Why a Renewal of the 1994 Assault Weapon “Ban” is NOT Happening


PDA






damien
November 10, 2008, 02:25 PM
I like this guy and I think he does some good analysis. I hope he is right.

Why a Renewal of the 1994 Assault Weapon “Ban” is NOT Happening Unless Republicans Vote For It

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/11/the_heller_gun_12.html

...

People can forget about a new “assault weapon” ban - that one is not getting any traction – Labor is opposed and Rahm Emanuel is not putting his boss or a Democratic majority at risk. Look at the makeup of the new Congress. Some of this buying may be Obama paranoia but a lot of this is also upscale people going downscale.

Given all the paranoia about “assault weapons”, for the record, all the 1994 law did was to prohibit or restrict the making or importation into the US of various firearms and high capacity magazines. It did not affect any “pre ban” guns. The 1994 law as to imports codified a prior import restriction effectuated by President Bush 41. That law expired in 2004 though John McCain voted for an extension as part of final bill that failed and the import ban remains in effect which means that restricted weapons can only be made under a licensing agreement within the US.

The 1994 crime bill which included “the ban” passed because Republicans voted for it. Many of those Republicans are gone and because of the movement of seats because of the 2000 census and resulting redistricting, many of the Democratic seats where the members voted for it are gone as well.

In fact, the shifts in redistricting in the wake of the 2002 census have created situations where no 1994 revival could even pass the House. A number of the seats of Democrats who voted for the 1994 law have disappeared and those Republicans who voted for the 1994 law are gone as well replaced by GOP hardliners. The Karl Rove plan which I wrote about actually weakened Republicans in the Northeast and Midwest by creating large numbers of marginal seats in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Because of demography and philosophical trends, Rove in effect created a number of what I would call AHSAcrats or Unioncrats in 2006. These are Democrats who are union oriented, tax wary, trade wary, mildly pro gun, “tough on defense”, difficult to define on abortion [whose views on this may be shaped by religious teachings which are not on all the same page vis-a-vis this issue] Democrats in a number of states. In addition, you have large numbers of African American congresspersons from the rural south who want to move up. The best way to connect with White voters you need – witness Rod Wright – is to be for gun rights. Pelosi’s majority depends on all these Congresspersons.

In the Senate, the only reason the 1994 legislation avoided a filibuster is that Republicans put up 6 votes for the bill to cut off debate. Those Republicans are gone – the Senate within the GOP is devoid of moderates. The easiest way to note this is to make a comparison on votes is between the Senate as likely to exist in 2009 and the Senate in 2004. In 2004, an extension passed 52 to 47.

It was generally assumed that Democrats would pick up seats in 2008 and they did but they did not pickup seats in the numbers people thought that they would. The Democratic pickups maybe Alaska [Mark Begich will vote with NRA], as well as pickups in Colorado [Mark Udall is an AHSAcrat], New Hampshire [Jeanne Shaheen is an AHSAcrat], New Mexico [Tom Udall is an AHSAcrat], North Carolina [Kay Hagen is very pro gun AHSAcrat], Oregon, and Virginia [Mark Warner is more pro gun than John Warner]. Norm Coleman has been I believe reelected and Saxby Chambliss will be reelected. Democrats did not get to 60 votes to shut off debate on anything unless the Republicans want that to happen. [Of course, in the case of taxes unless something is done then all current tax reductions expire on January 1, 2011.] I should add that every single democrat elected in 2008 will be up in 2014 and if Obama is reelected the second mid term of a President is not good.

As to guns, in the 2004 elections, the following 5 Yes extension votes were replaced by 5 or 6 No votes on an extension (Vitter for Breaux, Thune for Daschle, Burr for Edwards, Sanders for Jeffords, Martinez for Graham, and maybe Warner for Warner). The following No extension votes may have been replaced by Yes votes (Mark Udall of CO for Allard, Salazar (possibly – though doubtful) for Campbell, Tom Udall of New Mexico for Domenici, McCaskill (possibly – she is an AHSAcrat) for Talent.

Gordon Smith who lost on Tuesday voted for the 2004 extension [yet he was NRA endorsed] as did Judd Gregg. Gregg is up in 2010 and he should be worried about his base so he becomes a NO. Kay Hagan has indicated that she would not vote for an extension or renewal. I would not be surprised if Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins go from Yes to No. As can be seen, the net effect of this is that it is not at all clear that there are even 50 votes for a revival of an extension.

Besides the closeness of the vote, the first thing people have to remember is that Majority Leader Harry Reid is up in 2010 for reelection in Nevada, as is Byron Dorgan in North Dakota, Ron Wyden in Oregon and Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. The second thing people have to remember is that in 2004 Republicans gained US Senate Seats and those seats are up in 2010 in red states - with the possible exception of Mel Martinez in Florida – none of those Reeps have to worry about a general but they have to worry about their base. As such, nothing is happening.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why a Renewal of the 1994 Assault Weapon “Ban” is NOT Happening" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
harmonic
November 10, 2008, 02:29 PM
Good article. I hope he's right.

Beagle-zebub
November 10, 2008, 02:37 PM
Some interesting points made.

It's pretty funny that he refers to the AHSA as though it were "pro-gun," or against the renewal of the assault weapons ban.

Win52D
November 10, 2008, 02:45 PM
I hope he is right as well, however, due to Obama's platform, CHANGE, and in the spirit of showing support for the new prez you may see some of those democrats that are AHSA vote for the ban. As he said "Gordon Smith who lost on Tuesday voted for the 2004 extension [yet he was NRA endorsed]".

Call me cynical but at this point in time I have no confidence whatsoever in elected officials standing by their principles or their campaign promises.

Let's all pray that som whacko nut case doesn't go off the deep end and commit some attrocitiy with any sort of firearm. That would seal our fate.

RP88
November 10, 2008, 02:51 PM
it presents a much better list of points other than the "Obama will kick down your doors. You people are wasting your money." crowd around here.

But even then, it's still like predicting the weather. He could have shortened it to a paragraph and still get the same withstanding factors across.

Call me cynical but at this point in time I have no confidence whatsoever in elected officials standing by their principles or their campaign promises.

Amen to that. (I strongly hated the bailout)

Let's all pray that som whacko nut case doesn't go off the deep end and commit some attrocitiy with any sort of firearm. That would seal our fate.

people still slip the Tech massacre into every gun-related issue that happens within two miles of a college, or to a college kid. They don't really need another atrocity.

esq_stu
November 10, 2008, 03:15 PM
OK, so what I am reading is that there are new members of congress that are maybes - maybe yes to renewing a ban, maybe no to renewing a ban.

"The following No extension votes may have been replaced by Yes votes (Mark Udall of CO for Allard, Salazar (possibly – though doubtful) for Campbell, Tom Udall of New Mexico for Domenici, McCaskill (possibly – she is an AHSAcrat) for Talent. . . . I would not be surprised if Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins go from Yes to No. . . . Majority Leader Harry Reid is up in 2010 for reelection in Nevada, as is Byron Dorgan in North Dakota, Ron Wyden in Oregon and Russ Feingold in Wisconsin."

These people all need to be contacted by people that reside in the congressional districts of the respective congress members with the basic message - "I am opposed to renewal of any sort of 'assault weapon ban' and I vote."

jeff-10
November 10, 2008, 03:21 PM
Some people are acting like new AWB will happen months after Obama takes office. I would be willing to bet it doesn't happen to his second term if at all. It would be great if we could "flip" the Democratic party and no longer have any major US party an advocate for anti-2nd Amendment legislation. That is how it once was in thos country. Only since the assassintation of JFK has gun ownership become so controversial.

The one good thing about this has been the dramatic increase in guns, ammunition and accessory sales. Anything we can do to increase the amount of guns in circulation is a good thing.

Vonderek
November 10, 2008, 03:21 PM
Yup, everything's going to be okay. Nothing to see here. Go back to sleep.

mljdeckard
November 10, 2008, 03:21 PM
I agree. Utah's lone dem rep is pro-gun, and I don't think he will let his very conservative district think for one second that he would move to take their guns away. There are MANY competitors willing to step up and he knows it.

I've said all along that they WANT to do something like another AWB, but they know they have a limited time window in which to get as much done as possible. They will use it somewhere else.

Kino74
November 10, 2008, 03:25 PM
Why is the AHSA classified as pro gun? Those people endorsed Obama and have supported every gun control law put out by the democrats.

RPCVYemen
November 10, 2008, 03:47 PM
Rove in effect created a number of what I would call AHSAcrats or Unioncrats in 2006. These are Democrats who are union oriented, tax wary, trade wary, mildly pro gun, “tough on defense”, difficult to define on abortion

Good post - but I would describe those Democrats as "centrist".

I too wonder about the term AHSAcrat - but it may be correct. The NRA may be so tied to the (losing) right wing to have much clout in the center. The NRA's rhetoric and extreme partisanship may have doomed its efficacy.

I believe the center of the US political spectrum strongly supports handguns for self defense and hunting. I think that the notion - popular on THR - of supporting weapons rights so the government can be overthrown is pretty extreme (not centrist). All that leads me to believe that the AHSA probably represents the political center pretty well with at least two of its stated positions - self defense and sport shooting. Here's a quote from their home page. I think the 80% of American electorate in the center would support the following statements:

AHSA is committed to supporting the right to keep and bear arms, protecting our homes, and preserving our liberties.

Hunting and sport shooting are American values AHSA will vigorously defend.
AHSA is dedicated to protecting and maintaining our nation's valuable wilderness resources for the preservation and use of all Americans.


So maybe AHSAcrat does fairly describe those centrist Democrats.

Whatever you want to call them, the new generation of Democrats will not endanger their tenure with a policy that wins them nothing, but will cost them control of Congress in the midterm elections.

Thanks to the author for doing the political math to back up what some of us have been asserting for some time -


The Dems can't pass the AWB and retain control of Congress.
The Dems know that the they can't pass the AWB and retain control of Congress.
Therefore they won't pass the AWB.


Mike

Crunker1337
November 10, 2008, 03:53 PM
I hope to God he's right... but this is no reason to grow complacent.

camslam
November 10, 2008, 03:55 PM
It will be interesting to see what happens. I like the idea and tone of the article, but 2 things are huge variables.

1. Can the Democrats that are really in charge of the senate, i.e., Schumer, Clinton, Feinstein, Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, Boxer, and Reid as a puppet, really control that nasty thing that happens when people get in power? In other words, power goes to peoples heads and when you are on a roll like the Dems have been, there isn't much to keep them in check from themselves.

2. Can the "newly elected", "blue dog", or "moderate" Dems really stand up to the likes of the above mentioned Senators, that wacko Pelosi, and an attack dog like Rahm Emanuel, not to mention his new boss? Re-election is the most important thing for a politician and without support from the higher ups for money and campaigning, there can be trouble.

Smart money tells me that they won't be able to help themselves because true Liberals tend to operate off their emotions and hearts, rather than their brains and logic. The people I have listed, really truly want to take this country in a whole new direction. A New World Order, if you will. I think the next 4 years are going to be a wild freaking ride.

Jeff White
November 10, 2008, 03:58 PM
Politics :barf:

If you enjoyed reading about "Why a Renewal of the 1994 Assault Weapon “Ban” is NOT Happening" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!