need to have a required number of US made parts to be compliant. Pre-bans do not need US made parts.
Amazing that someone could place the blame on the gun owners those states with restrictive gun laws as not being "aggressive enough" with the politicians. There's a fine line between making your point and making a "perceived" threat in being aggressive, especially when dealing with liberal anti-gun zealots. The fact of the matter here in Kalifornia is that gun owners are outvoted 30 to 1? or some ridiculous margin by liberals, brainwashed and lobotomized, and simply misguided voters. At those odds, no amount of aggression is going to win:confused:
 
#14 ·
Amazing that someone could place the blame on the gun owners those states with restrictive gun laws as not being "aggressive enough" with the politicians. There's a fine line between making your point and making a "perceived" threat in being aggressive, especially when dealing with liberal anti-gun zealots. The fact of the matter here in Kalifornia is that gun owners are outvoted 30 to 1? or some ridiculous margin by liberals, brainwashed and lobotomized, and simply misguided voters. At those odds, no amount of aggression is going to win:confused:
Where were you in the years before the ban. Did YOU as a responsible gun owner take time to show a kid from a family with one parent or non-gun owning parents about gun safety by taking them outdoors and teach about nature, to go shooting, or hunting. Did YOU as a responible gun own try to establish a local green wing event for children with games and outdoor events. Did YOU have games at said event but also included a chance to shoot BB guns, 410's, 22's or bows with the DNR and shooting instructors at each station. Did YOU help sell these tickets to the event or buy them and give them to people who did not believe in guns and tell them its an event with games and free stuff for their kids. If YOU did not do this stuff; its YOUR fault and after reading and not trying to start a program like this its YOUR fault.

Did YOU volunteer time and raise money for pro-gun politicians and against the communist gun grabbers. Do YOU offer to take friends, who do not have gun or only have hunting rifles, shooting with you and to try your guns.
You need to change peoples minds and not just give up. Thats hurting MY rights as a gun owner because of YOUR inaction. I can't do this by myself!
Every chance you get you need to give people the facts about gun ownership and what our constituion is supposed to protect us from. You need go outside your standard friends at work or around the house and help build a better America by changing minds. Until then, yep it is YOUR fault.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top