GOA: Conditions Ripe for another permanant AWB


PDA






sharpshooter74
November 6, 2008, 10:38 PM
Gun Rights In Peril?GOA Has An Analysis
Many pro-gunners out of Congress

http://forum.gundigestmagazine.com/t...e=1&key=%C3%8E

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Based on his voting record in the Illinois state senate and in the
U.S. Senate, President-elect Barack Obama will be the most
anti-Second Amendment president in the history of America.

In January, the new President will govern alongside congressional
leadership, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid, who are also extremely hostile to gun rights and who now
enjoy greatly expanded majorities.

There can be little doubt about the direction in which gun rights are
headed. The questions are how far will the anti-gunners go and how
fast will they move?

Many comparisons have been made to the first two years of the first
Clinton Administration, in which one party controlled both ends of
Pennsylvania Avenue.

Almost all experts agree that it was Clinton's overreaching on issues
like gun control that cost his party control of Congress. Barack
Obama will start out governing with even larger majorities than did
Clinton.

Obama ran a campaign high on rhetoric and short on specifics. The
President-elect claims he will govern from the middle, but the
question for gun owners is which Obama will show up at the White
House -- the "centrist" from the campaign trail, or the radical
anti-Second Amendment extremist who supports gun bans, waiting
periods for firearm purchases, one gun a month restrictions, and
more?

His party's large gains in the Congress give the incoming President
more room to maneuver with a radical agenda.

An equally important question is the outlook for gun rights in the
new Congress. That Obama will sign any anti-gun bill that gets to
his desk is a certainty. But what can gun owners expect from the new
Congress?

Hopes of Congressional restraint on gun issues dimmed with each
election return as Pelosi's and Reid's majorities grew to historic
proportions.

While there are many moderately pro-gun Democrats in Congress,
they're not the ones calling the shots. The leadership is completely
in the anti-gun camp, so expanding their majority would have a
negative impact on gun rights regardless of who filled those seats.

Unfortunately, though, many seats that flipped parties also went from
strong pro-gun to strong anti-gun. Gun owners suffered heavy losses
in the Senate. Here's a look at five Senate seats that switched
parties (all switches went from Republican to Democrat).

Colorado -- The retirement of A-rated Senator Wayne Allard set up a
battle between anti-gun Rep. Mark Udall and pro-gun former Rep. Bob
Schaffer. This is one of three senate seats that flipped from "A" to
"F."

New Hampshire -- Pro-gun Senator John Sununu was defeated by F-rated
former governor Jeanne Shaheen, another "A" to "F" shift.

New Mexico -- Long-time Senator Pete Domenici, who was D-rated and
usually voted against gun owners, was replaced by F-rated Congressman
Tom Udall. Udall defeated A-rated Representative Steve Pearce,
making this a big loss for gun owners.

North Carolina -- Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole ran as a pro-gun
control candidate for president in 2000. Since being elected to the
Senate from the Tar Heel state, however, Mrs. Dole compiled a good
pro-gun record. Dole's defeat at the hands of F-rated anti-gunner
Kay Hagan is a dramatic flip for gun rights.

Virginia -- F-rated Republican John Warner retired. Former governor
Mark Warner (no relation) trounced "A" rated Jim Gilmore, also a
former governor. Either of the candidates would have been an
improvement over the retiring Senator, but Mark Warner refused to
answer the GOA survey and has a mixed record on gun issues.

In the battle for the U.S. House of Representatives, gun owners also
were hit hard.

Of the 18 incumbents who were defeated, 15 were pro-gun (only two
were replaced by a pro-gunner). Of particular disappointment to gun
owners were the losses of Republican representatives Marilyn Musgrave
(CO-4), Tom Feeney (FL-24), Bill Sali (ID-1), and Tim Walberg (MI-7).
These representatives were among the most ardent Second Amendment
supporters.

In the 32 open House seats, the results were mixed. Thirteen seats
went to A-rated candidates, while six went to F-rated anti-gunners.
Nine new congressmen are "Not Rated," meaning they have no
record and
refused to fill out a GOA questionnaire. Four new members fall
somewhere in the middle, leaning toward a pro-gun position but no
guarantees. Note: a handful of close races across the country are
obviously headed for recounts, but this is how things look at the
moment.

The A-rated winners in open seat elections are: Tom McClintock (R-CA)
(this race is still subject to change), Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Bill
Posey (R-FL), Mike Coffman (R-CO), Debbie Halvorson (D-IL), Aaron
Schock (R-IL), Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Erik Paulsen (R-MN), Blaine
Luetkemeyer (R-MO), Christopher Lee (R-NY), Glenn Thompson (R-PA),
Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY). These
representatives will have their work cut out for them, as the new
Congress has moved decidedly in the anti-gun direction and many
pro-gun leaders were defeated.

All in all, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can’t help but be emboldened
by their gains and there can be no denying that gun control
legislation is on their agenda.

So what can gun owners and sportsmen do to help prevent a gun control
tidal wave? Get involved and stay engaged!

Gun Owners of America will continue its efforts as Capitol Hill's
no-compromise gun lobby. But GOA's effectiveness depends on your
activism. Please continue to send the e-mails to your congressmen,
and forward GOA Action Alerts to pro-gun friends.

If you are not a member of Gun Owners of America, please join today
at http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm so that you can start
receiving our newsletters and other important gun rights information.

The entire Congress needs to know that we're watching, and if they
attempt to ban even one firearm or expand unconstitutional gun
control in any way they will pay at the polls in the next election.

If you enjoyed reading about "GOA: Conditions Ripe for another permanant AWB" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Independence
November 6, 2008, 10:45 PM
When was the last permanent AWB?

Mooseman
November 6, 2008, 11:05 PM
Without a sunset clause, how hard would a new AWB to get rid of with a pro-gun congress?

Coronach
November 6, 2008, 11:08 PM
It is a bill, like any other. Pass a law undoing the previous law, and that's that. What can be done can be undone. However, as we saw in 1994 and 2004, it's a lot harder to pass a law than it is to let one lapse. The sunset provision of the first AWB was helpful.

As to the GOA newsblurb, I think we can file that under painfully obvious.

Mike

Coronach
November 6, 2008, 11:14 PM
Also, I think that the Dems will have a lot on their plate when 09 starts. Yes they will be emboldened. Yes the moonbats are in charge. However, there are a lot of other things going on, and they will need to high-visibility get stuff done to appease their left flank. I think they will hold off on pushing gun control for a little while, until some other, more visible things have been accomplished. We can encourage this by informing the remaining Rs that if they do not develop a spine, they will be looking for work next term. If it looks like it will take a fight to get an AWB through, they'll stick to low hanging fruit until their re-election is secured.

Make no mistake, though. They will eventually get around to gun control, unless we get congress back. GET ACTIVE!

Mike

Deanimator
November 7, 2008, 08:51 AM
It is a bill, like any other. Pass a law undoing the previous law, and that's that. What can be done can be undone. However, as we saw in 1994 and 2004, it's a lot harder to pass a law than it is to let one lapse. The sunset provision of the first AWB was helpful.
It's also possible that they won't be ABLE to get one passed WITHOUT a sunset clause. I wonder if Obama is willing to lose House and Senate seats in order to get an AWB without a sunset provision. Clinton lost control of Congress WITH one.

TexasRifleman
November 7, 2008, 09:09 AM
Gee, GOA doom and gloom, who would have thought.

The entire Congress needs to know that we're watching, and if they
attempt to ban even one firearm or expand unconstitutional gun
control in any way they will pay at the polls in the next election.

Except that's what we said this time. For the moment they have no fear of the gun lobby.

IAJack
November 7, 2008, 01:18 PM
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

KBintheSLC
November 7, 2008, 02:38 PM
It is a bill, like any other. Pass a law undoing the previous law, and that's that. What can be done can be undone.

This also holds true to the SCOTUS decision on the Heller case. 5-4 marginal "victory" was slim at best.

mljdeckard
November 7, 2008, 03:44 PM
Coronach and Deanimator are absolutely right. They will WANT to, but it's a big difference between WANTING to, and being in a good position to do it. They have put Obama in the White House by convincing ENOUGH of the people that he is a centrist. This is a delicate illusion which they would like to perpetuate longer than May of 09. (All the way to Nov 2012 if possible.) Obama has a very narrow timeframe to work with while he A: has momentum and public support for pretty much anything he offers, B: has majority in both houses, and C: hasn't alienated the people to whom he promised to deliver everything from nothing, without making anyone else mad. (He's going to be 30 days late and 50 dollars short on all of his promises.) During this timeframe, he has to prioritize VERY carefully. The last thing he said about gun control was that "I'm not going to take your guns away." He doesn't want to change that image in people's minds.

Stay active and join the NRA.

The first AWB passed narrowly. It only passed because of the sunset clause. Now that such a law has been documented, they will have to fabricate justification for a new one. There are still pro-gun dems in congress. To pass an assault weapons ban would use up a LOT of political capital that he needs for other bigger issues, and have a net negative impact on his future position. He is many things, but stupid certainly isn't one of them. He WANTS TO, but that doesn't make it a good idea for him. Remember, in the Clinton campaign, the candidates were openly anti-gun. In THIS campaign, they have had to hide their anti-gun leanings. That in itself says a lot about the current climate.

The nomination of Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff did certainly make me squirm. So much for reaching across the aisle.

Thin Black Line
November 7, 2008, 04:48 PM
When was the last permanent AWB?

Depends on your state of residence, but this was something that was
tightened up at the Federal level in 1934 with a SCOTUS decision followed
by a complete ban on the new construction of weapons for civilians in 1986.

Some states have a complete ban against civilian ownership of AWs and
those that "allow" purchase and possession are for aging, well-worn
specimens made prior to 1986 and are therefore more expensive than
a new car due to supply/demand. There is also a federal tax stamp
which must be purchased on top of the exhorbitant price of the pre-86
AW.

Prior to these travesties against the spirit of the Second Amendment and
the original intent of the Founding Fathers, any US citizen could go into just
about any hardware store in this country and buy something like a Thompson
SMG on the spot with no paperwork. If they didn't have it in stock, it could
be mail-ordered.

Any other questions?

TT
November 7, 2008, 07:35 PM
"I'm not going to take your guns away." He doesn't want to change that image in people's minds.

Carefully chosen words- a ban on manufacture and transfer of semiautomatic long guns doesn’t ‘take anyone’s guns away’.

The majority of the public supports an AWB. It was in both the Democratic Party Platform and Obama’s Presidential platform. Some of Obama’s closest buddies are people who very much want to see an AWB. The lesson Democrats have taken from this election cycle is that the NRA is a paper tiger…and unless you’re talking specifically about close races, they’re actually right, the NRA really doesn’t wield that much voting clout. We’ve been getting very lucky the last 10 years.

But, as a lot of posters here have said, there are things more important than the 2nd Amendment.

user3214
November 8, 2008, 12:35 AM
Note how They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets. changed from Barack Obama has seen the impact of fully automatic weapons in the hands of criminals. Thus, Senator Obama supports making permanent the expired federal Assault Weapon Ban. These weapons, such as AK-47s, belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

Quote is from http://obama.3cdn.net/84b2062fc4a5114715_ftxamv9ot.pdf

mljdeckard
November 8, 2008, 02:21 AM
If every gun owner in the country was a member of the NRA, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Do you mean, more important than the 2nd Am, as in he has other battles to fight right now? Or that there are more important rights for us to protect? Ok, I went back and looked, I get you.

pittspilot
November 10, 2008, 02:47 PM
The Democrats discovered in 1994 that gun control legislation was a negative vote game.

Specifically, enacting legislation does not gain you as many votes as you lose. The majority of the elctorate does not care about gun control legislation. It is just not high on the priority list. On the other hand, there is a vocal and cohesive minority that will target gun grabbers and put them out of business.

Sinixstar
November 10, 2008, 11:43 PM
The nomination of Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff did certainly make me squirm. So much for reaching across the aisle.

Rahm Emmanuel is actually probably the best thing happened to the pro-gun movement (in terms of current political landscape). Here's why:
First, Rahm Emmanuel was in large part responsible for the dem takeover of congress in 2006. A big part of how he did that, was by running genuinely pro-gun democrats in areas that would elect a pro-gun democrat. He may be a partisan attack dog, but he is a realist, and is more results oriented than ideologically driven. If anyone understands that the anti-gun battle will sink dems - it is him. If anyone is willing to throw the anti-gun movement overboard in favor of holding on to power, it is him.
Second, If Rahm Emmanuel takes up the cause of fighting "those evil evil gun people" - because he's such a partisan attack dog - it WILL rally the pro-gun republicans. Possibly even get them fired up enough to yank the anti-gun republicans back in line.

If you enjoyed reading about "GOA: Conditions Ripe for another permanant AWB" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!