BTR
October 13, 2003, 05:06 PM
Are there any indications that a new AW ban will be enacted, or the old one re-authorized? Statements by politicians or anything?
Any indications the AW ban will NOT sunset?
If you enjoyed reading about "Any indications the AW ban will NOT sunset?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
chas_martel
October 13, 2003, 05:14 PM
Does anyone actually think there will not be something else to take
its place the day after it sunsets?
If I were a betting man, I' d put my money on a new, more draconian law
being ready to go.
It will be voted on late in the night, when most of our reps have gone home.
And don't forget GW will let not veto it. He is FOR it.
its place the day after it sunsets?
If I were a betting man, I' d put my money on a new, more draconian law
being ready to go.
It will be voted on late in the night, when most of our reps have gone home.
And don't forget GW will let not veto it. He is FOR it.
Lone_Gunman
October 13, 2003, 05:25 PM
I for one don't think a new law will be enacted to replace it.
In October 2004, your "pre-ban AR15" will just be another used gun, and will be worth about $700, and those hi cap mags you bought for your Glock will be worth about $15 each.
It will never make it to a vote in the House.
In October 2004, your "pre-ban AR15" will just be another used gun, and will be worth about $700, and those hi cap mags you bought for your Glock will be worth about $15 each.
It will never make it to a vote in the House.
Mark Tyson
October 13, 2003, 05:28 PM
They've already got the new, more draconian law drafted. It will probably die a richly deserved death like a thousand other worthless laws in committee. If the "sniper" rampage didn't galvanize enough voters to make this issue number 1, then I don't know what will. There's plenty of other problems on the table right now competing for attention, too.
outdoorman63
October 13, 2003, 05:29 PM
have seen online some east coast i think new york senators working on something...it would encompass the old one and add more to it..but seems to be pretty quiet...that is more scary than if they were out ranting and raving
NY Patriot
October 13, 2003, 05:41 PM
Guys... my advice would be to NOT leave something this important up to chance. Anything worth achieving is worth WORKING for!!!
Thus, I give you...
The Essential "End the AW Ban" Contact List & Sample Letter Thread! (www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39429)
There is no fate but the fate we make!
Thus, I give you...
The Essential "End the AW Ban" Contact List & Sample Letter Thread! (www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39429)
There is no fate but the fate we make!
Waitone
October 13, 2003, 05:46 PM
Never, ever underestimate the stupidity of the republican party. I don't believe for one minute republicans have suddenly grown a spine and will stand for a principal.. I do believe and know repbs hold the house, Bush knows they hold the house, Bush knows an AWB will not make it out of the house, therefore he can throw a bone to the anti-gun crowd.
If however, Bush finds himself in deep yogurt next year as he stands a chance of doing so, he will use the AWB as a poker chip to buy votes. No doubt.
If you are looking for a principaled stand out of Bush you kid yourself. The man wants one thing only. . . .the acquisition and maintenance of power.
If however, Bush finds himself in deep yogurt next year as he stands a chance of doing so, he will use the AWB as a poker chip to buy votes. No doubt.
If you are looking for a principaled stand out of Bush you kid yourself. The man wants one thing only. . . .the acquisition and maintenance of power.
Carlos Cabeza
October 13, 2003, 06:10 PM
I just sent out my "ZERO TOLERANCE ON AWB RENEWAL AND ANYTHING RESEMBLING IT POLICY" letter again this week. I hope it reaches the intended recipients. :mad:
MaterDei
October 13, 2003, 06:15 PM
Think goodness whoever insisted on the sunset, did so. I can't imagine this actually being overturned.
When do the '34 and '68 bans sunset? :confused:
When do the '34 and '68 bans sunset? :confused:
Werewolf
October 13, 2003, 06:37 PM
The AWB renewal may well be one of those things that will get passed in the dark of the night with no one watching.
The media is not about to make an issue of this - if they do it comes into daylight and enough folks who didn't know about it could potentially make it an issue with their Rep/Senator.
It is to the media's and demonrat's benefit to keep the AWB sunset under everyone's radar horizon and out of view.
Because of that I don't think anything will happen on the AWB until after the 2004 elections but if it does it will be added as an amendment to a piece of legislation that would be so popular with the average US citizen that no elected person could vote against it. Otherwise it'll just expire and after the 2004 elections here's what I predict:
The current AWB will expire. Gun Control will therefore not be an issue during the 2004 elections. After the elections (and with 2 years until the next ones) Congress will pass a new even more draconian AWB. There will be a minor uproar but the attention span of the average citizen is very short. 2 years later no one will remember or even care.
And don't forget gun laws aren't really about gun control they're about people control and republican or democrat all politicians regardless of what they say are all about people control. That's why the repubs will gladly pass a new AWB after the elections.
The media is not about to make an issue of this - if they do it comes into daylight and enough folks who didn't know about it could potentially make it an issue with their Rep/Senator.
It is to the media's and demonrat's benefit to keep the AWB sunset under everyone's radar horizon and out of view.
Because of that I don't think anything will happen on the AWB until after the 2004 elections but if it does it will be added as an amendment to a piece of legislation that would be so popular with the average US citizen that no elected person could vote against it. Otherwise it'll just expire and after the 2004 elections here's what I predict:
The current AWB will expire. Gun Control will therefore not be an issue during the 2004 elections. After the elections (and with 2 years until the next ones) Congress will pass a new even more draconian AWB. There will be a minor uproar but the attention span of the average citizen is very short. 2 years later no one will remember or even care.
And don't forget gun laws aren't really about gun control they're about people control and republican or democrat all politicians regardless of what they say are all about people control. That's why the repubs will gladly pass a new AWB after the elections.
FPrice
October 13, 2003, 06:41 PM
"Are there any indications that a new AW ban will be enacted, or the old one re-authorized? Statements by politicians or anything?"
Just look at what is happening in Missouri. IF they are successful in blocking the CCW law, expect the same tactics elsewhere. Heck, expect them anyways. The anti's are not about to give up.
Just look at what is happening in Missouri. IF they are successful in blocking the CCW law, expect the same tactics elsewhere. Heck, expect them anyways. The anti's are not about to give up.
Standing Wolf
October 13, 2003, 08:49 PM
It's not over until it's over, and even then, it could be revived by leftist extremists at a moment's notice.
dustind
October 13, 2003, 09:49 PM
www.awbansunset.com
As it stands we are winning, the main and final battle will not begin until spring time. Unless some series of horrible things happens we should win this, we have a majority in the house 217/190.
EDIT: We are 46/47 in the senate so down one.
Make sure you write every person that represents you, no matter what happens it will come down to letters of support. Bad things may take more letters to persuade a legislator but ultimately there is nothing that can not be over come by votes.
As it stands we are winning, the main and final battle will not begin until spring time. Unless some series of horrible things happens we should win this, we have a majority in the house 217/190.
EDIT: We are 46/47 in the senate so down one.
Make sure you write every person that represents you, no matter what happens it will come down to letters of support. Bad things may take more letters to persuade a legislator but ultimately there is nothing that can not be over come by votes.
gun-fucious
October 13, 2003, 10:00 PM
watch Marylands legislative session this winter
the uplifters will attempt a State wide ban on "Assault weapons" again
Baltimore, MD - CeaseFire Maryland today (Monday) called on members of Congress to pass H. R. 2038 (McCarthy/Conyers) and S. 1431(Lautenberg/Corzine), identical bills that will ban the manufacture and sale of military-style assault weapons. At the same time, it called on Maryland legislators to pass a state bill banning assault weapons in the event Congress fails to act. Congress is debating whether to renew and strengthen the current federal ban, which expires on September 13, 2004.
"We urge every member of Congress to renew and strengthen the federal ban on assault weapons," said Leah Barrett, Executive Director. "But in the meantime, we have to look out for ourselves at the state level." Maryland has a ban on assault pistols (1994), but not on assault rifles. Such a ban would close an important loophole in the state. Maryland would be following other states such as California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey and Hawaii in enacting such a ban. Attorney General John Ashcroft has said that the 1994 ban is constitutional and President Bush supports renewing the 1994 ban.
The guns of choice for criminals, assault weapons were used to kill one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between 1998 and 2001, according to FBI statistics. Ata press conference today at City Hall in Baltimore, Mayor Martin O'Malley called for Maryland legislators to take action and pass a Maryland state law that would ban the infamous Bushmaster assault rifle that killed ten people and wounded three last October. He said: "There is absolutely no reason why civilians should be allowed to own military-style assault weapons. These weapons were designed and developed for a specific purpose - laying down a high volume of fire over a wide killing zone, also known as 'hosing down' an area."
Baltimore City Police Commissioner Kevin Clark agreed, saying, "As a police officer, I know that the type of gun used to commit a crime can make all the difference. Certainly no one would argue that the snipers could have done the damage they did - shooting with deadly accuracy from hundreds of yards away - with a mere handgun. It took an assault rifle designed to inflict the maximum damage to a human body."
H.R.2038 and S. 1431 are significantly stronger than the current federal law, which only bans specific models of weapons. Skirting the intent of the federal law, the gun industry continues to manufacture assault weapons with mere cosmetic changes to banned weapons. The Bushmaster AR-15 rifle - a civilian version of the military M-16 - used in last fall's DC-area sniper attacks is an example of one of these "copycat" weapons. Congressman Elijah Cummings, a co-sponsor of H.R. 2038, urged the Maryland Congressional delegation to support these bills to ban these weaponsof war from America's streets.
The Maryland legislation, modeled on the strong federal bills, is sponsored by Senator Robert Garagiola (District 15) and Delegate Neil Quinter (District 13)and would ban all assault weapons, including "copycats."
Date of Release: September 15, 2003
the uplifters will attempt a State wide ban on "Assault weapons" again
Baltimore, MD - CeaseFire Maryland today (Monday) called on members of Congress to pass H. R. 2038 (McCarthy/Conyers) and S. 1431(Lautenberg/Corzine), identical bills that will ban the manufacture and sale of military-style assault weapons. At the same time, it called on Maryland legislators to pass a state bill banning assault weapons in the event Congress fails to act. Congress is debating whether to renew and strengthen the current federal ban, which expires on September 13, 2004.
"We urge every member of Congress to renew and strengthen the federal ban on assault weapons," said Leah Barrett, Executive Director. "But in the meantime, we have to look out for ourselves at the state level." Maryland has a ban on assault pistols (1994), but not on assault rifles. Such a ban would close an important loophole in the state. Maryland would be following other states such as California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey and Hawaii in enacting such a ban. Attorney General John Ashcroft has said that the 1994 ban is constitutional and President Bush supports renewing the 1994 ban.
The guns of choice for criminals, assault weapons were used to kill one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between 1998 and 2001, according to FBI statistics. Ata press conference today at City Hall in Baltimore, Mayor Martin O'Malley called for Maryland legislators to take action and pass a Maryland state law that would ban the infamous Bushmaster assault rifle that killed ten people and wounded three last October. He said: "There is absolutely no reason why civilians should be allowed to own military-style assault weapons. These weapons were designed and developed for a specific purpose - laying down a high volume of fire over a wide killing zone, also known as 'hosing down' an area."
Baltimore City Police Commissioner Kevin Clark agreed, saying, "As a police officer, I know that the type of gun used to commit a crime can make all the difference. Certainly no one would argue that the snipers could have done the damage they did - shooting with deadly accuracy from hundreds of yards away - with a mere handgun. It took an assault rifle designed to inflict the maximum damage to a human body."
H.R.2038 and S. 1431 are significantly stronger than the current federal law, which only bans specific models of weapons. Skirting the intent of the federal law, the gun industry continues to manufacture assault weapons with mere cosmetic changes to banned weapons. The Bushmaster AR-15 rifle - a civilian version of the military M-16 - used in last fall's DC-area sniper attacks is an example of one of these "copycat" weapons. Congressman Elijah Cummings, a co-sponsor of H.R. 2038, urged the Maryland Congressional delegation to support these bills to ban these weaponsof war from America's streets.
The Maryland legislation, modeled on the strong federal bills, is sponsored by Senator Robert Garagiola (District 15) and Delegate Neil Quinter (District 13)and would ban all assault weapons, including "copycats."
Date of Release: September 15, 2003
CaesarI
October 13, 2003, 10:08 PM
I'm sending letters to friends, family, politicians. And have more than once threatened to vote Democrat if they pass it. Nonetheless I think it will not sunset, but will be replaced. The Republicans will sell us down the river.
-Morgan
-Morgan
gun-fucious
October 13, 2003, 10:11 PM
text of Hr 2083 can be found here:
http://www.candidatesonguns.org/
www.candidatesonguns.org/content/ pdf/policy_assault_hr2038.pdf
more spew:
http://www.regulateguns.org/fact_sheets/HR_2038.asp
H.R. 2038 WOULD STRENGTHEN AND RENEW THE
FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
The 1994 federal ban on the production of semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds will expire on September 13, 2004 – unless Congress acts to renew the law. Representatives Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and John Conyers (D-MI) have introduced H.R. 2038, the “Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003," that will not only make the assault weapon and high-capacity magazine ban permanent but also will significantly strengthen current law. The bill would:
Improve and simplify the definition of “assault weapon.” The bill redefines the term “assault weapon.” For example, the term would include any semiautomatic rifle, shotgun, or pistol that can accept a detachable magazine and includes one listed additional feature. Current law includes only assault weapons with a detachable magazine plus two additional listed features. This improvement recognizes the features that represent the essence of an assault weapon. The bill expands the number of weapons specifically banned by name to include assault weapons – such as the Bushmaster XM15 used by the Washington sniper – that were specifically designed to evade the 1994 law. The bill also simplifies the definition by deleting some previously listed features that are superfluous to a firearm functioning as an assault weapon, such as a bayonet lug or grenade launcher.
Closes the “parts kit” loophole. The bill expands coverage of the ban to include conversion parts kits that can be bought through the mail and be used to build an assault weapon. There has been an exponential growth in the availability of such kits over the last few years.
Clarifies definitions of assault weapon characteristics. The bill adds clear, new definitions of specific assault weapon characteristics. The new terms defined are: barrel shroud; detachable magazine; fixed magazine; folding or telescoping stock; forward grip; pistol grip; and, threaded barrel. These definitions are necessary to clarify the current agency interpretations of these terms. For example, the term “pistol grip” is not interpreted to include similar characteristics – such as a thumbhole stocks – that perform the same function as a pistol grip. The result of this narrow interpretation has been a flood of “sport-like” assault weapons that incorporate thumbhole stocks or other similar characteristics.
Regulates transfer of “grandfathered” assault weapons. Any assault weapon that was legally possessed on the date of enactment of the 1994 ban can be continued to be possessed and transferred. There is currently no monitoring or record-keeping of such transfers, even though these “grandfathered” weapons are often used in crime. The Conyers-McCarthy bill would require that all future transfers of grandfathered assault weapons be conducted through a federal firearms licensee or through a local law enforcement agency where state law provides for that option. This will ensure that a background check is performed and records are maintained of all transfers.
Enhances tracing of assault weapons. The bill would track the distribution of grandfathered assault weapons. It would also require the establishment of an assault weapon crime log. The log would include a description of every grandfathered assault weapons as well as the nature and circumstances of any criminal activity with which the gun is subsequently involved. This information will provide the first comprehensive data regarding the use of assault weapons in crime–information that does not exist today.
Bans post-ban guns equipped with pre-ban high-capacity magazines. As with assault weapons, the 1994 ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines “grandfathered” magazines legally possessed at the time the law was enacted. Manufacturers were able to stockpile thousands of magazines and they are still readily available today. The Conyers-McCarthy bill would restrict the transfer of “grandfathered” high-capacity ammunition magazines by banning import of high-capacity magazines, and requiring that sellers certify that any magazine they sell is legal to transfer. The bill would also strengthen current law by preventing manufacturers from marketing and selling post-ban assault weapons equipped with pre-ban magazines that hold in excess of 10 rounds, a practice that has become common.
Prohibits possession of assault weapons by juveniles. Under current law, juveniles under the age of 18 are not prohibited from buying or possessing assault rifles and shotguns, although it is illegal for juveniles to acquire or possess assault pistols. The bill would establish a uniform ban on assault weapon possession by juveniles.
http://www.candidatesonguns.org/
www.candidatesonguns.org/content/ pdf/policy_assault_hr2038.pdf
more spew:
http://www.regulateguns.org/fact_sheets/HR_2038.asp
H.R. 2038 WOULD STRENGTHEN AND RENEW THE
FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
The 1994 federal ban on the production of semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds will expire on September 13, 2004 – unless Congress acts to renew the law. Representatives Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and John Conyers (D-MI) have introduced H.R. 2038, the “Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003," that will not only make the assault weapon and high-capacity magazine ban permanent but also will significantly strengthen current law. The bill would:
Improve and simplify the definition of “assault weapon.” The bill redefines the term “assault weapon.” For example, the term would include any semiautomatic rifle, shotgun, or pistol that can accept a detachable magazine and includes one listed additional feature. Current law includes only assault weapons with a detachable magazine plus two additional listed features. This improvement recognizes the features that represent the essence of an assault weapon. The bill expands the number of weapons specifically banned by name to include assault weapons – such as the Bushmaster XM15 used by the Washington sniper – that were specifically designed to evade the 1994 law. The bill also simplifies the definition by deleting some previously listed features that are superfluous to a firearm functioning as an assault weapon, such as a bayonet lug or grenade launcher.
Closes the “parts kit” loophole. The bill expands coverage of the ban to include conversion parts kits that can be bought through the mail and be used to build an assault weapon. There has been an exponential growth in the availability of such kits over the last few years.
Clarifies definitions of assault weapon characteristics. The bill adds clear, new definitions of specific assault weapon characteristics. The new terms defined are: barrel shroud; detachable magazine; fixed magazine; folding or telescoping stock; forward grip; pistol grip; and, threaded barrel. These definitions are necessary to clarify the current agency interpretations of these terms. For example, the term “pistol grip” is not interpreted to include similar characteristics – such as a thumbhole stocks – that perform the same function as a pistol grip. The result of this narrow interpretation has been a flood of “sport-like” assault weapons that incorporate thumbhole stocks or other similar characteristics.
Regulates transfer of “grandfathered” assault weapons. Any assault weapon that was legally possessed on the date of enactment of the 1994 ban can be continued to be possessed and transferred. There is currently no monitoring or record-keeping of such transfers, even though these “grandfathered” weapons are often used in crime. The Conyers-McCarthy bill would require that all future transfers of grandfathered assault weapons be conducted through a federal firearms licensee or through a local law enforcement agency where state law provides for that option. This will ensure that a background check is performed and records are maintained of all transfers.
Enhances tracing of assault weapons. The bill would track the distribution of grandfathered assault weapons. It would also require the establishment of an assault weapon crime log. The log would include a description of every grandfathered assault weapons as well as the nature and circumstances of any criminal activity with which the gun is subsequently involved. This information will provide the first comprehensive data regarding the use of assault weapons in crime–information that does not exist today.
Bans post-ban guns equipped with pre-ban high-capacity magazines. As with assault weapons, the 1994 ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines “grandfathered” magazines legally possessed at the time the law was enacted. Manufacturers were able to stockpile thousands of magazines and they are still readily available today. The Conyers-McCarthy bill would restrict the transfer of “grandfathered” high-capacity ammunition magazines by banning import of high-capacity magazines, and requiring that sellers certify that any magazine they sell is legal to transfer. The bill would also strengthen current law by preventing manufacturers from marketing and selling post-ban assault weapons equipped with pre-ban magazines that hold in excess of 10 rounds, a practice that has become common.
Prohibits possession of assault weapons by juveniles. Under current law, juveniles under the age of 18 are not prohibited from buying or possessing assault rifles and shotguns, although it is illegal for juveniles to acquire or possess assault pistols. The bill would establish a uniform ban on assault weapon possession by juveniles.
BTR
October 13, 2003, 11:03 PM
Has ANY politician or knowledgeable public figure voiced the opinion that it will not die?
chas_martel
October 13, 2003, 11:17 PM
DING DING DING DING DING DING ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Werewolf's scenario sounds the most likely to me!
Just my cynical 2 cents worth...............
Werewolf's scenario sounds the most likely to me!
Just my cynical 2 cents worth...............
Telperion
October 14, 2003, 12:21 AM
It will be voted on late in the night, when most of our reps have gone home.
The AWB renewal may well be one of those things that will get passed in the dark of the night with no one watching.
:o Those of you who think that a bill can just materialize and pass in the middle of the night or get casually tossed in as a rider really need to read up on the legislative process. It is possible but not that easy. Whether or not you think the Republican party is pro-gun, with the current fever pitch of partisan politics, what they will not do is take crap off of saucy Democrats who have the temerity to sidestep the process on such a controversial issue.
The AWB renewal may well be one of those things that will get passed in the dark of the night with no one watching.
:o Those of you who think that a bill can just materialize and pass in the middle of the night or get casually tossed in as a rider really need to read up on the legislative process. It is possible but not that easy. Whether or not you think the Republican party is pro-gun, with the current fever pitch of partisan politics, what they will not do is take crap off of saucy Democrats who have the temerity to sidestep the process on such a controversial issue.
Shooter 2.5
October 14, 2003, 12:34 AM
I agree with NY. If you want it to sunset. Work for the sunset.
madmike
October 14, 2003, 05:25 AM
The guns of choice for criminals,
The Maserati is the car of choice for drunk drivers. For some reason, however, few manage to use one. Something about $$$
assault weapons were used to kill one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between 1998 and 2001, according to FBI statistics.(2)
If we get to define "Assault weapon" as "anything longer than 12 inches."
At a press conference today at City Hall in Baltimore, Mayor Martin O'Malley called for Maryland legislators to take action and pass a Maryland state law that would ban the infamous Bushmaster assault rifle that killed ten people and wounded three last October. He said: "There is absolutely no reason why civilians should be allowed to own military-style assault weapons.(3)
Two words: "President Ashcroft."
These weapons were designed and developed for a specific purpose - laying down a high volume of fire over a wide killing zone, also known as 'hosing down' an area."(4)
I must have missed that part in the Army and Air Force between 1985 and 2003. I was never taught the proper way to "hose down" a "wide killing zone."
Baltimore City Police Commissioner Kevin Clark agreed, saying, "As a police officer, I know that the type of gun used to commit a crime can make all the difference. Certainly no one would argue that the snipers could have done the damage they did - shooting with deadly accuracy from hundreds of yards away - with a mere handgun.(5)
THOSE "Snipers"? No. Competent shooters? Perhaps. But...are you saying that handguns are okay there in Maryland?
It took an assault rifle designed to inflict the maximum damage to a human body."(6)
Or a deer rifle. Or a large game rifle. Or a target rifle. Or a single shot youth rifle. Or a .22...
PS: What the @$(*)% is an "assault pistol"?:confused: We never had THOSE in the Army.
The Maserati is the car of choice for drunk drivers. For some reason, however, few manage to use one. Something about $$$
assault weapons were used to kill one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between 1998 and 2001, according to FBI statistics.(2)
If we get to define "Assault weapon" as "anything longer than 12 inches."
At a press conference today at City Hall in Baltimore, Mayor Martin O'Malley called for Maryland legislators to take action and pass a Maryland state law that would ban the infamous Bushmaster assault rifle that killed ten people and wounded three last October. He said: "There is absolutely no reason why civilians should be allowed to own military-style assault weapons.(3)
Two words: "President Ashcroft."
These weapons were designed and developed for a specific purpose - laying down a high volume of fire over a wide killing zone, also known as 'hosing down' an area."(4)
I must have missed that part in the Army and Air Force between 1985 and 2003. I was never taught the proper way to "hose down" a "wide killing zone."
Baltimore City Police Commissioner Kevin Clark agreed, saying, "As a police officer, I know that the type of gun used to commit a crime can make all the difference. Certainly no one would argue that the snipers could have done the damage they did - shooting with deadly accuracy from hundreds of yards away - with a mere handgun.(5)
THOSE "Snipers"? No. Competent shooters? Perhaps. But...are you saying that handguns are okay there in Maryland?
It took an assault rifle designed to inflict the maximum damage to a human body."(6)
Or a deer rifle. Or a large game rifle. Or a target rifle. Or a single shot youth rifle. Or a .22...
PS: What the @$(*)% is an "assault pistol"?:confused: We never had THOSE in the Army.
w4rma
October 14, 2003, 06:48 AM
Bush Supports New Extension Of Assault-Weapons Ban
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04122003/nation_w/47311.asp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891827/posts
Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11013-2003Apr11.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891697/posts
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04122003/nation_w/47311.asp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891827/posts
Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11013-2003Apr11.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891697/posts
TallPine
October 14, 2003, 08:12 AM
Under current law, juveniles under the age of 18 are not prohibited from buying or possessing assault rifles and shotguns, although it is illegal for juveniles to acquire or possess assault pistols.
Absolute lie.
And just what the heck is an "assault pistol" ???????
Absolute lie.
And just what the heck is an "assault pistol" ???????
rick_reno
October 14, 2003, 08:33 AM
I believe AWB II, the sequel, is already drafted - McCarthy (N.Y.) and some others put it together and yes - it is much more restrictive than the ban that is going to sunset.
Here is what will probably happen.
This bill, banning everything including Rem. Model 1100 shotguns will be brought up for discussion. GWB's numbers in the polls will be very low and he and his party will be scrambling for every vote they can get. This new bill is nothing more than a smokescreen, allowing the Republicans and the NRA to "save the day" for gun owning Americans (again). The Republicans will present their version of AWB legislation, which will basically be the same thing that is in place now minus the sunset provision. The NRA will support this bill, Republicans and the NRA will argue it's what has been in place for 10 years and worked - so why not pass it again. The NRA will contact it's membership and pat themselves on the back for "saving gun rights" by working with Congress to defeat the AWB II - the bill that banned everything - and having worked with Congress to pass "reasonable gun legislation". It's a win/win for the NRA/GWB and the Republican party. The only voters they'll upset is the fringe vote of gun owners - and it's such a small number of voters that their protests will be lost in the applause of "sensible gun legislation".
Here is what will probably happen.
This bill, banning everything including Rem. Model 1100 shotguns will be brought up for discussion. GWB's numbers in the polls will be very low and he and his party will be scrambling for every vote they can get. This new bill is nothing more than a smokescreen, allowing the Republicans and the NRA to "save the day" for gun owning Americans (again). The Republicans will present their version of AWB legislation, which will basically be the same thing that is in place now minus the sunset provision. The NRA will support this bill, Republicans and the NRA will argue it's what has been in place for 10 years and worked - so why not pass it again. The NRA will contact it's membership and pat themselves on the back for "saving gun rights" by working with Congress to defeat the AWB II - the bill that banned everything - and having worked with Congress to pass "reasonable gun legislation". It's a win/win for the NRA/GWB and the Republican party. The only voters they'll upset is the fringe vote of gun owners - and it's such a small number of voters that their protests will be lost in the applause of "sensible gun legislation".
GregoryTech
October 14, 2003, 09:25 AM
I believe AWB II, the sequel, is already drafted - McCarthy (N.Y.) and some others put it together and yes - it is much more restrictive than the ban that is going to sunset.
Here is what will probably happen.
This bill, banning everything including Rem. Model 1100 shotguns will be brought up for discussion. GWB's numbers in the polls will be very low and he and his party will be scrambling for every vote they can get. This new bill is nothing more than a smokescreen, allowing the Republicans and the NRA to "save the day" for gun owning Americans (again). The Republicans will present their version of AWB legislation, which will basically be the same thing that is in place now minus the sunset provision. The NRA will support this bill, Republicans and the NRA will argue it's what has been in place for 10 years and worked - so why not pass it again. The NRA will contact it's membership and pat themselves on the back for "saving gun rights" by working with Congress to defeat the AWB II - the bill that banned everything - and having worked with Congress to pass "reasonable gun legislation". It's a win/win for the NRA/GWB and the Republican party. The only voters they'll upset is the fringe vote of gun owners - and it's such a small number of voters that their protests will be lost in the applause of "sensible gun legislation".
I don't consider myself politically savvy, but this is exactly how I see it happening too.
Here is what will probably happen.
This bill, banning everything including Rem. Model 1100 shotguns will be brought up for discussion. GWB's numbers in the polls will be very low and he and his party will be scrambling for every vote they can get. This new bill is nothing more than a smokescreen, allowing the Republicans and the NRA to "save the day" for gun owning Americans (again). The Republicans will present their version of AWB legislation, which will basically be the same thing that is in place now minus the sunset provision. The NRA will support this bill, Republicans and the NRA will argue it's what has been in place for 10 years and worked - so why not pass it again. The NRA will contact it's membership and pat themselves on the back for "saving gun rights" by working with Congress to defeat the AWB II - the bill that banned everything - and having worked with Congress to pass "reasonable gun legislation". It's a win/win for the NRA/GWB and the Republican party. The only voters they'll upset is the fringe vote of gun owners - and it's such a small number of voters that their protests will be lost in the applause of "sensible gun legislation".
I don't consider myself politically savvy, but this is exactly how I see it happening too.
MaterDei
October 14, 2003, 10:43 AM
From anti site candidatesonguns.org...
"Alex Formuzis, spokesman for Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, New Jersey Democrat, and sponsor of one of the bills that would tighten the assault-weapons ban, said gun control is unlikely to become a big campaign issue.
"It's an issue, unfortunately, that hasn't had a lot of attention in the last year or two," Mr. Formuzis said. "If it can't come up for a debate on the floor, it's very difficult to get the attention of the American people. ""
MaterDei
"Alex Formuzis, spokesman for Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, New Jersey Democrat, and sponsor of one of the bills that would tighten the assault-weapons ban, said gun control is unlikely to become a big campaign issue.
"It's an issue, unfortunately, that hasn't had a lot of attention in the last year or two," Mr. Formuzis said. "If it can't come up for a debate on the floor, it's very difficult to get the attention of the American people. ""
MaterDei
Bartholomew Roberts
October 14, 2003, 10:50 AM
There is no way NRA will ever support any version the AWB. They fought the original tooth and nail for five years and kept it from passing and then pushed a repeal effort on a Republican party that was less than anxious to deal with it in an election year.
Anybody who thinks NRA is going to support any form of AWB needs to up their meds.
As of now, we are winning - the majority of the House (both Republicans and Dems) don't want to deal with it. However, the grabbers are leaning on the RINOs and trying to get them to stir the pot... we are lucky to have Tom Delay in the House as it could be a very different ballgame without him taking the heat for shooting it down (a plus for Tom since his constituents consider that a positive thing - so all the pansy Republicans can hide behind him).
It isn't over by a longshot though... a lot can happen in a month, let alone 11... but we have properly prepared the battlefield for a victory here.
Anybody who thinks NRA is going to support any form of AWB needs to up their meds.
As of now, we are winning - the majority of the House (both Republicans and Dems) don't want to deal with it. However, the grabbers are leaning on the RINOs and trying to get them to stir the pot... we are lucky to have Tom Delay in the House as it could be a very different ballgame without him taking the heat for shooting it down (a plus for Tom since his constituents consider that a positive thing - so all the pansy Republicans can hide behind him).
It isn't over by a longshot though... a lot can happen in a month, let alone 11... but we have properly prepared the battlefield for a victory here.
Yanus
October 14, 2003, 11:05 AM
I hate to keep saying this, but it bears repeating..........
As long as "The Hammer" (Tom Delay) is Majority Leader in the House,
it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!!!
So, be of good cheer!:D
Yanus
As long as "The Hammer" (Tom Delay) is Majority Leader in the House,
it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!!!
So, be of good cheer!:D
Yanus
HankB
October 14, 2003, 11:09 AM
Never, ever underestimate the stupidity of the republican party. Truer words were never penned. Remind your congresscritters that AWB was really the Clinton Gun Ban. And with the GOP controlling (at least in theory) the House, Senate, and Presidency, any renewal will become the GOP Gun Ban.
As for me, if the Clinton Ban is renewed or extended by the GOP, I won't vote for ANY republican at ANY level, even if it's for third assistant dog catcher in my home town.
Better a declared enemy (democRATS) than a backstabbing "friend."
BTW, look for someone to try and attach AWB II to something like a Homeland Security appropriation . . . after all, it's to fight TERRORISM.
As for me, if the Clinton Ban is renewed or extended by the GOP, I won't vote for ANY republican at ANY level, even if it's for third assistant dog catcher in my home town.
Better a declared enemy (democRATS) than a backstabbing "friend."
BTW, look for someone to try and attach AWB II to something like a Homeland Security appropriation . . . after all, it's to fight TERRORISM.
AZLibertarian
October 14, 2003, 11:51 AM
We're all thinking alike here apparantly. GWB's position on renewal of the AWB is probably pandering for some of the anti's votes. The Senate, of course, is hopeless. Our best hope remains in the House, where today, it looks as though the AWB will lapse. However, the House Republicans are quite capable of selling this issue out if they perceive that either GWB or their majority are being threatened. As it stands today, one of the best parts of the issue is that some decision on the AWB will be made before the elections next fall. We need to be very aware if Congress decides to 'kick the football' down the field until after the elections. This will be one sign that the R's are planning to sell us out. And as others have pointed out, we need to remain vigilant on this issue even after an assumed lapse of the law, and the elections. They can bring this back up at any time.
I'll add that I believe the NRA is quite capable of compromising away their current hard stand against the AWB. Keeping the heat on them is necessary too.
All this said, preaching to the chior here on THR isn't enough. Write your representatives--more than once. Write letters to the editor of your local paper. Write the NRA. Everyone needs to know that this thing was wrong 10 years ago, and its wrong today.
I'll add that I believe the NRA is quite capable of compromising away their current hard stand against the AWB. Keeping the heat on them is necessary too.
All this said, preaching to the chior here on THR isn't enough. Write your representatives--more than once. Write letters to the editor of your local paper. Write the NRA. Everyone needs to know that this thing was wrong 10 years ago, and its wrong today.
Futo Inu
October 14, 2003, 12:05 PM
Chas Martel (and others with a defeatist attitude): "Does anyone actually think there will not be something else to take its place the day after it sunsets?"
Yes. Do you have evidence to the contrary? It won't make it to Bush's desk, unless the political climate changes, so what Bush says is irrelevant RIGHT NOW. Our good friend in the house on this issue, Tom DeLay, has been quoted as saying something like "it won't come to a full house vote" (a renewal of the ban, that is). Things can change - what keeps things from changing, in part, is YOU and ME continually writing and emailing the congresscritters telling them in no uncertain terms (though politely) what you think about anti-gun votes by them.
Yes. Do you have evidence to the contrary? It won't make it to Bush's desk, unless the political climate changes, so what Bush says is irrelevant RIGHT NOW. Our good friend in the house on this issue, Tom DeLay, has been quoted as saying something like "it won't come to a full house vote" (a renewal of the ban, that is). Things can change - what keeps things from changing, in part, is YOU and ME continually writing and emailing the congresscritters telling them in no uncertain terms (though politely) what you think about anti-gun votes by them.
Werewolf
October 14, 2003, 12:14 PM
Pipsqueak Stated:
Those of you who think that a bill can just materialize and pass in the middle of the night or get casually tossed in as a rider really need to read up on the legislative process. It is possible but not that easy. Whether or not you think the Republican party is pro-gun, with the current fever pitch of partisan politics, what they will not do is take crap off of saucy Democrats who have the temerity to sidestep the process on such a controversial issue.
Almost every congressional pay raise passed in the last 10 years passed late at night with little notice taken of it. It is common practice in congress to place amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with the main point of the legislation into that legislation so that reps/sens must choose between voting against the whole thing or just letting it slide and passing it.
Tricks in Congress are the norm not the exception.
Those of you who think that a bill can just materialize and pass in the middle of the night or get casually tossed in as a rider really need to read up on the legislative process. It is possible but not that easy. Whether or not you think the Republican party is pro-gun, with the current fever pitch of partisan politics, what they will not do is take crap off of saucy Democrats who have the temerity to sidestep the process on such a controversial issue.
Almost every congressional pay raise passed in the last 10 years passed late at night with little notice taken of it. It is common practice in congress to place amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with the main point of the legislation into that legislation so that reps/sens must choose between voting against the whole thing or just letting it slide and passing it.
Tricks in Congress are the norm not the exception.
Gordon Fink
October 14, 2003, 03:28 PM
If the “assault-weapons” ban really does sunset, it would be an event virtually unprecedented in the history of gun control.
~G. Fink
~G. Fink
sw442642
October 14, 2003, 04:06 PM
I don't trust the GOP in the house. I wrote my usually RKBAish congressman and got a very bland letter back that states that he will wait to see how the situation develops. That means to me that if a deal is necessary which includes renewal, the House will fold.
Bush is in favor of the ban because of pandering and / or stupidity. He may need more money for Iraq, a tax cut for Richy Richboy or something of that order. The GOP will sell out the AWB in a second if need be.
You might notice that Bush himself is not proactive on the RKBA issue. In TX he had to support the CHL bill but he certainly wasn't the author of it.
I'm betting a permanent renewal and a tax cut on the wealthy and hospitals for children of Iraq.
Bush is in favor of the ban because of pandering and / or stupidity. He may need more money for Iraq, a tax cut for Richy Richboy or something of that order. The GOP will sell out the AWB in a second if need be.
You might notice that Bush himself is not proactive on the RKBA issue. In TX he had to support the CHL bill but he certainly wasn't the author of it.
I'm betting a permanent renewal and a tax cut on the wealthy and hospitals for children of Iraq.
Yanus
October 14, 2003, 05:34 PM
I like to think either GOA or NRA has read Karl Rove the riot act about the AWB. Rove is one of the smartest political minds around. W owes every office he has held to this guy. He isn't about to let W do anything that politically stupid as sign a renewal bill BEFORE the election.
My biggest worry is that after W is reelected, some version of renewal will come up. Then "Houston, we have a problem..............".
Yanus
My biggest worry is that after W is reelected, some version of renewal will come up. Then "Houston, we have a problem..............".
Yanus
Molon Labe
October 14, 2003, 05:57 PM
Keep in mind that, right now, very few people in the general populous know about the Assault Weapons Ban. And it goes without saying that very few people know it’s going to sunset next year. The media will use this to their advantage.
So here is my prediction:
1. Things will stay fairly quiet during the early part of next year.
2. About 3 months before the sunset, local and national news outlets will run news stories about the “Sunset of the Assault Weapons Ban.” The reporters will interview law enforcement personnel, Sara Brady, and flash pictures of the Washington DC sniper. 60 Minutes and 20/20 will cover it. The phrase “flooding the streets” will be used over and over. All the major newspapers will also be in on the act.
3. Soccer moms across the nation will be horrified. “We can’t let this happen!!!!!” will be their battle cry. They will be calling their congress people, calling radio stations, and writing letters to the newspaper editors.
4. When the hysteria from the soccer moms has reached its peak, Feinstein will whip out the new and improved Assault Weapons Ban.
5. The ban gets voted on, and is narrowly passed. President Bush signs it.
6. Soccer moms across the nation will breath a sigh of relief.
I hope I’m wrong.
So here is my prediction:
1. Things will stay fairly quiet during the early part of next year.
2. About 3 months before the sunset, local and national news outlets will run news stories about the “Sunset of the Assault Weapons Ban.” The reporters will interview law enforcement personnel, Sara Brady, and flash pictures of the Washington DC sniper. 60 Minutes and 20/20 will cover it. The phrase “flooding the streets” will be used over and over. All the major newspapers will also be in on the act.
3. Soccer moms across the nation will be horrified. “We can’t let this happen!!!!!” will be their battle cry. They will be calling their congress people, calling radio stations, and writing letters to the newspaper editors.
4. When the hysteria from the soccer moms has reached its peak, Feinstein will whip out the new and improved Assault Weapons Ban.
5. The ban gets voted on, and is narrowly passed. President Bush signs it.
6. Soccer moms across the nation will breath a sigh of relief.
I hope I’m wrong.
tiberius
October 14, 2003, 06:11 PM
I dearly hope that the AWB sunsets and I think that it will, but will it really change anything? I don’t thinks so. This is just a window dressing law that bans certain guns based on their appearance only. It does not alter the effectiveness of the gun in any way. Even the magazine capacity limit has (so far) only affected the price of magazines. A 10 round limit, though stupid, has almost NO effect on the capabilities of a semi-automatic weapon (sub-gun, sure, but those aren’t affected by this law).
If the revolution came, would anyone really feel under-gunned with an M1 Garand and a Colt Government Model or if their AR-15 didn’t have a bayonet lug or flash hider and their Beretta only held 10 rounds? :)
Lets face it, its all frosting and the sunset/repeal of the law will do nothing meaningful for RKBA unless it is a precursor to the repeal of the earlier and more stringent laws.
Sometimes I think that the AWB is sort of like “New Coke”. They pass the AWB law and we get all upset and complain so that 10 years later when they let it expire we treat them like heroes for “overturning” the restriction but when all is said and done, we’re just back where we started (i.e. with “Coke Classic”) but we’ve been spinning our wheels for 10 years – no progress.
In all fairness we have made progress in the past 10 years on the CCW front, but even if/when the AWB law is gone, it won’t do a lick of good for our friends in California or any other state that adopts local AWB provisions – and that’s over 10% of our population!
Until we get full legal acknowledgment of the following: that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals, “shall not be infringed” means “shall not infringed”, and that the 14th amendment applies to the 2nd amendment; we will still have the bulk of the battle to fight.
Whew! I’m glad I got that of my chest :)
If the revolution came, would anyone really feel under-gunned with an M1 Garand and a Colt Government Model or if their AR-15 didn’t have a bayonet lug or flash hider and their Beretta only held 10 rounds? :)
Lets face it, its all frosting and the sunset/repeal of the law will do nothing meaningful for RKBA unless it is a precursor to the repeal of the earlier and more stringent laws.
Sometimes I think that the AWB is sort of like “New Coke”. They pass the AWB law and we get all upset and complain so that 10 years later when they let it expire we treat them like heroes for “overturning” the restriction but when all is said and done, we’re just back where we started (i.e. with “Coke Classic”) but we’ve been spinning our wheels for 10 years – no progress.
In all fairness we have made progress in the past 10 years on the CCW front, but even if/when the AWB law is gone, it won’t do a lick of good for our friends in California or any other state that adopts local AWB provisions – and that’s over 10% of our population!
Until we get full legal acknowledgment of the following: that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals, “shall not be infringed” means “shall not infringed”, and that the 14th amendment applies to the 2nd amendment; we will still have the bulk of the battle to fight.
Whew! I’m glad I got that of my chest :)
gun-fucious
October 14, 2003, 06:17 PM
make it 4 months and 2 weeks before the ban sunsets
the Million Mom March on Washington DC is Scheduled for May 9th 2004
they have already started the AWB campaign:
http://www.millionmommarch.org/archives/home/0902.asp
Law Enforcement Groups Call for Renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
Brady Campaign/MMM Reminds Voters that the Congress Elected this November Will Decide the Fate of the Law
September 23, 2002
On September 23, 2002, representatives from major law enforcement organizations spoke in support of the federal assault weapons ban, which prohibits the sale and manufacture of certain military-style, semi-automatic firearms, at a Brady Campaign/Million Mom March press conference. The event marked the launch of a nationwide campaign to renew the ban, which is scheduled to expire in September 2004, unless Congress passes and President Bush signs legislation to renew it. The event was also a reminder that the 108th Congress - the one that is elected this November - will be responsible for renewing the law.
the Million Mom March on Washington DC is Scheduled for May 9th 2004
they have already started the AWB campaign:
http://www.millionmommarch.org/archives/home/0902.asp
Law Enforcement Groups Call for Renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
Brady Campaign/MMM Reminds Voters that the Congress Elected this November Will Decide the Fate of the Law
September 23, 2002
On September 23, 2002, representatives from major law enforcement organizations spoke in support of the federal assault weapons ban, which prohibits the sale and manufacture of certain military-style, semi-automatic firearms, at a Brady Campaign/Million Mom March press conference. The event marked the launch of a nationwide campaign to renew the ban, which is scheduled to expire in September 2004, unless Congress passes and President Bush signs legislation to renew it. The event was also a reminder that the 108th Congress - the one that is elected this November - will be responsible for renewing the law.
TallPine
October 14, 2003, 06:23 PM
This is just a window dressing law that bans certain guns based on their appearance only. It does not alter the effectiveness of the gun in any way.
You can be sure any new law will be much more draconian, probably banning all semi-auto rifles and who knows what else.
You can be sure any new law will be much more draconian, probably banning all semi-auto rifles and who knows what else.
tiberius
October 14, 2003, 06:29 PM
Whether the AWB sunsets or not really has no impact on this future law you describe. Belive me, I KNOW it can get worse, I'm just saying that the AWB fight isn't the really important fight.
hammer4nc
October 14, 2003, 06:53 PM
No need to speculate on the nature of what might replace the '94 assault weapons ban...HR 2038 and companion bill S1431 are in the hopper right now, and they truly ARE more draconian than the current AWB.
I truly hope that Delay and the repubs will stop new legislation from advancing. However, Bush has already signaled a willingness to sign AWBII if it hits his desk...and if the gun grabbers employ a triangulation strategy, and agree to scale back S1431/HR2038, so that it resembles the current law, I wouldn't bet money that they (the repubs) have the cojones to resist.
I truly hope that Delay and the repubs will stop new legislation from advancing. However, Bush has already signaled a willingness to sign AWBII if it hits his desk...and if the gun grabbers employ a triangulation strategy, and agree to scale back S1431/HR2038, so that it resembles the current law, I wouldn't bet money that they (the repubs) have the cojones to resist.
Savage
October 15, 2003, 03:35 AM
While my friend and I were returning from a recent gun club meeting we began talking about the AWB and discussing if it would be renewed, strengthened, or allowed to just die.
He told me that he is involved with a local NRA group (I don't remember what he called it, but it functions like a local chapter) and he said that he was in a meeting with the head of the NRA a couple of months ago. He told me that Wayne LaPierre told all of the "chapter" leaders present that they must continue to contact their congressmen and urge them to either oppose the AWB or just to let it expire. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WERE THE CONGRESSMEN TO VOTE FOR ANY RENEWAL OF THE AWB!
My friend continued relating various stories of these NRA groups meeting with their congressmen (from both parties) and applying continued pressure. He said that they have been focused on this issue for several months and will continue until the AWB dies.
I figure that this is good news, especially since this happened in California and the NRA's top guy is personally organizing the fight with NRA volunteers. If the NRA is willing to continue to fight, in a state as bad as California, then I will continue to write letters to my congressman and tell him not to support any form of the AWB renewal == PERIOD.
It sounds like the NRA is trying to make sure that they get every possible vote to kill this thing, if it comes up for a vote.
We should probably do everyone a favor and contact our own congressmen and tell them to oppose the AWB renewal. What would it hurt if we all worked together?
Savage
He told me that he is involved with a local NRA group (I don't remember what he called it, but it functions like a local chapter) and he said that he was in a meeting with the head of the NRA a couple of months ago. He told me that Wayne LaPierre told all of the "chapter" leaders present that they must continue to contact their congressmen and urge them to either oppose the AWB or just to let it expire. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WERE THE CONGRESSMEN TO VOTE FOR ANY RENEWAL OF THE AWB!
My friend continued relating various stories of these NRA groups meeting with their congressmen (from both parties) and applying continued pressure. He said that they have been focused on this issue for several months and will continue until the AWB dies.
I figure that this is good news, especially since this happened in California and the NRA's top guy is personally organizing the fight with NRA volunteers. If the NRA is willing to continue to fight, in a state as bad as California, then I will continue to write letters to my congressman and tell him not to support any form of the AWB renewal == PERIOD.
It sounds like the NRA is trying to make sure that they get every possible vote to kill this thing, if it comes up for a vote.
We should probably do everyone a favor and contact our own congressmen and tell them to oppose the AWB renewal. What would it hurt if we all worked together?
Savage
BTR
October 15, 2003, 10:19 AM
I would respectfully disagree with the position that the ban in unimportant. The premise of the ban is the guns should be eliminated because they are made for killing people, not for "sport"- if the premise is accepted into law and public opinion, there will be little justification for not banning traditional self-defense weapons.
Kharn
October 15, 2003, 10:31 AM
Hey semiauto hunters:
Clarifies definitions of assault weapon characteristics. The bill adds clear, new definitions of specific assault weapon characteristics. The new terms defined are: barrel shroud; detachable magazine; fixed magazine; folding or telescoping stock; forward grip; pistol grip; and, threaded barrel.
Now you're in the same boat the black rifle lovers are in. Are you going to fight with us against these bliss ninnies, or sit back and say "Oh, I can hunt with a bolt action, a semiauto doesnt matter to me"?
These definitions are necessary to clarify the current agency interpretations of these terms. For example, the term “pistol grip” is not interpreted to include similar characteristics – such as a thumbhole stocks – that perform the same function as a pistol grip. The result of this narrow interpretation has been a flood of “sport-like” assault weapons that incorporate thumbhole stocks or other similar characteristics.
Incorrect, the ATF has ruled that a thumbhole is a pistol grip for purposes of the 1994 ban. A thumbhole is not a pistol grip only for purposes of the import bans.
Kharn
Clarifies definitions of assault weapon characteristics. The bill adds clear, new definitions of specific assault weapon characteristics. The new terms defined are: barrel shroud; detachable magazine; fixed magazine; folding or telescoping stock; forward grip; pistol grip; and, threaded barrel.
Now you're in the same boat the black rifle lovers are in. Are you going to fight with us against these bliss ninnies, or sit back and say "Oh, I can hunt with a bolt action, a semiauto doesnt matter to me"?
These definitions are necessary to clarify the current agency interpretations of these terms. For example, the term “pistol grip” is not interpreted to include similar characteristics – such as a thumbhole stocks – that perform the same function as a pistol grip. The result of this narrow interpretation has been a flood of “sport-like” assault weapons that incorporate thumbhole stocks or other similar characteristics.
Incorrect, the ATF has ruled that a thumbhole is a pistol grip for purposes of the 1994 ban. A thumbhole is not a pistol grip only for purposes of the import bans.
Kharn
Balog
October 15, 2003, 10:41 AM
what they will not do is take crap off of saucy Democrats who have the temerity to sidestep the process on such a controversial issue.
Tell that to Miguel Estrada.
Oh, and can you say "Firearm Owners Protection Act?" AWB II could very well be attached to some "Homeland Security" style bill.
Tell that to Miguel Estrada.
Oh, and can you say "Firearm Owners Protection Act?" AWB II could very well be attached to some "Homeland Security" style bill.
Molon Labe
October 15, 2003, 11:00 AM
the ATF has ruled that a thumbhole is a pistol grip for purposes of the 1994 ban.
It's a good thing I overrule the ATF...
It's a good thing I overrule the ATF...
obiwan1
October 15, 2003, 12:04 PM
Bottom line: If the AWB is renewed, or another is substituted, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANOTHER REPUBLICRAT. I will go Libertarian.
I didn't vote for Bush 41. I read his lips and he broke on gun issues. I voted libertarian
I didn't vote for Dole. He compromised our rights away as Senate majority leader. I voted Libertarian.
If Bush 43 breaks with us, I will vote Libertarian.
I didn't vote for Bush 41. I read his lips and he broke on gun issues. I voted libertarian
I didn't vote for Dole. He compromised our rights away as Senate majority leader. I voted Libertarian.
If Bush 43 breaks with us, I will vote Libertarian.
Moparmike
October 15, 2003, 11:54 PM
What is this Bush 41 and Bush 43 stuff?
Anyway, I pray it sunsets and is never spoken of again. My senator, Mark "I support gun owners:barf:" Pryor will sign it in favor of "sensible gun control." Didnt anyone tell him that "Sensible Gun COntrol" is hitting your target?
There are those in our society who believe that it is necessary to ban guns in order to prevent crime. They are wrong. Taking guns away from honest, law-abiding citizens is not the answer. The best way to prevent crime is to provide our law enforcement officers with the resources needed to catch criminals, and then enforce the laws to keep those criminals behind bars.
Source: Campaign website, Link inactive (www.Pryor2002.com) "Bearing Arms" Oct 1, 2002 Mark Pryor's Gun Lies (http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Mark_Pryor_Crime.htm) :barf: :barf: :barf:
Gawd I hate lying scum.
Anyway, I pray it sunsets and is never spoken of again. My senator, Mark "I support gun owners:barf:" Pryor will sign it in favor of "sensible gun control." Didnt anyone tell him that "Sensible Gun COntrol" is hitting your target?
There are those in our society who believe that it is necessary to ban guns in order to prevent crime. They are wrong. Taking guns away from honest, law-abiding citizens is not the answer. The best way to prevent crime is to provide our law enforcement officers with the resources needed to catch criminals, and then enforce the laws to keep those criminals behind bars.
Source: Campaign website, Link inactive (www.Pryor2002.com) "Bearing Arms" Oct 1, 2002 Mark Pryor's Gun Lies (http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Mark_Pryor_Crime.htm) :barf: :barf: :barf:
Gawd I hate lying scum.
huntsman
October 16, 2003, 12:11 AM
I talked to a gunshop owner the other day about this very question, and HE said HE DOESN'T WANT IT TO SUNSET . Yep seems he thinks some gun and mag prices will tank and he'll take a big hit, says it took awhile for the market to establish prices on the pre-ban stuff. He said the pre-ban 100rd drums he $100. for will only be good for door stops if the law sunsets and nothing else replaces it.
WonderNine
October 16, 2003, 12:12 AM
The AWB will expire on September 14th, 2004. There will be no new 'law' to 'replace it'.
Thank you, drive though.
Thank you, drive though.
tiberius
October 16, 2003, 12:51 AM
What is this Bush 41 and Bush 43 stuff?
In case you are seriously asking:
George H.W. Bush was the 41st POTUS
George W. Bush is the 43rd POTUS
Though I never heard a reference to Adams 2 and Adams 6. :)
In case you are seriously asking:
George H.W. Bush was the 41st POTUS
George W. Bush is the 43rd POTUS
Though I never heard a reference to Adams 2 and Adams 6. :)
WonderNine
October 16, 2003, 01:03 AM
Oh come on, we learned all 40 Presidents in third grade. :D
Moparmike
October 16, 2003, 01:41 AM
In case you are seriously asking:
George H.W. Bush was the 41st POTUS
George W. Bush is the 43rd POTUS*Moparmike dutifully accepts beating with ClueBat™*
I should have known that or figured that out. Jeeze. For some fool reason, I kept trying to attribute a YOB to that, and knew that couldnt be it. Thanks.
George H.W. Bush was the 41st POTUS
George W. Bush is the 43rd POTUS*Moparmike dutifully accepts beating with ClueBat™*
I should have known that or figured that out. Jeeze. For some fool reason, I kept trying to attribute a YOB to that, and knew that couldnt be it. Thanks.
Don Galt
October 16, 2003, 07:07 AM
The fight is already on, and you're missing it.
It started 6 months ago.
The anti-gun, leftist socialists are screaming their little mouths off and its having an effect and you're not hearing it because its become background noise.
ITs the "Regime change starts at home" and "Bus lied" and "impeach bush" and "Iraq is a quagmire" and "40,000,000 dead iraqi babies every week".
All this is an attempt to drive down Bush's numbers. And if Bush's numbers are down, he will have trouble fighting the AWB.
A year from now, the tone will be all about the AWB but it will be the same screaming we're hearing now, and it will be the same people doing it.
And, mark my words, there will be an incident.
Either a columbine, a beltway "sniper"[sic, cough, puke], or some middle eastern guys shooting up a bus depot with AK-47s or SOMETHING like that.
It will happen on que at about the most perfect time to make a vote against the Feinstein bill a "vote for Terrorism".
Our politicians are weak. IF the polls, inflamed by quagmire and a recent event, are against them, they will not stand on principle.
So, the leftists, all they have to do is create that situation and they will get what they want.
Talk about my tinfoil hat, maybe I'm just paranoid. But something other than standard issue political lobbying is going to happen. It doesn't even have to be planned-- just take any of the thousands of crimes that happen every year, and blow it up into a 24/7 wall to wall covered news story like OJ, or whatever, and the media will have people convinced that the AK-47 is the greatest threat to human kind since disease... all cause some happens-to-be-middle eastern kid robbed a 7/11 with one, or something.
The AWB is not going to die quiety.
It started 6 months ago.
The anti-gun, leftist socialists are screaming their little mouths off and its having an effect and you're not hearing it because its become background noise.
ITs the "Regime change starts at home" and "Bus lied" and "impeach bush" and "Iraq is a quagmire" and "40,000,000 dead iraqi babies every week".
All this is an attempt to drive down Bush's numbers. And if Bush's numbers are down, he will have trouble fighting the AWB.
A year from now, the tone will be all about the AWB but it will be the same screaming we're hearing now, and it will be the same people doing it.
And, mark my words, there will be an incident.
Either a columbine, a beltway "sniper"[sic, cough, puke], or some middle eastern guys shooting up a bus depot with AK-47s or SOMETHING like that.
It will happen on que at about the most perfect time to make a vote against the Feinstein bill a "vote for Terrorism".
Our politicians are weak. IF the polls, inflamed by quagmire and a recent event, are against them, they will not stand on principle.
So, the leftists, all they have to do is create that situation and they will get what they want.
Talk about my tinfoil hat, maybe I'm just paranoid. But something other than standard issue political lobbying is going to happen. It doesn't even have to be planned-- just take any of the thousands of crimes that happen every year, and blow it up into a 24/7 wall to wall covered news story like OJ, or whatever, and the media will have people convinced that the AK-47 is the greatest threat to human kind since disease... all cause some happens-to-be-middle eastern kid robbed a 7/11 with one, or something.
The AWB is not going to die quiety.
Werewolf
October 16, 2003, 09:31 AM
BTR Stated Quite Correctly:
I would respectfully disagree with the position that the ban in unimportant. The premise of the ban is the guns should be eliminated because they are made for killing people, not for "sport"- if the premise is accepted into law and public opinion, there will be little justification for not banning traditional self-defense weapons.
A most perceptive comment BTR.
The ban is just one more chip out of the mountain and eventually enough small chips and no more mountain.
That's how the anti's will win (are winning) by slowly chipping away at the 2nd Amendment until it will eventually be so many meaningless words.
Somewhere on this forum I read a story about a frog and boiling water - well - the frog is in the pot and the temperature is slowly being raised and the frog hasn't taken notice yet. In fact the frog is actually enjoying the warm bath and thanking the one who's provided it to him.
The AWB will expire and then after the elections - the politicians counting on the short memories of the electorate - will enact an even more draconian one only this time it will be permanent.
Many will care - few will say anything about it and they will be shouted down as unreasonable gun nuts. The mountain will become smaller and the 2nd Amendment will have faded a little bit further into gray eventually to pass away entirely.
AND THERE'S NOT A DAMN THING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT!
The sheep (who outnumber us a 100 to 1) don't care and the politicians who speak out of both sides of their mouths want the 2nd Amendment to go away. Because once it's gone and we're all disarmed they've got a free reign to do what ever the hell they want to do and the sheep (a group we will then belong to) will like it or suffer the consequences.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
I would respectfully disagree with the position that the ban in unimportant. The premise of the ban is the guns should be eliminated because they are made for killing people, not for "sport"- if the premise is accepted into law and public opinion, there will be little justification for not banning traditional self-defense weapons.
A most perceptive comment BTR.
The ban is just one more chip out of the mountain and eventually enough small chips and no more mountain.
That's how the anti's will win (are winning) by slowly chipping away at the 2nd Amendment until it will eventually be so many meaningless words.
Somewhere on this forum I read a story about a frog and boiling water - well - the frog is in the pot and the temperature is slowly being raised and the frog hasn't taken notice yet. In fact the frog is actually enjoying the warm bath and thanking the one who's provided it to him.
The AWB will expire and then after the elections - the politicians counting on the short memories of the electorate - will enact an even more draconian one only this time it will be permanent.
Many will care - few will say anything about it and they will be shouted down as unreasonable gun nuts. The mountain will become smaller and the 2nd Amendment will have faded a little bit further into gray eventually to pass away entirely.
AND THERE'S NOT A DAMN THING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT!
The sheep (who outnumber us a 100 to 1) don't care and the politicians who speak out of both sides of their mouths want the 2nd Amendment to go away. Because once it's gone and we're all disarmed they've got a free reign to do what ever the hell they want to do and the sheep (a group we will then belong to) will like it or suffer the consequences.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
TallPine
October 16, 2003, 10:35 AM
Oh come on, we learned all 40 Presidents in third grade.
For some reason, I only learned about 35 presidents when I was in 3rd grade .... :confused:
:D
For some reason, I only learned about 35 presidents when I was in 3rd grade .... :confused:
:D
Gordon Fink
October 16, 2003, 12:01 PM
All this is an attempt to drive down Bush’s numbers. And if Bush’s numbers are down, he will have trouble fighting the AWB.
How exactly has George W. “I don’t think the assault-weapons ban went far enough” Bush been “fighting” the ban?
~G. Fink
How exactly has George W. “I don’t think the assault-weapons ban went far enough” Bush been “fighting” the ban?
~G. Fink
KRAUTGUNNER
October 16, 2003, 01:38 PM
@ Wondernine and Tallpine
WHAT?!? :what: :what: :what:
Your teachers really wasted valuable time to go through the life and the deeds of duds like John Tyler, Franklin Pierce, Ulysses S. Grant, Chester A. Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, Warren G. Harding or Jimmy Carter??? :barf: :banghead:
WHAT?!? :what: :what: :what:
Your teachers really wasted valuable time to go through the life and the deeds of duds like John Tyler, Franklin Pierce, Ulysses S. Grant, Chester A. Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, Warren G. Harding or Jimmy Carter??? :barf: :banghead:
WonderNine
October 16, 2003, 02:37 PM
How exactly has George W. “I don’t think the assault-weapons ban went far enough” Bush been “fighting” the ban?
That's what I was wondering...
That's what I was wondering...
TallPine
October 16, 2003, 03:39 PM
Your teachers really wasted valuable time to go through the life and the deeds of duds like John Tyler, Franklin Pierce, Ulysses S. Grant, Chester A. Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, Warren G. Harding or Jimmy Carter?
For some strange reason, my history teachers never mentioned Jimmy Carter at all .... :confused:
:D
For some strange reason, my history teachers never mentioned Jimmy Carter at all .... :confused:
:D
chas_martel
October 16, 2003, 07:32 PM
Hey Futo,
I submit HISTORY as the best evidence...............................................
I submit HISTORY as the best evidence...............................................
Don Galt
October 20, 2003, 03:26 PM
Ok, so I gave George Bush too much credit. I'm used to being surrounded by bush fanatics.
tiberius
October 20, 2003, 03:44 PM
Who is Don Galt?
John's little brother? :)
John's little brother? :)
Sergeant Bob
October 20, 2003, 03:59 PM
Don Galt Talk about my tinfoil hat, maybe I'm just paranoid. But something other than standard issue political lobbying is going to happen. It doesn't even have to be planned-- just take any of the thousands of crimes that happen every year, and blow it up into a 24/7 wall to wall covered news story like OJ, or whatever, and the media will have people convinced that the AK-47 is the greatest threat to human kind since disease... all cause some happens-to-be-middle eastern kid robbed a 7/11 with one, or something.
Have you been reading "Enemies Foreign and Domestic"? (http://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com)
Have you been reading "Enemies Foreign and Domestic"? (http://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com)
MrAcheson
October 20, 2003, 04:19 PM
How exactly has George W. “I don’t think the assault-weapons ban went far enough” Bush been “fighting” the ban?
When has Bush ever said this? He has been very careful to only support the renewal of the current AWB. So if the gun-grabbers propose a strict renewal, we might be in trouble. Luckily for us they won't.
Even the grabbers, morons that most of them are, realize the current AWB is a horribly flawed piece of legislation. The fact that you can still buy an AR-15 and hicaps for it at any gun show is proof of that for them. If there is to be a new AWB it will have to be an extension, not a strict renewal, in order to satisfy the grabbers' lobby because the current legislation is so flawed. But the Repubs will have grounds to stand up against such a thing because its not a strict renewal.
Now granted all this political thomfoolery won't amount to much because the press won't get their quotes right, but still the republicans have laid a good strategic framework for preventing the AWB. It remains to be seen whether it will work or not.
When has Bush ever said this? He has been very careful to only support the renewal of the current AWB. So if the gun-grabbers propose a strict renewal, we might be in trouble. Luckily for us they won't.
Even the grabbers, morons that most of them are, realize the current AWB is a horribly flawed piece of legislation. The fact that you can still buy an AR-15 and hicaps for it at any gun show is proof of that for them. If there is to be a new AWB it will have to be an extension, not a strict renewal, in order to satisfy the grabbers' lobby because the current legislation is so flawed. But the Repubs will have grounds to stand up against such a thing because its not a strict renewal.
Now granted all this political thomfoolery won't amount to much because the press won't get their quotes right, but still the republicans have laid a good strategic framework for preventing the AWB. It remains to be seen whether it will work or not.
Don Galt
October 20, 2003, 06:16 PM
I'm more like John's cousin, or something.
Bush Supporting the Current AWB is the same as supporting a more draconian expansion of it, since it either expires, or is renewed and expanded. There is no renewal without expansion.
He has already taken action to ban AK-47s and FALs in this country that were being made legally under the AWB. In other words, BUSH HAS ALREADY EXPANDED THE AWB by executive edict. (By banning the use of imported barrels for FALs and AKs etc. thru the ATF.)
Bush is no better than Clinton or his Father when it comes to grabbing guns.
Don
PS- Yes, I've read Enemies foriegn and domestic, well, at least a couple chapters of it. But if you look at history, from that fire the Nazis set (Riechstag?) to Pearl Harbor to JFK to Waco, and probably including OKC and 9/11, governments either create excuses or exploit natural ones, to take away rights.
Bush Supporting the Current AWB is the same as supporting a more draconian expansion of it, since it either expires, or is renewed and expanded. There is no renewal without expansion.
He has already taken action to ban AK-47s and FALs in this country that were being made legally under the AWB. In other words, BUSH HAS ALREADY EXPANDED THE AWB by executive edict. (By banning the use of imported barrels for FALs and AKs etc. thru the ATF.)
Bush is no better than Clinton or his Father when it comes to grabbing guns.
Don
PS- Yes, I've read Enemies foriegn and domestic, well, at least a couple chapters of it. But if you look at history, from that fire the Nazis set (Riechstag?) to Pearl Harbor to JFK to Waco, and probably including OKC and 9/11, governments either create excuses or exploit natural ones, to take away rights.
Gordon Fink
October 20, 2003, 07:36 PM
When has Bush ever said this?
I heard him say this during the 2000 campaign, but I can’t find an exact quote at the moment.
~G. Fink
I heard him say this during the 2000 campaign, but I can’t find an exact quote at the moment.
~G. Fink
BTR
October 20, 2003, 09:21 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Bush loosened restrictions on imported parts. I was under the impression Clinton banned the import, and the Bush administration once again allowed import of parts "for repair and replacement" (with absolutely no legal regulation of what happened to them after they left the importer's hands.)
Bartholomew Roberts
October 20, 2003, 10:25 PM
Bush is no better than Clinton or his Father when it comes to grabbing guns.
Don, I can accept that you don't find Bush to your liking but I would like to ask you to reflect upon the above quoted statement a moment.
Let's look at what Bush has done so far for RKBA:
Signed concealed carry in Texas
Appointed an Attorney General who reversed 31 years of Justice Department precedent to declare the Second and individual right (something that neither Reagan nor Bush I did)
Reversed Clinton-era orders holding NICS data for 90 days to require immediate destruction of approved transactions
Before the next election two more things are likely to happen:
Bush will sign a Lawsuit Preemption bill protecting gun manufacturers.
The AWB will sunset.
Based on that record alone, Bush is the strongest RKBA President to hold office since Kennedy. Now I can accept that even that record is something you don't find sufficient; but I think you really need to reconsider the comment of yours I quoted because it does not reflect well on your reasoning abilities.
Don, I can accept that you don't find Bush to your liking but I would like to ask you to reflect upon the above quoted statement a moment.
Let's look at what Bush has done so far for RKBA:
Signed concealed carry in Texas
Appointed an Attorney General who reversed 31 years of Justice Department precedent to declare the Second and individual right (something that neither Reagan nor Bush I did)
Reversed Clinton-era orders holding NICS data for 90 days to require immediate destruction of approved transactions
Before the next election two more things are likely to happen:
Bush will sign a Lawsuit Preemption bill protecting gun manufacturers.
The AWB will sunset.
Based on that record alone, Bush is the strongest RKBA President to hold office since Kennedy. Now I can accept that even that record is something you don't find sufficient; but I think you really need to reconsider the comment of yours I quoted because it does not reflect well on your reasoning abilities.
Don Galt
October 20, 2003, 11:06 PM
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Bush loosened restrictions on imported parts. I was under the impression Clinton banned the import, and the Bush administration once again allowed import of parts "for repair and replacement" (with absolutely no legal regulation of what happened to them after they left the importer's hands.)"
You have it exactly backwards.
Underr Clinton, the parts were importable for building rifles that complied with the AWB.
Under Bush, the restriction was added that they could only be used for repair or replacement.
Prior to Bush these parts were used to build AWB complaint rifles.
Since there is no domestic production of many of these barrels, when the previously imported parts run out, the supply of rifles of this type will dry up.
You have it exactly backwards.
Underr Clinton, the parts were importable for building rifles that complied with the AWB.
Under Bush, the restriction was added that they could only be used for repair or replacement.
Prior to Bush these parts were used to build AWB complaint rifles.
Since there is no domestic production of many of these barrels, when the previously imported parts run out, the supply of rifles of this type will dry up.
Don Galt
October 20, 2003, 11:10 PM
Bart Roberts-- if you want to call me names, just do it.
Frankly, the "record" you posted is a lot of fluff. Two things that have not happened yet-- one of which the presdient has pledged not to do.
Bush was not president when he was governor of Texas, and if he hadn't signed it, it would have been political suicide.
Secondly, BUSH ENACTED A NEW GUN BAN. He EXTENDED THE AWB. ALREADY!
He appointed an Attorney General who has worked tirelessly to undermine the consttituion, and the second ammendment, while pledging support for the second ammendment and the constitution.
NICS data is not destroyed. I don't know where you got that idea... but, for instance, it was used during the Betway Sniper incident to track down gun owners... NICS data was, and still is gun registration. Bush has done nothing to reverse this.
I know you dyed in the wool republicans will support bush no matter how many guns he bans... but don't call me irrational for pointing it out.
Frankly, the "record" you posted is a lot of fluff. Two things that have not happened yet-- one of which the presdient has pledged not to do.
Bush was not president when he was governor of Texas, and if he hadn't signed it, it would have been political suicide.
Secondly, BUSH ENACTED A NEW GUN BAN. He EXTENDED THE AWB. ALREADY!
He appointed an Attorney General who has worked tirelessly to undermine the consttituion, and the second ammendment, while pledging support for the second ammendment and the constitution.
NICS data is not destroyed. I don't know where you got that idea... but, for instance, it was used during the Betway Sniper incident to track down gun owners... NICS data was, and still is gun registration. Bush has done nothing to reverse this.
I know you dyed in the wool republicans will support bush no matter how many guns he bans... but don't call me irrational for pointing it out.
tiberius
October 21, 2003, 12:14 AM
Bush was not president when he was governor of Texas, and if he hadn't signed it, it would have been political suicide.
Actually Anne Richards most likely lost to W because she had already vetoed the CHL bill. He campaigned on the issue, its NOT like it arrived on his desk and he was forced to sign it.
Actually Anne Richards most likely lost to W because she had already vetoed the CHL bill. He campaigned on the issue, its NOT like it arrived on his desk and he was forced to sign it.
Bartholomew Roberts
October 21, 2003, 09:39 AM
Don, let's take a look at your evidence that Bush = Clinton on guns:
Clinton:
Signed the Brady Bill into law
Forced party discipline on the AW ban vote
Signed AW ban into law
Expanded import ban
Pushed even more restrictive gun legislation in 1999 but failed to pass it
Bush:
Appointed an Attorney General who reversed 31 years of Justice Department rulings to declare the Second and individual right (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/05/23/politics/main292854.shtml)
Justice Department adopts Emerson ruling on Second
Eliminated 90-day storage of approved NICS checks (http://levin.senate.gov/releases/090701pr2.htm)
Supports S.659 - Lawsuit Preemption
If you don't see a difference there, then I don't know what else to say. If you do see the difference; but still choose to equate Bush with Clinton, then don't be surprised if people fail to take much of what you say seriously.
NICS data is not destroyed. I don't know where you got that idea... but, for instance, it was used during the Betway Sniper incident to track down gun owners
JUSTICE DEPT. CORRECT IN REFUSING TO RELEASE NICS RECORDS FOR FBI 'FISHING EXPEDITION' SAYS SAF (http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/UpholdNICSprivacyProvision.htm)
Given that this claim proved incorrect, maybe you could also do me the favor of supporting some of the other claims you've made - particularly the one about Bush having already expanded the ban.
I know you dyed in the wool republicans will support bush no matter how many guns he bans... but don't call me irrational for pointing it out.
I didn't call you irrational. I said your comment that "Bush is no better than Clinton on guns" reflected poorly on your reasoning abilities. I still do think that.
It is entirely fair to point out that Bush is not a "dream RKBA candidate". However, taking that to an absurd degree and claiming that he is no different from Clinton? That does a disservice to a man, who ideal or not, has done a lot for us. If what he has done so far didn't impress you, then I guess you are just harder to impress on that count; but failing to give him any credit at all is just wrong.
The idea here is that we share information so we can all make informed decisions based on what we believe - sharing distorted information makes that task harder for all of us. Saying that Bush has been no better than Clinton for us distorts the quantifiable records of both men.
Clinton:
Signed the Brady Bill into law
Forced party discipline on the AW ban vote
Signed AW ban into law
Expanded import ban
Pushed even more restrictive gun legislation in 1999 but failed to pass it
Bush:
Appointed an Attorney General who reversed 31 years of Justice Department rulings to declare the Second and individual right (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/05/23/politics/main292854.shtml)
Justice Department adopts Emerson ruling on Second
Eliminated 90-day storage of approved NICS checks (http://levin.senate.gov/releases/090701pr2.htm)
Supports S.659 - Lawsuit Preemption
If you don't see a difference there, then I don't know what else to say. If you do see the difference; but still choose to equate Bush with Clinton, then don't be surprised if people fail to take much of what you say seriously.
NICS data is not destroyed. I don't know where you got that idea... but, for instance, it was used during the Betway Sniper incident to track down gun owners
JUSTICE DEPT. CORRECT IN REFUSING TO RELEASE NICS RECORDS FOR FBI 'FISHING EXPEDITION' SAYS SAF (http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/UpholdNICSprivacyProvision.htm)
Given that this claim proved incorrect, maybe you could also do me the favor of supporting some of the other claims you've made - particularly the one about Bush having already expanded the ban.
I know you dyed in the wool republicans will support bush no matter how many guns he bans... but don't call me irrational for pointing it out.
I didn't call you irrational. I said your comment that "Bush is no better than Clinton on guns" reflected poorly on your reasoning abilities. I still do think that.
It is entirely fair to point out that Bush is not a "dream RKBA candidate". However, taking that to an absurd degree and claiming that he is no different from Clinton? That does a disservice to a man, who ideal or not, has done a lot for us. If what he has done so far didn't impress you, then I guess you are just harder to impress on that count; but failing to give him any credit at all is just wrong.
The idea here is that we share information so we can all make informed decisions based on what we believe - sharing distorted information makes that task harder for all of us. Saying that Bush has been no better than Clinton for us distorts the quantifiable records of both men.
Futo Inu
October 21, 2003, 10:43 AM
"Moparmike dutifully accepts beating with ClueBat."
LMBO.
Chas, you are correct that history is strong evidence that something like this will be passed IN THE LONG RUN.
IN THE SHORT RUN, no. We were just not on the same page in terms of what time term we're talking about. I thought you were talking about short term (say, in the next 3-5 years).
In any event, we must fight the good fight.
The fight is extraordinarily important:
First, of minor importance, it DOES have a practical effect of MY and others' ability to purchase quantities of magazines with limited funds, as well as standard cap mags for new rifles and pistols.
Of major importance is stopping this large yet incremental step down the slippery slope to total bans. The main reason it's so large of a step down the proverbial slope is because it's the FIRST real federal ban in history folks! It's the first outright obvious infringement of our 2A right to KEEP and BEAR arms of any type. The 34, 68, and others produced licensing and registration schemes, but never before a real BAN of manufacture and import - which in the long long run is a practical ban (when the current extant goods wear out over time). The next step is ownership bans, such as they have in DC and Chicago. Incredibly, incredibly important this is. True, court cases are even more important, but this is second place - winning in the federal legislative body (which has no business passing ANY gun laws, BTW, under the 10A, as this has nothing to do with interstate commerce or any other enumerated power of Congress).
LMBO.
Chas, you are correct that history is strong evidence that something like this will be passed IN THE LONG RUN.
IN THE SHORT RUN, no. We were just not on the same page in terms of what time term we're talking about. I thought you were talking about short term (say, in the next 3-5 years).
In any event, we must fight the good fight.
The fight is extraordinarily important:
First, of minor importance, it DOES have a practical effect of MY and others' ability to purchase quantities of magazines with limited funds, as well as standard cap mags for new rifles and pistols.
Of major importance is stopping this large yet incremental step down the slippery slope to total bans. The main reason it's so large of a step down the proverbial slope is because it's the FIRST real federal ban in history folks! It's the first outright obvious infringement of our 2A right to KEEP and BEAR arms of any type. The 34, 68, and others produced licensing and registration schemes, but never before a real BAN of manufacture and import - which in the long long run is a practical ban (when the current extant goods wear out over time). The next step is ownership bans, such as they have in DC and Chicago. Incredibly, incredibly important this is. True, court cases are even more important, but this is second place - winning in the federal legislative body (which has no business passing ANY gun laws, BTW, under the 10A, as this has nothing to do with interstate commerce or any other enumerated power of Congress).
Don Galt
October 23, 2003, 02:56 PM
Actually Anne Richards most likely lost to W because she had already vetoed the CHL bill. He campaigned on the issue, its NOT like it arrived on his desk and he was forced to sign it.
Since he campaigned on the bill, he was forced to sign it. He campaigned on it because it was the biggest weakness in a governor that many Texans liked.
I mean, how could you NOT vote for your grandma?
So, clearly this wasn't a situation where there was little or no pressure on him. IF he hadn't signed it, he would likely have been recalled, or at the very least, he certainly wouldn't be president now. Course, now that he's president, he's out of the closet as anti-gun and has expanded the assault weapons ban already.
Since he campaigned on the bill, he was forced to sign it. He campaigned on it because it was the biggest weakness in a governor that many Texans liked.
I mean, how could you NOT vote for your grandma?
So, clearly this wasn't a situation where there was little or no pressure on him. IF he hadn't signed it, he would likely have been recalled, or at the very least, he certainly wouldn't be president now. Course, now that he's president, he's out of the closet as anti-gun and has expanded the assault weapons ban already.
Don Galt
October 23, 2003, 03:07 PM
Bart-- your "evidence" is merely claims on your part.
The NICS data WAS used in the Betway Sniper case. That it wasn't in another only shows that IT COULD HAVE BEEN. Which means it was not destroyed as you claimed.
Furthermore, I find it unfortunate that you and others cast aspersions on my pointing out that bush expanded the assault weapons bans due to ignorance. You've never heard of it, therefore it didn't happen?
Remember, George Bush senior is the one who created the Assault Weapons Ban in the first place.
To point out that on this issue George Bush Junior is no better than Clinton is merely to point out that he isn't much different from his father.
I have pointed to him expanding the ban to cover parts via ATF edict. You have shown nothing concrete that he has done for gun rights.
And every media outlet in the country has his spokesman on record (as well as him during the campaign apparently) endorsing an expansion of the Assault Weapons Ban.
Don
PS- for those who insist it never happened, here's the ATF newsletter on the subject:
http://www.atf.gov/pub/ffl/2001/may/p5.htm --- in summary legalese free: "because you could assemble an assault weapon from these items by adding more than two forbidden features, these parts which do not have the forbidden features are banned from importation for making weapons" You cannot make legal weaposn from these parts even though there's nothing illegal about the weaposn or the parts, or making them. This is an expansion of the AWB to prevent making AWB COMPLAINT weapons.
The NICS data WAS used in the Betway Sniper case. That it wasn't in another only shows that IT COULD HAVE BEEN. Which means it was not destroyed as you claimed.
Furthermore, I find it unfortunate that you and others cast aspersions on my pointing out that bush expanded the assault weapons bans due to ignorance. You've never heard of it, therefore it didn't happen?
Remember, George Bush senior is the one who created the Assault Weapons Ban in the first place.
To point out that on this issue George Bush Junior is no better than Clinton is merely to point out that he isn't much different from his father.
I have pointed to him expanding the ban to cover parts via ATF edict. You have shown nothing concrete that he has done for gun rights.
And every media outlet in the country has his spokesman on record (as well as him during the campaign apparently) endorsing an expansion of the Assault Weapons Ban.
Don
PS- for those who insist it never happened, here's the ATF newsletter on the subject:
http://www.atf.gov/pub/ffl/2001/may/p5.htm --- in summary legalese free: "because you could assemble an assault weapon from these items by adding more than two forbidden features, these parts which do not have the forbidden features are banned from importation for making weapons" You cannot make legal weaposn from these parts even though there's nothing illegal about the weaposn or the parts, or making them. This is an expansion of the AWB to prevent making AWB COMPLAINT weapons.
Don Galt
October 23, 2003, 03:08 PM
If you want further proof-- go get a copy of Shotgun News and read it. You'll see that the advertisers of guns mentioned in the AWB have disclaimers for most of their parts kits saying "These parts sold for repair or replacement only". And the ones that don't have that disclaimer-- ones imported before Bush's new ban-- carry a higher price.
Call up one of the sellers of these kits and ask them about why they have that disclaimer, when they were imported and when the rules were changed.
This issue is well known in the industry.
Call up one of the sellers of these kits and ask them about why they have that disclaimer, when they were imported and when the rules were changed.
This issue is well known in the industry.
Bartholomew Roberts
October 23, 2003, 05:53 PM
The NICS data WAS used in the Betway Sniper case.
So the links I offer are merely claims on my part; but when you make a statement like the one above it is decisive evidence to be accepted without a shred of proof?
Furthermore, I find it unfortunate that you and others cast aspersions on my pointing out that bush expanded the assault weapons bans due to ignorance.
Ignorance? You mean like conflating an executive order from 1989 with legislation passed in 1994?
From your link:
"Accordingly, frames, receivers and barrels that are primarily designed for assembly into nonsporting firearms may not be imported. These include the frames, receivers and barrels of any of the rifles identified in the 1998 study as nonimportable....
...ATF has recognized that certain barrels, frames and receivers that otherwise would not be importable may be imported for repair and replacement purposes. "
So the BATFE (not Bush but the BATFE) decides that gun parts banned in 1998 (by Clinton no less) can be imported if they are only used for repair - by my read and actual loosening of the Clinton-era restrictions and this is your evidence that Bush = Clinton and HAS ALREADY EXPANDED THE AWB!
To point out that on this issue George Bush Junior is no better than Clinton is merely to point out that he isn't much different from his father.
Yeah, I guess you're right. I mean we probably would have had the same outcome at the UN Conference on Small Arms (http://www.iansa.org/oldsite/calendar/2001UN/confnews/change_tone.htm) with Clinton :rolleyes:
Please continue to work on your reasoning skills in the friendly atmosphere of the gun boards before you take that show on the road and try to convince antis.
So the links I offer are merely claims on my part; but when you make a statement like the one above it is decisive evidence to be accepted without a shred of proof?
Furthermore, I find it unfortunate that you and others cast aspersions on my pointing out that bush expanded the assault weapons bans due to ignorance.
Ignorance? You mean like conflating an executive order from 1989 with legislation passed in 1994?
From your link:
"Accordingly, frames, receivers and barrels that are primarily designed for assembly into nonsporting firearms may not be imported. These include the frames, receivers and barrels of any of the rifles identified in the 1998 study as nonimportable....
...ATF has recognized that certain barrels, frames and receivers that otherwise would not be importable may be imported for repair and replacement purposes. "
So the BATFE (not Bush but the BATFE) decides that gun parts banned in 1998 (by Clinton no less) can be imported if they are only used for repair - by my read and actual loosening of the Clinton-era restrictions and this is your evidence that Bush = Clinton and HAS ALREADY EXPANDED THE AWB!
To point out that on this issue George Bush Junior is no better than Clinton is merely to point out that he isn't much different from his father.
Yeah, I guess you're right. I mean we probably would have had the same outcome at the UN Conference on Small Arms (http://www.iansa.org/oldsite/calendar/2001UN/confnews/change_tone.htm) with Clinton :rolleyes:
Please continue to work on your reasoning skills in the friendly atmosphere of the gun boards before you take that show on the road and try to convince antis.
Don Galt
October 23, 2003, 09:36 PM
I'm sorry to see you've now resorted to telling outright lies.
I never confused the 1989 ban with the 1994 ban. In fact, it is you who pretends the 1989 ban never happend.
Furthermore, the links you point to do not say what you claimed they did, and in fact, confirm my point. And yet you lie about that, saying I ignored your evidence? No, I merely pointed out that your evidence makes my case.
And finally, you lie about what my link said. The 1989 date is irrelevant. The change was ordered in 2001... under Bush.
Funny how Clinton is responsible for the ATF when he's president, but Bush isn't when he's president?
A double standard there... but then, I understand it really. If you recognize that Bush is the gun grabber he publically proclaims himself to be, who will you have to vote for?
I never confused the 1989 ban with the 1994 ban. In fact, it is you who pretends the 1989 ban never happend.
Furthermore, the links you point to do not say what you claimed they did, and in fact, confirm my point. And yet you lie about that, saying I ignored your evidence? No, I merely pointed out that your evidence makes my case.
And finally, you lie about what my link said. The 1989 date is irrelevant. The change was ordered in 2001... under Bush.
Funny how Clinton is responsible for the ATF when he's president, but Bush isn't when he's president?
A double standard there... but then, I understand it really. If you recognize that Bush is the gun grabber he publically proclaims himself to be, who will you have to vote for?
Bartholomew Roberts
October 24, 2003, 10:05 AM
Well Don, I think your posts pretty much speak for themselves.
I'm content to let anyone here visit your link and decide for themselves who the liar is. In the meantime, this discussion has ceased to be productive for anyone.
I'm content to let anyone here visit your link and decide for themselves who the liar is. In the meantime, this discussion has ceased to be productive for anyone.
If you enjoyed reading about "Any indications the AW ban will NOT sunset?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.