Originally Posted by Associated Press

BOISE, Idaho - The expiration Monday of a 10-year federal ban on assault weapons means firearms like AK-47s, Uzis and TEC-9s can now be legally bought — a development that has critics upset and gun owners pleased.

The 1994 ban, signed by President Clinton (news - web sites), outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons. A clause directed that the ban expire unless Congress specifically reauthorized it, which it did not.

Studies done by pro- and antigun groups as well as the Justice Department (news - web sites) show conflicting results on whether the ban helped reduce crime. Loopholes allowed manufacturers to keep many weapons on the market simply by changing their names or altering some of their features or accessories.

Gun shop owners said the expiration of the ban will have little effect on the types of guns and accessories that are typically sold and traded across their counters every day.

At the Boise Gun Co., gunsmith Justin Davis last week grabbed up a black plastic rifle resembling the U.S. military's standard issue M-16 from a row of more than a dozen similar weapons stacked against a wall.

The civilian version of the gun, a Colt AR-15 manufactured before 1994, could be sold last week just as easily as it can be sold this week. "It shoots exactly the same ammo at exactly the same rate of fire," said Davis.

Many states — including California, Massachusetts, New York and Hawaii — have passed their own laws curbing the use of assault weapons. Some of those are more stringent than the federal ban.

U.S. Rep. Butch Otter, R-Idaho, trumpeted the end of the federal law.

"President Clinton's so-called 'assault weapons' ban was nothing more than a sop to antigun liberals," Otter said Friday in a written statement. "It provided only the illusion of reducing gun violence, but it did real damage to our liberties."

But advocates for the ban, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, point to some particularly vicious shootings in which military-style weapons were used — including the 10 killings in the sniper shooting spree that terrorized residents in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., in 2002.

National police organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Fraternal Order of Police all support the renewal of the ban. President Bush (news - web sites) has said he would sign such a bill if Congress passed it.

Idaho State Police spokesman Rick Ohnsman said troopers have had no significant problems with assault style weapons and his agency has not taken a position for or against the federal legislation.

"Of course, the legitimate owners of guns register them. Unfortunately, whether there is a ban or not, some individuals will find ways to get weapons that are illegal."

The expiration of the assault weapons ban does not mean the end of federal background checks. The 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act is separate legislation from the assault weapons ban, said Daniel Wells, chief of the FBI (news - web sites) unit charged with overseeing the background checks system.

"The change in law relating to assault weapons has no impact on the Brady Law," Wells said.

Davis predicted the biggest change in his business will be the ability of manufacturers and importers to market higher capacity ammunition magazines — the removable "clip" that holds and feeds bullets through guns.

Under the 1994 ban, the maximum capacity of a magazine was set at 10 rounds. That sent the price of high-capacity magazines through the roof, Davis said, even though magazines manufactured before the ban were protected by a "grandfather" provision and could still be sold.

Now, some gun manufacturers are planning to give away high-capacity magazines as bonuses for buying their weapons. Sales of formerly banned gun accessories, such as flash suppressors and folding stocks, are also expected to take off.

Originally Posted by The Germanator

Well, I don't even think handguns should be legal, so you can tell what I think about this...I think it sucks.

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

I'm totally with you man. If their weren't any guns, there generally wouldn't be any need for them.

Originally Posted by Jonbo298

Gee golly, time for me to go buy an Uzi and a ton of other Assault Weapons for NO ****ING REASON

Originally Posted by The Germanator

Well, I don't even think handguns should be legal, so you can tell what I think about this...I think it sucks.

Originally Posted by ZebraRampage

This is only in Idaho, right? Well I do realize that these weapons could be used out of state, but like Jonbo said, I don't think that many people would even buy these weapons. I doubt it will contribute a significant amount to the gun issue that our country has.

Originally Posted by happydude666

...or just stop manufacturing ammo...if the prices of ammo went up not many people would be able to afford to pay $50/bullet...so i say just stop manufacturing them outside of military bases and such.

Originally Posted by jeepnut

That reminds me of a Chris Rock bit. "Man, I'd shoot your ass if I could afford it."

EDIT: (Full quote from Bowling For Columbine)
"You don't need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullit control! We need to control the bullits, that's right!

I think Bullits should cost $5,000. $5,000 for a bullit. You know why? 'Cause if a bullit cost $5,000, there'd be no more innocent bystanders.

Every time people are shot, people'd be like, "Damn! He musta done somethin'! They put $50,000 worth of bullits in his ass!"

People'd think before they killed somebody if a bullit cost $5,000. "Man I would blow your ****in' head off if... I could afford it! I'm gonna get another job, start savin' some money, and you a dead man! You better hope I can't get bullits on layaway!"" - Chris Rock

Originally Posted by playa_playa

Listen, guns are NECESSARY in some cases; especially handguns. Do you want to tell a single mom who commutes through a gang-ridden downtown street to do so without protecting herself with a firearm?

Originally Posted by Typhoid

But you see, if guns were illegal, it would be harder for those gang members to have guns. Meaning they would have to try and conceal a baseball bat.

If guns are illegal, that means nobody woul dhave them. You just need stricter gun laws.

Originally Posted by Crono

What you need is a more strict justice system. Make a person afraid to commit a crime, and the crimes will stop.

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Make having a gun like a 10 year sentance. Not for shooting a gun, just for having it. Unless it is proven it is for hunting reasons.

Originally Posted by Crono

Making guns illegal or legal won't make a difference in gun related crimes. People will still get them illegally, like playa said.

What you need is a more strict justice system. Make a person afraid to commit a crime, and the crimes will stop.

Originally Posted by jeepnut

You think someone thinks about what will happen if they are caught when committing a crime? No, you wouldn't do it if you did or if you didn't think you could get away with it.