Did Companies diversify their product line to compensate for the loss of Rifle sales?  I'm wondering what could happen to companies like Bushmaster, Daniel Defense, etc. that base most if not all sales on AR platform products.  Any old timers remember back then and have any input?  I'm also curious about what happens to the Warranty for my Rifle...

Thanks

i want there.  but considering Bushmaster didnt die off, i think companies will find a way.  maybe by getting more government/LE contracts.

if it mirrors the old ban, you'll probably just see an end to flash suppressors and more fixed stocks. 

aka, a weapon that is every bit as deadly and functionally exactly the same as a current AR-15, with minor cosmetic/ergonomic changes.

As a resident of Kalifornia for most of my life I can assure you that they will start by banning combinations of different things such as you can't have a rifle with a pistol grip and detachable magazine. Then they will eventually start banning them by name and possibly model number. Right now in Kalifornia all handguns are banned from transfer to another resident if it has not been submitted to their perverted process. Which means some guns are grandfathered in to the owner who had it at the time the law was passed but it can no longer be sold in Kalifornia including private transfer.

I use the example of my nephew who inherited a Ruger SP101 in 9mm from my father. Because Ruger no longer makes the SP101 in 9mm (therefore never submitted it to the Kalifornia process) he can own it but he can never sell it. Each gun needs to be processed by submitting 10 guns of each type and each caliber. It makes some smaller companies not submit due to it not being financially viable. Also, certain slow selling calibers will never be submitted either. This will eventually kill off calibers that do not sell well because other states may follow Kalifornia's lead. After that they will determine what particular guns are allowed and which are not.

Did Companies diversify their product line to compensate for the loss of Rifle sales?  I'm wondering what could happen to companies like Bushmaster, Daniel Defense, etc. that base most if not all sales on AR platform products.  Any old timers remember back then and have any input?  I'm also curious about what happens to the Warranty for my Rifle...

Thanks

In 1989, Bush (H. W.) requested BATF to define the definition of an "assault rifle". Then he banned the importation of certain weapons deemed AWs. Manufacturers and importers were able to circumvent the restrictions by changing certain features of the rifle and applying a new name and model number (e.g. Norinco Type 84S AK Rifle legally imported before July 1989 became NMH90/91 when it was reconfigured with a thumbhole stock and 5-rd mag). Subsequently, in 1993 the BATF ruled that not only could firearms on the list not be imported, but a semii-auto rifle or shotgun using 10 of the imported parts on the ban list (contained 20 parts) could not be assembled. This also included assault pistols. Then in 1994, Clinton expanded the list of weapons and ammo, which made it a federal crime for a private individual to possess or transfer (sell, give, etc) a "semiautomatic assault weapon" manufactured after that date. AWs manufactured on or before that date, and legally within the U.S., were "grandfathered" (not banned). In 1998, Clinton extended the import list. The bans also included certain imported ammo.

As I recall many importers and manufacturers went out of business and many just stopped dealing with AWs because they didn't want the heat from the federal government. Many also diversified into other business lines to compensate for the reduced revenue due to the ban. Others manipulated the law, like Norinco, and continued to sell scaled down versions of their firearms and people just converted them back to AKs after the fact. There was a huge barrage of non-banned U.S. compliant parts flooding the market and so many of these weapons ended up with a mixed bag of different parts in the end. That's one of the reasons people collect and desire pre-ban stuff, plus all the military features.

The big thing is the firearms were grandfathered back then but Obama may be contemplating confiscation, which is a whole different scenario. As terrible as the bans were, we got to keep our stuff.

An assault weapons ban is not going to happen, at least on the federal level.  ARs are a huge market share for anyone interested in a rifle.  You can have it in anything from 22LR up to 50BMG.  (Don't believe me?)  In 1994 the AR15 was for wannabe militiamen, in most peoples' minds.  Cops carried shotguns, not ARs, for the most part, and hunters and competitive shooters scoffed at the AR's diminutive caliber.  Basically, the Brady Bunch was able to divide and conquer; the same strategy their compatriots across the pond used so successfully to deprive British shooters of their guns. 

Even if an AWB got passed, it *will not* require confiscation.  That would ignite a civil war.  I'm hesitant to use that phrase lightly, because it seems like everyone who doesn't like the way the country is going proposes it, from both sides of the aisle.  I'm not advocating for or against, merely asserting my opinion that calling for the confiscation of AR-15s and AKs would trigger open revolt.

Even if an AWB got passed, it *will not* require confiscation.  That would ignite a civil war.  I'm hesitant to use that phrase lightly, because it seems like everyone who doesn't like the way the country is going proposes it, from both sides of the aisle.  I'm not advocating for or against, merely asserting my opinion that calling for the confiscation of AR-15s and AKs would trigger open revolt.

Agree 100%! Confiscation would cause all hell to break loose. I hope no further restrictions come down the pipe...we have far too many already.

Rifle sales didnt drop after 94', seemed like my Dad was getting a new AR or AK every month or so.  The AR I started on was a Colt Match Delta HBar with a bare muzzle and no bayonet lug.  The ban had absolutely no effect on gun sales or availability, it only banned cosmetic issues and limited the capacity of magazines made after its instatement.

I'm not worried about confiscation, that would be next to impossible.  Thanks for the info, I guess it's wait and see.

Rifle sales didnt drop after 94', seemed like my Dad was getting a new AR or AK every month or so.  The AR I started on was a Colt Match Delta HBar with a bare muzzle and no bayonet lug.  The ban had absolutely no effect on gun sales or availability, it only banned cosmetic issues and limited the capacity of magazines made after its instatement.

True but they were not the military AKs. I was knee deep in collecting back then and I jumped on the AK bandwagon when they were first imported. Anyone who picks up a pre-ban, holds it, and shoots it, and then picks up and shoots a commercial post-band can appreciate the difference, plus the military and collector aspect. Of course I'm partial, but can't help myself, sorry. I respectfully disagree with the cosmetic point you made...20 imported parts were no longer legal, to include muzzle attachments, barrels, bayonets, pistol grips, forarms/handguards, trigger housings, sears, bolt carriers, etc, and the list goes on. Also ARs were not part of any ban unless you are referring to ARM type weapons.

They will try and "ban what they can" if you will...

No, gun grab will ever happen in the U.S.... No pres. is that stoopid...

That would create Civil War in the U.S.

Almost half (probably more) of the U.S. owns guns... (Most own multiple guns and would help to arm legal/willing others if need be....)

That is why no foreign nation will invade us, and our gov. has to be in check (somewhat??)

Thank GOD for our 2A rights!

They will try and "ban what they can" if you will...

No, gun grab will ever happen in the U.S.... No pres. is that stoopid...

That would create Civil War in the U.S.

Almost half (probably more) of the U.S. owns guns... (Most own multiple guns and would help to arm legal/willing others if need be....)

That is why no foreign nation will invade us, and our gov. has to be in check (somewhat??)

Thank GOD for our 2A rights!

I think that the notion of any state actor of invading the US is a such a far-off fallacy; that as we continue to believe that we paint ourselves as lunatics. refer to this: http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/national-intelligence-council-global-trends

What the population believes is that govt. will take care of us. This is what has been going on for the past decade or so. Our basic responsibilities and subsequent consequences are farmed out to the .gov. The bailout was the pinnacle of it. Our rights have eroded.