How did the current AWB pass in 1994?


December 27, 2003, 12:08 AM
Hi, just curious about the history: how did the current AWB (Assault Weapon Ban) pass in 1994?

AWB will expire in next year, but who knows whether there will be a more horrible AWB II? Knowing a little about the AWB history will help us fight better against its renewal or (even worse) upgrade! We just simply cannot let this happen again!

If you enjoyed reading about "How did the current AWB pass in 1994?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Zach S
December 27, 2003, 12:27 AM

December 27, 2003, 12:49 AM
We just simply cannot let this happen again!

December 27, 2003, 05:23 AM
Now to repeal the even more restrictive (and even sillier) CA state ban!

Mark Tyson
December 27, 2003, 08:11 AM
It passed by a handful of votes, and only because Clinton did a lot of horse-trading and cajoling to get it done. AND they only got it through because the sunset provision was inserted.

December 27, 2003, 08:45 AM
Maybe because enough DemocRATS voted in favor of the AWB?

December 27, 2003, 08:49 AM

Maybe because enough Republicans voted for it.

December 27, 2003, 09:26 AM
It was quite interesting to learn that there was a vote to REPEAL the ban in 1996. I didn't know about that.

The majoirty voted to repeal the ban, but the people still had to suffer with it.:banghead:

December 27, 2003, 10:12 AM
Well our selected overlords passes patriot II right under our noses, despite its overwhelming public unpopularity- so I have little doubt what will happen to the renewal of the ban.

And even if not, the back-up will be that the most restrictive states will simply enact whatever state version they want. So nada will change in MD, CA, etc

(Thank the Good Lord I'm outta here in 5 months!)

December 27, 2003, 12:58 PM
I seem to recall reading that a sizeable number of senators and representatives thought they were voting on a ban on machine guns.:banghead:

December 27, 2003, 01:36 PM
According to the page it passed 216 to 214, which means that 5 congress critters didn't even vote on it.

Yes, there was a motion in 1996 to repeal it but it didn't pass. That's about all I know about the 1996 deal except that my current congress critter was all for repealing the 1994 ban... and never voted for the 1994 one.

I don't even know what the senate thinks of it, as a whole, but I wouldnt' count on them to shoot it down. I know both our Michigan senators are going to vote for it if the senate version of HR 2038, and no.

Remember, HR 2038 isn't just a renewal, it extends the original AWB. I'm going to dig up the one currently on the books and do a better side-by-side on it to see what new weapons are included in HR 2038. Two that stick out are Kel-Tec sub rifles, which wasn't around in 1994, and the M1 Carbine, which I'm pretty sure was in the the 1994 bill.

The six evil features has also been modified, it now reads:

detachable magazine, pistol grip, forward grip, telescoping or folding stock, threaded barrel, or barrel shroud.

NOTE: Bayonet lugs and grenade launchers were removed. Barrel shroud was added.

*** is a barrel shroud? The handguards on an AR-15?

December 27, 2003, 01:49 PM
From what I recall, it was a vote short of passing, and Sanford Bishop, a REPUBLICAN representative from MY VERY STATE voted for it, after a weak-@$$ attempt to propose some silly alternative "mandantory training classes" for purchasers... which of course, in the 11th hour, won't fly.

But that's just how I remember it.... I could be off about the "how many votes" part, but not about good ole' Sanford. :barf:

Mark Tyson
December 27, 2003, 01:57 PM
Barrel shrouds to be banned?

"Scary! Scary! Make it go away!"

These jerks really are off their collective rockers.


December 27, 2003, 01:59 PM
If I'm not mistaken, it passed by one friggin vote in the senate. We can never let this happen again after this one expires/sunsets.

December 27, 2003, 05:47 PM
HBK, yes, it passed by just one vote. It was Al Gore's vote, as president pro tem of the senate.

December 27, 2003, 05:52 PM
If memory serves, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I believe this was also one of those dark-of-the-night legislative abdominations that Congress has a habit of doing when something unpopular is on the table.

Carlos Cabeza
December 29, 2003, 01:53 PM
*** is a barrel shroud? The handguards on an AR-15?

Yup !:rolleyes:

George Hill
December 29, 2003, 02:06 PM
How did it pass?

Because we have too many slack-jawed Republicans who couldn't grow a pair even they had a date with the Victoria Secret girls and a bottle of Viagra.

The situation looks even worse now.

Even with the majority in the house of repugnant reps and the Senate and the white house, they still managed to loose out on putting a judge into a seat who happened to hold the highest ratings any judge could possibly have.... They couldn't land a ringer..... what makes you guys think they can accomplish something that is actually difficult? This medical care issue that went through recently... that was nothing. Come on, it was written by Kennedy and most of the DemocRATS wanted it as well as the Republicans who thought it would make them look more compassionate. That bill passing was a given. Something tough like turning back a Democrat Rule is almost impossible. It could happen... It's possible... But highly unlikely. I don't see the AWB going away. In fact, I am afraid it's only going to get worse.

December 29, 2003, 02:16 PM
At least we can take joy in this, taken from the link in the second post:

A few months later, Democrats were eviscerated at the polls, losing nine seats in the Senate, and a whopping 54 seats in the House of Representatives, handing over control of Congress to the Republicans. Among the casualties was then House Speaker Tom Foley (who, thanks to some last minute rule-breaking and arm-twisting, was largely responsible for the ban passing in the House); a district tossing out a Representative who holds such a high-level position of seniority and leadership in Congress was quite a rare event. In any case, President Clinton stated that 20-21 of the seats lost in the House were directly due to their votes on the ban. Considering that the Repubicans' post-election majority was only 14 seats, it is clear that Clinton's "assault weapons" ban cost his party control of the House.

:D :D :D

If you enjoyed reading about "How did the current AWB pass in 1994?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!