[JitsuGuy]

Also, here's video that proves Bush supports this ban... http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/bushassaultweaponsban.rm


The Most Sweeping Gun Ban Ever Introduced in Congress--Clinton Gun Ban "Reenactment" Bans Millions More Guns

H.R. 2038/S. 1431, introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), does not just "reenact" or "reauthorize" the 1994 Clinton ban, the so-called "assault weapon" law. It bans millions more guns and begins backdoor registration of guns. All told, it's a giant step closer to the goal stated by Clinton gun ban sponsor Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), on CBS 60 Minutes "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it." There is no 10-year sunset provision in H.R. 2038/S. 1431. It permanently bans every gun that is currently banned and:

Bans every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns can have. Manufacturers and gun owners complied and new guns conform to the Clinton-Feinstein requirements. H.R. 2038/S. 1431 bans the new guns too.


Bans guns exempted by name or type under the Clinton ban. Commonplace Ruger Mini-14s, Mini-30s, Ranch Rifles, .30 Caliber Carbines, and fixed-magazine semi-automatic center-fire rifles.


Bans all semi-automatic shotguns. Bans Remington, Winchester, Beretta, Benelli, and other shotguns commonly used for hunting, trap, skeet, sporting clays, and self-defense. Bans them by banning their main component, called the "receiver" (Sec. 2(a)(30)(J)), and bans them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip"(Sec. 2(H)(ii) and (b)(42)). Any characteristic.


Bans all detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip." (Sec. 2(a)(30)(D)(iii) and (iv), and (b)(41) and (42)). Any characteristic.


Bans target shooting rifles. Bans the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand."


Bans guns for self-defense. Bans any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn't "sporting," even though the U.S. Constitution, the constitutions of 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states recognize the right to use guns for defense.


Bans 65 named guns (the Clinton law bans 19); Bans semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; Bans frames, receivers, and parts used to repair or refurbish guns; Bans importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban; Bans selling a legally-owned "assault weapon" with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity.


Bans guns rarely used in crime. A fact proven by every state and local law enforcement agency report, and every DOJ felon survey on the subject. The Congressionally-mandated study of the Clinton ban found that the guns "were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders."


Begins backdoor registration. Requires manufacturers of guns, frames, receivers, and other parts to report the names of their dealers. Requires dealers to report any of the guns and parts they have in stock. Bans private sales of the guns and parts. The next step is to register individual purchasers.

All the above pasted from http://www.nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=143

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in their government." --Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776).

[HBK]

Someone please tell me this won't pass.:fire:

[Blain]

Isn't this ban retroactive, meaning that not only guns post 04, but guns prior will be automatically illegal as well?

[HBK]

I couldn't see the video. How does it reveal Bush is for this ban? IF he is...the Libertarian candidate will be getting my vote.

[JitsuGuy]

You'll need RealPlayer to watch the video.

Also, I'm not sure about whether this bill is retroactive... I'll see what I can find out.

Thanks,
Jite

[Moparmike]

I will be damned if they are getting my guns.:cuss: :banghead: :fire:

[tin foil hat]
Time to go bury the guns...
[/tin foil hat]

[SoCalGeek]

what they're doing is proposing a law so outrageous (this one) knowing that there's not a chance in hell it will pass, so that way they can come in with a "compromise" and it will seem reasonable since everyone is so pissed about the original.

[HBK]

Screw that. Let them vote on it the way it is. It will not pass. No compromise needed, thanks. So the ban will sunset and that will be that.

[Art Eatman]

I imagine Dubya's advisors jumped all over him about his comments about the AWB. I notice he's kept his fat mouth shut about it, ever since. The political folks are fully aware of gun owners as a large bloc that helped him get elected. If he were to support such idiocies as the above mentioned bills, gun owners would stay home.

Any of y'all get these fund-raising letters from various Republican groups? I do. I now have a very polite and short form letter that I send back to them, in essence saying, "No money until after the "Assault Weapon" Ban sunsets." (Ain't computers and printers really neat?)

While it's helpful to write to Congressfolks on many issues, it's even more helpful to get the attention of those who advise Congressfolks on election campaign issues. It helps us to let them know the consequences of anti-shooter bills and rhetoric.

Art

[Leatherneck]

"No money until after the "Assault Weapon" Ban sunsets."
Art,
That could be self-defeating. Here in Virginia, State elections are coming up, and the good candidates need support: campaigning support, moral support, and financial support. I believe the most practical sort of activism we each can do is on the local/state level where we can actually get face time with candidates (especially if we donate $$--they remember that :D ). Maybe I'm naive, but I think that gets the word out through the political grapevine that there is a lot of support among gun-rights advocates.

Not contributing until 11/2004 will simply make you a non-player in this fall's elections.

We'll see.

TC
TFL Survivor

[rick_reno]

This bill has is nothing more than a compromise tickler. It has no chance of passing in it's current form, but they'll tone it down to something like the '94 ban. The NRA will support the compromise, they've gotten very good at this. This will give Republicans the opportunity to say they protected our gun Rights by passing the compromise. We'll believe them and continue to elect them...and the band marches on.

I'm convinced there is NO WAY they are going to let the ban sunset and NOT pass something in it's place. I look at history to support this belief, when was the last time Congress gave us back Rights surrounding firearms? I can't name one instance of that happening.

[Futo Inu]

No, it's not time to bury the guns. Instead, it most certainly IS time for EACH of us/you to send 4 snail mail letters: One to bush, one to your house critter, and one to each of your 2 senatecritters, stating your strong opposition to this bill or any re-enactment of the homeland defense rifle ban. Letters/grass roots movements work! Get out the pens and paper. To find your critters' addresses, go here:

http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?title=NRA%20Institute%20for%20Legislative%20Action&url=http://www.nraila.org

[Edward429451]

No its not time to bury the guns. Its time to dig them up.

I can hear it now from all the good guy cops on the board....


"Its the law":uhoh:

Then instead of siding with the people, they'll point fingers at us and say "You voted it into law":barf:

May the best man win.

(Oh I'll send my letters, but I doan think it'll help.)

[dance varmint]

Write to your Representative. I helped defeat Hillarycare by doing that.
But the Senate has gotten so "moderate", and those Sunday morning blowhards are so out of touch, it would not surprise me if most of that bill passed the Senate. However, the House is where this dies.

[Secret Master]

Actually, guys, I believe the entire thing is a political shuck n' jive -- and so do the Anti-gun Democrats, which is why they keep saying things like "if the President is really behind this he should give us his vocal support" Which he hasn't really, because he doesn't.

Richard Nixon once said that if a president's core consistency isn't angry with him, he's doing something wrong. Bush is "tacking his sails" politically to get the nation's moderates support in the coming election. Now, you many ask, what about those of us who voted for him last election? What about us? Why isn't the NRA making a bigger stink about this than they are?

Simply put, the House speaker (Delay - 2nd Amendment, Texas) has already very publically stated that the bill IS going to sunset. In fact, he has stated that it will never come to a vote in the house -- and I believe him because he is a man of his word. Bush can they say that he WOULD have signed it but, o dear, it wasn't the will of the people. All gain, no pain, obviously the work of Carl Rove.

Give your friends in congress as much credit as your enemies, folks.

[CZ 75 BD]

Surely you meant House Majority leader DeLay; Hastert is the Speaker of the House.:cool:

[Secret Master]

Er, yeah - exactly! You know who I mean!

[Bartholomew Roberts]

A few clarifications:

1) The bill Bush has stated support for is Feinstein's S.1034 and not the HR. 2038 (or its Senate copy) mentioned above. Feinstein's bill bans all pre-1994 import magazines once and for all and removes the sunset so that this heinous law will never expire on its own.

2) Bush stated support for the same ban, as well as "closing the gunshow loophole", restricting the import of pre-94 magazines, and barring juveniles from possession of "assault weapons" as part of his 2000 campaign policy platform.

As most of you have noticed, none of those things have happened - nor has Bush made much effort to make them happen. You can either believe that he said he supports them out of political expediency or you can believe he really does support them. Regardless, the fact that this political hot potato lands a few months before the 2004 election is sure to make everyone squeamish. USA Today is already prepping the masses for the fact that the assault weapon ban is likely to die - I think that is a good thing.

Finally, the BIG danger here is the one others have already outlined - that Feinstein's bill is substituted for HR 2038 as a "compromise". We need to make sure all of our elected leaders understand that this type of compromise is unacceptable.

Remember, politicians don't get antsy about a particular policy stance as long as they think it will get them reelected. We need to let all of our politicians understand that fighting this ban is what will get them reelected. Even the ones we know are against us need to feel the heat.

Check out http://www.awbansunset.com/ for up to date news on this.

[oldfart]

There is a way congress could get an AWB to the President's desk without actually voting on it._ It could be attached to some other bill as a rider so that the general public wouldn't even realize it was being considered. The media could tell us all how we were getting some wonderful_new benefit from Big Brother, when in actuallity, he was sticking it to us again.

This is the sort of tactic we can expect in the last days before congress adjourns for upcoming elections. It worked in '68-- it'll probably work again unless we take a truly HARD line on the issue.

I kinda like the "no money until the ban sunsets" idea. Sure, it'll be hard on a few smaller candidates, but we need to focus on one issue. We've shot ourselves in the foot too many times in the past by requiring candidates to pass too many different tests. Here, on this board, we're focused on gun control but most of us are pretty conservative with regard to other issues too. So we worry about how a candidate stands on abortion, immigration, gay rights, etc. Let's do as L.Neil Smith has urged: If they're for ANY form of gun control_other than a firm grip, vote against them! We are rapidly nearing the point where there is no wiggle-room for justifying the support of a candidate whose main positive attribute is an "R" after his name. After all, modern politics has pretty well shown that an "R"is nothing more than a "D" with ugly legs and Hillary's already got those!!

[AmericanFreeBird]

AWBansunset.com August Letter Drive

Three months ago, AWBansunset.com launched its first letter drive to let Congress know where we stood. Shortly afterwards, Tom DeLay made the comment that any '94 ban renewal would not pass the House. We'd like to think we may have had a part provoking this statement.

Now it's time to remind our elected officials of our steadfast opposition to any assault weapon ban. Are you ready for the next evolution?

By August 17th, write letters to any and all of the elected officials listed below. On Monday, August 18th, place them in the mail.

For you busy gunowners, there are letter templates available at this page. Simply season to taste.

Make sure to include your own reps and senators at the top of this list. You can find out your reps contact info here.

Pres George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, US 20500

Rep. J. Dennis Hastert (Speaker)
235 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1314

Sen. Bill Frist (Sen Maj Leader)
461 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-4205

Sen. Thomas Daschle (Sen Min Leader)
509 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-4103

Rep. Tom DeLay (House Maj Leader)
242 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-4322

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (House Min Leader)
2371 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0508

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (House Judiciary Co Chair)
2449 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-4905

Rep. Roy Blunt (House Majority Whip)
217 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-2507

Sen. George Allen (Chairman of the Republican National Senatorial Committee)
204 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-4604

Rep. Thomas Reynolds (Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee)
332 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-3226

Sen. Jon Corzine (Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee)
502 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-3004

Rep. Robert Matsui (Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee)
2310 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0505

We urge all who read this to inform as many firearm owners as possible about this latest letter drive. This is our opportunity to let our officials know we have not gone away and we have not turned a blind eye.

Thank you for supporting the 2nd Amendment,
AWBansunset.com Staff

[Giant]

I'm in agreement with Art on this one, no more donations of money 'til after the AW sunsets without a renewal - along with a note explaining why!

My own opinion, would be that we may see civil war in the next year! Understand I am not advocating such a thing, I do not think the people will give in to another step of their disarmament. I think the people will resist and that will mean civil war...

Giant

[HBK]

I've sent letters, but my senators are a couple of morons, Cantwell and Murray. They won't listen to any point that opposes their own.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There is a way congress could get an AWB to the President's desk without actually voting on it._ It could be attached to some other bill as a rider so that the general public wouldn't even realize it was being considered.

No, all riders still require Congress to vote on the bill. On the House side, there is virtually no way the bill could be attached as a rider to other legislation without the agreement of House leadership (and Tom Delay) so that is very unlikely to happen.

In the Senate, it is unlikely but more possible; however, if the Senate adds anything that the House didn't already agree to, then it goes to a joint conference committee and the House will have the most control of that conference. Any bill coming out of the conference committee has to be voted on again by the House (just as the Omnibus Crime Bill with attached assault weapon ban was in 1994),

[oldfart]

Quote: "On the House side, there is virtually no way the bill could be attached as a rider to other legislation without the agreement of House leadership (and Tom Delay) so that is very unlikely to happen."

Tom Delay has made some good sounds so far, but until the AWB sunsets they're only sounds. Delay is a politician first, last and everywhere in between. If Bush were to lean on him_to bring the bill to a vote, he'd cave in like a soft drink cup on the freeway. Most of the politicians in D.C. have several_people_on staff for the express job of finding "reasons" why they had to_go against the wishes of their constituents.

The only thing they understand is power. As things stand, they have it and we don't. They also know, just as Mao Tse Tung said, "Power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Right now, we have guns, but in another generation or so, only the politicians will have them. Thus they will have all the power and we--_or our children-- will have none.

In 2000 we argued over whether to support Bush or vote Third Party. Many saw a vote for any third party as a vote for Gore. We're already starting to get into the same_battles, only this time the ogre is Hillary. Last time, I told people that the only difference in Bush and Gore was the speed whith which each would lead us down the primrose path to socialism. I'm very sorry to say it, but it looks as if I was right.

Hillary will be worse than Gore, but maybe that's what we need to make us wake up and smell the jackboot polish. Maybe we need to give Bush and all his RINO buddies the word; "We won't support you unless you support the Constitution!"

I don't know what will happen in 2004. Hell, as old and sick as I am, I might not even have to vote then. But if I do, you can bet I won't vote for ANYBODY who has supported the AWB. I wouldn't even vote for anybody who abstained from voting. Am_I a single-issue voter? You bet I am. But it's the single, most important issue out there.

[Secret Master]

oldfart:

I hear you, and I more than understand your distrust of politicians. But, although I do not know the man personally, I honestly think that Rep. DeLay is man of principle and a friend to gun owners. Much like California's Tom McClintock, I believe he is a man first and a politician second.

And I hope you get better.

[Thumper]

But, although I do not know the man personally, I honestly think that Rep. DeLay is man of principle and a friend to gun owners.

I DO know him and his family personally. Though I don't agree with everything he supports, I do believe he is a friend to gun owners.

[Secret Master]

Good to hear! Thank you!

[oldfart]

Secret Master, Thumper-- I dearly hope you're right. This is one issue on which I'd like nothing more than to be wrong.

[aquapong]

The video said that GW supports the current ban. It said nothing about a more restrictive ban. Your post seems a bit misleading Jitsuguy. No where in that video did Ari announce GW's support for the more restrictive and permanent bans.

I agree that support for the current ban isn't what I want to hear either, but to date he has not come out as pro/con a more restrictive measure.

[Mark Tyson]

Outrageous legislation is proposed on all sides every year; often it never makes its way out of commitee. I think this one will die a quiet death as other issues make it to the forefront in the run up to the election. I'm writing my reps (and other people's reps, and the president . . .) anyway just to let them know. We've just got to make sure they don't pull a FOPA 86 on us.

[rick_reno]

It's a fact the current '94 ban will expire in 2004. That won't change. To believe that another one won't be passed is to ignore history, and I advise you not to do that. Tell me when was the last time that the Federal govt. restored ANY of your rights surrounding firearms and I'll start to believe they won't pass another ban. I don't know whether the new ban will be the same or more restrictive, but following my rule of "don't ignore history" suggests it should be more restrictive. There is a lot of political landscape to cover before next Sept. rolls around and anything can happen to spur Congress into passing something.
I hope I'm wrong and this ban or something like it isn't passed again, but if past performance is any indication of future performance - we'll have another ban rolling down the pike by next fall.

[Duncan Idaho]

The video said that GW supports the current ban. It said nothing about a more restrictive ban. Your post seems a bit misleading Jitsuguy. No where in that video did Ari announce GW's support for the more restrictive and permanent bans.It sounds like aquapong and I saw the same video. Is there some other video that we were supposed to see?Bush wants your "Assault Weapons" including your semi-auto shotguns... Also, here's video that proves Bush supports this ban... http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/bus...ltweaponsban.rm H.R. 2038/S. 1431, introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), does not just "reenact" or "reauthorize" the 1994 Clinton ban, the so-called "assault weapon" law. It bans millions more guns and begins backdoor registration of guns. All told, it's a giant step closer to the goal stated by Clinton gun ban sponsor Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), on CBS 60 Minutes "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it." There is no 10-year sunset provision in H.R. 2038/S. 1431. It permanently bans every gun that is currently banned and: This thread starts out on, and maintains a false premise. It uses a video clip that quite clearly shows that the "evidence" presented does not match the opening assertion.

I am curious why a thread, that presents no evidence to support its claim, is given the status of "Float"?

Bush supports renewal of the current ban. Everyone that bothered to pay attention has known this since 2000 at the very least. That he supports the renewal quite frankly sucks, but - and I don't think I can emphasize this enough - everyone has known his position since 2000. As such, there is nothing new presented here vis-a-vis President Bush's position regarding the assault weapons ban.

If the original poster of this thread would like to present some evidence that President Bush does indeed support "H.R. 2038/S. 1431, introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)", I would certainly be interested in seeing it. Barring that, I seriously have to wonder what is being accomplished with this thread especially since it has been given special status in this forum.

:confused:

[BTR]

The Gunowners Protection Act in '86 repealed some stupid federal laws, such as signing for ammo purchases and prohibiting people from buying long guns in nonresident states. So rick reno, you are wrong about no fed gun control going away.

[Airboss]

This Bill Baned Machine Guns forever/ie.no new Machine Guns unless for Law enforcement or Military-Thanks Congress

[Bartholomew Roberts]

This Bill Baned Machine Guns forever/ie.no new Machine Guns unless for Law enforcement or Military-Thanks Congress

That portion was added by a Democrat from New Jersey in the last four minutes of debate on the bill.

The bill does a lot more than that and I for one AM thankful that Congress passed it. We would be in a bad way if they had not.

A few things made possible by the 1986 FOPA:

1) Gun shows

2) ATF can now be made to pay your court costs if they prosecute you without sufficient evidence.

3) ATF now has to have a warrant to inspect an FFLs records more than once a year. Before this, they could and did short circuit the system to revoke an FFLs license by simply "inspecting" them out of business.

4) You no longer have to register each purchase of handgun ammunition

Plus lots more... read one of the anti websites sometime to see just how much they hate this law.

[JitsuGuy]

Duncan Idaho,

Here's the quote from the video about 3 minutes into it... "Is the president willing to fight for this, to fight for the EXTENSION of the uhh assault weapons ban?" Ari Flescher replies with, "Well, the president has made his position known....."

So tell me Duncan Idaho, what exactly are you not getting out of that?

Jits

[WonderNine]

The NRA won't compromise this time. I think they've finally seen the light.

[Thumper]

Jitsuguy,

I'm not going to speak for Duncan, but I believe his point is that Bush supports (publicly) a renewal of the existing ban.

As I'm sure you realize, the '94 bill has nothing to do with the monstrosity you posted.

Per the White House:

"The President supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

You understand that the "current law" has very little chance of passing, correct?

[dandean316]

I'm going to write my reps, but should I send to the DC office or their local office?

I've been emailing up to this point, which they don't seem to respond to very well. State reps do, but the US reps don't.