[Fatelvis]

I know sometime in `04 the assault weapons ban is supposed to sunset, but what month/day? Thanx-

[Hkmp5sd]

It officially dies on September 13, 2004.

[Fatelvis]

Thanx HK. Do you think it will die? Or will it be re-instated?

[coonan357]

elvis it might fade elsewhere but here in the repuklac of dailyvic I don't think we are going to see it .

[Hkmp5sd]

It will die and no one can stop it.

The only thing they can do is write and pass a new law and get Bush to sign it right before the Presidential Election in November.

[Matt1911]

For the sake of discussion,what new law do you see coming? Will it(we) be better off, or worse?
What do you think would be the most effective way to prevent a bs law?

[Schuey2002]

It officially dies on September 13, 2004.
My credit card is getting maxed out on this day.. :D

[Jack T.]

hmmm. . .assume ( for the sake of discussion ) it does grandfather. does that mean I can go out that day and buy all the LEO mags I want? that would be a heck of a deal. . .

[Lone_Gunman]

The term "grandfather" is being used incorrectly in this thread.

When something is "grandfathered" it means that a law has been passed to make something illegal, but existing objects are still legal anyway...

In other words, when the hi-cap magazine ban went into effect, the existing hi-cap mags were "Grandfathered" in, and stayed legal.

The AWB will just end in 2004, no grandfathering to it..

[zahc]

Thanks for clearing that up, I was wondering. Check the sig. *crosses fingers*:D

[Fatelvis]

JackT`s question is the one Im interested in. Could I, Sept.14, 2004, go out and buy LEO parts/ weapons? And will HKs, Galils, etc., be able to be imported again, bringing prices down?

[Russ]

It's really too bad it couldn't sunset after the election. Assuming Bush is re-elected, he could veto it with impunity and thumb his nose at the anti's. However, in that it sunsets in September, just a month and a half before the election, I think he may sign it's renewal. The Dems and the left wing media would beat himover the head with it. Since he promised to sign the renewal once, they would do the same thing they did to his Dad when he said "no new taxes".

If we had Algore in the White House, he wouldn't have done anything in response to 9/11 except lob a few cruise missles into Afghanistan. None of the Dems really support the war in Iraq either. Algore recently said if he were President we wouldn't be in this war. Kerry said the same. They keep blathering on about how dangerous N. Korea is. If they don't have enough guts to go after that murdering scum Hussein, then do you really think they would do anything to N. Korea? Anyway, I'm now seriously off topic.

My point is that HCI and their minions have so brain washed the general public about "assault weapons" that I don't think Bush could let it sunset and get re-elected.

[Hkmp5sd]

Could I, Sept.14, 2004, go out and buy LEO parts/ weapons? And will HKs, Galils, etc., be able to be imported again, bringing prices down?

Unless they sign a new law into effect on or before 9/14, you will be able to purchase anything that was restricted to gov/LEO by the '94 AW ban. That includes >10 round magazines with "LEO Only" stamped on them or post '94 ARs with flash suppressors and collapsible buttstocks. It will be as though there never was an assault weapon ban to start with.

As for HK, Gali's and such being imported, that will not happen. They fall under the "not suitable for sporting purposes" as defined by ATF and cannot be imported. They can be made inside the US from US parts, just not imported.

It's really too bad it couldn't sunset after the election.
I disagree. This will allow us to hold his feet to the fire. Go back and look at what approving the AW ban did to the democrats running for re-election in 1994. They were wiped out. If Bush signs as new AW ban, I WILL NOT vote for his re-election, even if he is running against Hillary.

[Russ]

HK,

So you would rather elect a gun grabbing Democrat instead? The Dems didn't lose in 94 only because of the AW bill. People were sick and tired of deficits, Clintoon's ultra liberal agenda and a whole bunch of things. Things could be a whole lot worse. Look at the PRK, Illinois, NJ and NY. The AW ban is not that big of a deal compared to all the other restrictions placed on gun-owners in those states. You let the Dems back in power, you will wish you had voted another way.

[Matthew Courtney]

The best place to stop any ban renewal attempt is the House of Representatives. Call and write your Congressman today!

[Hkmp5sd]

The reason we have these laws now is because the Republicans view the gun lobby as a group that has no other choice but to vote for them. So they go ahead and vote in favor of these restrictions.

Bush 41 found out the hard way that is not always the case. As a result of his 1989 import restrictions, the NRA did not endorse him for president. Their view, and mine, is that there was no difference between him and Clinton in regards to gun control. If Bush was re-elected, I believe we would still have gotten the '94 AW ban law.

If Bush 43 signs a new AW ban or any other gun bans, I will not support him for president under any condition. The '02 elections proved the gun lobby has power. I really hope Bush and the other republicans learn from that and defeat any new gun bans coming up. Otherwise, they are history.

[MeekandMild]

I think there are a whole lot more pros who would vote against him if he voted for its renewal than antis who would vote against him if he voted against renewal.

I don't think he would be that stupid, considering how well he's done so far in spite of inheriting the worst economy in 30 years and the worst foreign affairs situation. If he does turn quisling I don't think I could vote for Hillary, but I'm sure the Libbies or the Greenies or SOMEBODY will have a candidate, and it not I think that a write in campaign for Theodore Roosevelt might be fun. Old Teddy may be dead but at least he's a real Republican.


BTW Hkmp5sd it is not "pro gun lobby", it is "Second Amendment Civil Rights Advocates" or "Indivudual Self Defence Advocates" or something similar.

[zahc]

HKMp5sd said:
"Unless they sign a new law into effect on or before 9/14, you will be able to purchase anything that was restricted to gov/LEO by the '94 AW ban. That includes >10 round magazines with "LEO Only" stamped on them or post '94 ARs with flash suppressors and collapsible buttstocks. It will be as though there never was an assault weapon ban to start with."


*crosses fingers tighter*

[UnknownSailor]

I'm suprised at you all.
There is a site dedicated to seeing this law die, without renewall. Predictably, it's http://www.awbansunset.com/ (http://www.awbansunset.com).

[dustind]

I think we can keep the awban from coming up for vote, Republicans control the house, and house comity. The senate is slightly in our favor as well. Bush and Ascroft have weaseled out of supporting the ban since being elected. The Bradies and million (ten thousand) mommies haven't gotten any attention drawn to it, or towards anything else gun related, no matter how loud they cry. The sniper incident didn't throw people into a gun control fit. Fenstien said she would introduce her assault weapon ban proposal in a few days, that was a month ago, i don't think she has. she was pissed at Ascroft's position, he said he wanted to study the issue more, and mentioned the DOJ study that said it wasn't effective. I don't want to be too overly optimistic, but i think this may be a turning point to getting our rights back.

Goto www.awbansunset.com (http://www.awbansunset.com) for more details

[mercedesrules]

Instead of the opposing sides of the gun control debate being the traditional political parties, sounds like the two sides are : 1)People in government vs. 2) People not in government. :uhoh:

mercedesrules

[TheOtherOne]

I disagree. This will allow us to hold his feet to the fire. Go back and look at what approving the AW ban did to the democrats running for re-election in 1994. They were wiped out. If Bush signs as new AW ban, I WILL NOT vote for his re-election, even if he is running against Hillary.

I'm going to make sure all my reps know that I feel the same way too. I plan on telling them I won't be able to vote for them ever again if they have any part in a renewal.

[Hard Charger]

Don't think for a minute that the President will not sign a renewal.

The President is not exactly a great orator and he has a track record of signing things in order to avoid having to explain them.
There will be a crapstorm of Biblical proportions leading up to the election if he vetoes the renewal.

The President will avoid having a veto thrown up to him at every press conference, in every debate, or any "town hall" meeting.


So, if it gets to his desk, he will sign it.

It will be easier to sign a renewal than explain why he vetoed it. After all, he knows we will not vote for a democrat.

Why would Bush worry about a backlash from signing the renewal? Go back to what Russ says in his post.

The Bush campaign will assume that regardless of how the President acts on the renewal, they have gun owners in their pockets out of fear of the other option.

I have not voted "for a candidate" for President since Reagan's second term.

I voted against Dukakis, against Clinton, against Clinton, against Gore. I will no longer vote against a candidate. No candidate that opposes my views will ever get my vote again. I may not vote for the democrat, but I WILL NOT vote for a traitorous republican.

The only hope we have for the sunset, is to exert enough pressure on members of the House and prevent it from being passed there.

If you count on the President to stand against the renewal, you are betting on the wrong horse.

Get active in the effort NOW, we have the advantage.


Here is a good article from the webmaster at www.awbansunset.com very informative.

http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/sightingin/AWbandreamteam.htm


Join the effort to sunset the ban now www.awbansunset.com

If you want to know what you can do, email me: hcharger@midsouth.rr.com

[Hard Charger]

oops, double tap

[PATH]

It must never be allowed to leave the house! Death by commottee and wrangling will put it to death. Get on the phone and write a letter as well to your congressional rep!!

[Rembrandt]

I posted this on another thread, but think it bears repeating....

This issue hinges on a couple of "what ifs"....it's a political football that neither party knows how to play at this time. "IF" the Democrats early polling shows "gun issues" are a winner for their next election run and they decide to base their campaigns on it....you can be sure the media will be running specials showing fanatics with machine guns every night on the news. This would put pressure on the Republicans to bring the bill up. Many in the House and Senate will be looking closely to see how much political damage they will suffer...also depends how strong Bush is at that time.

"IF" the polling shows Democrats will take another big loss by focusing on guns and they steer clear of making this a campaign issue....then the House & Senate will try to avoid the topic and it will slowly die on the shelf.

The future will hinge on how the Democrats approach this....just have to wait and see.

[TheOtherOne]

....you can be sure the media will be running specials showing fanatics with machine guns every night on the news.

Yep! People are betting too much that just because the Republicans control congress they won't give in to the fears of all soccer moms who see a false program on 20/20.

I'm writing everyone congress person often to let them know how I feel about them should they decide to renew it in any way. I just hope our side makes more of a stink then the other.