After the sunsetting, could they declare grandfathering?


PDA






VaniB.
June 3, 2004, 02:49 PM
On another site I expressed concern that even after the AWB sunsets, they could still declare LEO stamped weapons (Colt LEO AR15 Government Rifles for example) and clips, illegal by grandfathering them. Well, nobody thought this logical, because a "Sunset of a law, is a sunset, and that's that!" they replied back to me. So.....I was starting to forget about that dismal possibility, but then....

Yesterday I struck a conversation with the owner of a gunshop expressing my desire to purchase and obtaining a currently forbidden Colt LEO rifle on September 14th at the AWB sunset. He is a licensed dealer, and I asked him the possibility of him maybe having it on stock so I can buy it on the spot on September 14. Well, what do you think the first thing out of his mouth is: "VaniB. How do we know they won't grandfather the current manufactured and stamped LEO rifles into and through the sunset!!!"

Oh No! :eek: Another guy that worries what I worry. Is it that two great minds think alike? Or are we two guys just being overly suspicious and pessimistic when it comes to the government?

Does anybody know law well enough to guess if the BATF or the Attorney General could easilly pull that Grandfathering bullcrap off on us?

If you enjoyed reading about "After the sunsetting, could they declare grandfathering?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Telperion
June 3, 2004, 03:18 PM
Under what statutory provision could BATF possibly make this claim? I submit there is none.

El Tejon
June 3, 2004, 03:33 PM
Ummm, it's rather easy. ATFE will declare that all LEO stamped rifles can easily be converted to full auto and forbids their sale as well as any other self-loading rifles.

The government must prevent the expiration of the AWB at all costs. If the AWB does expire (unlikely IMO), they will create a horrific tangle of red tape to halt production.

Zak Smith
June 3, 2004, 03:38 PM
It ain't going to happen. Ditto pipsqueak

-z

Firethorn
June 3, 2004, 03:38 PM
How could they? All a person would have to due is ignore the provisions in the now sunsetted law, and if they give you any 'red tape', you sue them for not acting within the law.

Hkmp5sd
June 3, 2004, 03:52 PM
They did an excellent job making the "domestic violence" gun ban retroactive. Several of the proposed "new" bans include a clause to make them retroactive to the 1994 date to catch anything that becomes legal between the AW sunset and the new ban.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 3, 2004, 04:47 PM
The ATF can't do anything without some statutory authority from Congress. So the key is to keep Congress from granting them such authority (or granting them broadly interpreted authority).

If the ban sunsets, then the only statutory authority the ATF has for regulating the currently banned domestic guns pretty much evaporates, though the 1968 GCA will still give them authority over imported guns and parts.

ATFE will declare that all LEO stamped rifles can easily be converted to full auto and forbids their sale as well as any other self-loading rifles.

If ATFE had the statutory authority to do this, then why didn't they just do it under Clinton? Why fight a huge political battle in Congress to pass legislation or to renew the same legislation?

El Tejon
June 3, 2004, 05:36 PM
Because you will not miss what you do not have, said the frog in water.:D

/s/ Fabian

VaniB.
June 3, 2004, 10:43 PM
Bartholemew,

Your explanation sounds credible, but so does.......


Several of the proposed "new" bans include a clause to make them retroactive to the 1994 date to catch anything that becomes legal between the AW sunset and the new ban.


.........if that's accurate, then that worries me a lot. Would the Government have the tenacity to produce contraband weapons out of thousands of purchases made between Sept 14, 2004 and a few months later when the new ban is enacted? Like many other guys, by then I'm sure that I will have purchased an expensive AR.

I can understand the ease with this happening to a few hundred 12 Guage Street Sweepers some years back. But can you imagine this happening to hundreds of thousands of gun owners purchases after Sept 14?

I'd bet good money that the AWB will sunset. But I'd bet even more money that it returns with in the first year of a Kerry Presidency, or sometime during the next term of a Bush Presidency.

Michigander
June 3, 2004, 10:46 PM
What ever happend to:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. ?

VaniB.
June 3, 2004, 11:43 PM
Quote:

Michael Badnarik for President!

The Libertarian Party is committed to America's heritage of freedom:

• individual liberty and personal responsibility
• a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity
• a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade

End quote.


.....yea, flood the economy with more "free trade" goods from Mexico and China. We don't have enough already. Viva la NAFTA Worlwide!

.....open the borders (the rest of the way) to anyone. We need some more unskilled, non-English speaking 3rd world minorities arriving here to flood our schools, Hospital System, prisons, and raise more future generations to vote Democrat.

......Let's give them all handguns too, since they can really understand and appreciate our Colt 45's "American heritage".

...... LSD, Heroin, and Coke for everyone. Let's have them shooting up everywhere like they do in Holland. The bums have already sued for the right to ruin our parks and stink up our libraries. Lets give them a freeking needle too to appreciate your style of "freedom"!

And finally, let's see if we can get Kerry elected by a few thousand votes for the Libertarian Party. It only took 250 Bucnanon votes (by some dumb little old ladies who thought they were voting for Gore) to elect Bush. Maybe you can help Bush to lose this time.

Man this young minded idealism and STUPIDITY BURNS MY BUTT! I don't appreciate being pulled down into the same Democrat hole your digging.
But, I don't know why I bother. I have found you guys are like trying to get through wood.

Michigander
June 4, 2004, 12:00 AM
.....yea, flood the economy with more "free trade" goods from Mexico and China. We don't have enough already. Viva la NAFTA Worlwide!

.....open the borders (the rest of the way) to anyone. We need some more unskilled, non-English speaking 3rd world minorities arriving here to flood our schools, Hospital System, prisons, and raise more future generations to vote Democrat.

......Let's give them all handguns too, since they can really understand and appreciate our Colt 45's "American heritage".

...... LSD, Heroin, and Coke for everyone. Let's have them shooting up everywhere like they do in Holland. The bums have already sued for the right to ruin our parks and stink up our libraries. Lets give them a freeking needle too to appreciate your style of "freedom"!

And finally, let's see if we can get Kerry elected by a few thousand votes for the Libertarian Party. It only took 250 Bucnanon votes (by some dumb little old ladies who thought they were voting for Gore) to elect Bush. Maybe you can help Bush to lose this time.

Man this young minded idealism and STUPIDITY BURNS MY BUTT! I don't appreciate being pulled down into the same Democrat hole your digging.
But, I don't know why I bother. I have found you guys are like trying to get through wood.

President Badnarik would not sign the AWB or anything like it. Nor would he ever promise to!

7.62FullMetalJacket
June 4, 2004, 12:06 AM
The AWB is toast. When it expires, not if. Short of both Blunt and DeLay being disgraced or assassinated in the House, no AWB extension will live.

El Tejon
June 4, 2004, 08:36 AM
I refresh everyone's recollection as to the FOPA (the "prior approval" of the Treasury Department). You do not gain back any liberty without losing a bunch. If AWB expires, which I doubt, ATFE will create a regulation or reintrepret something (a la March '89 [remember?]) to take a lot more away.

Just because there is a federal law, does not mean ATFE has to follow it.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 4, 2004, 08:56 AM
El Tejon - ATF had the authority to reinterpret something in March 1989 because the 1968 Gun Control Act gave them the authority to determine whether imported firearms have a "suitable sporting purpose".

The ATF had no such authority over domestic firearms - this is why Clinton had to support passage of the semi-auto ban to achieve his goals. When that ban sunsets, so does ATFs authority in that arena.


VainB - yup, several of them do have that clause. From a practical standpoint it is pretty much uneforceable in my view; but there you go - the antis will try anyway. This is one reason we had better win big in the Senate this year if we would like to hold on to those guns awhile longer.]

Like I said, if we can stop Congress from giving ATF the authority, we pretty much head off a lot of trouble at the pass. If we let Congress pass vague laws that can be broadly interpreted by ATF, we are definitely in for trouble.

El Tejon
June 4, 2004, 09:08 AM
BR, Let's hope your optimism prevails over my gloom and doom. However, ATFE has all kinds of authority over domestic production. They have reinterpreted again and again. I see no reason why they will not after September '04.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 4, 2004, 09:12 AM
However, ATFE has all kinds of authority over domestic production.

And yet they never tried to claim that it allowed them to ban domestic production of semi-auto weapons despite several active anti-gun executives.

If Clinton could have stretched the law to give ATF that authority, I'm sure he would have and Clinton was pretty good at stretching the law like silly putty.

carp killer
June 4, 2004, 09:26 AM
People who have authority (BATFE, ect.) can just ignore the law. Or the Constitution (2nd amendment, ect.).


Look at California.:barf: :barf: :barf:

El Tejon
June 4, 2004, 11:29 AM
BR, really? I respectfully disagree, the Striker Doce und Street Sweeper spring to mind as just one example!!!:scrutiny:

Again, I hope I am wrong. But, future behaviour best predicted by past behaviour and all that.

Gordon Fink
June 4, 2004, 03:14 PM
And finally, let’s see if we can get Kerry elected by a few thousand votes for the Libertarian Party.

Am I ever going to have a good, if ironic laugh when G. W. Bush signs the renewed/expanded “assault-weapons” ban.

~G. Fink

Daniel T
June 4, 2004, 03:24 PM
Man this young minded idealism and STUPIDITY BURNS MY BUTT!

What burns my butt is the insanity of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, i.e. voting Republican and hoping that you don't lose more rights.

Augustwest
June 4, 2004, 03:49 PM
Man this young minded idealism and STUPIDITY BURNS MY BUTT! I don't appreciate being pulled down into the same Democrat hole your digging.

Yeah, people who believe in truly free markets and personal responsibilty really frost me too. :rolleyes:

Publicola
June 4, 2004, 05:20 PM
Sunset in the legal sense means a law will automatically be repealed unless positive action is taken to stop its repeal.

Grandfathered in the legal sense means an exception to a law is made for person, actions or objects which occured before the effective date of the law.

Hence, there is no way they could grandfather anything concerning a law that has sunsetted. It will cease to be a law.

don't mean to be harsh, but you have a misunderstanding about what the two terms mean & so does the gun dealer you spoke with. In our system you can't "grandfather" an activity so it'd be illegal even though the law making it illegal is repealed.

Now it is possible that a renewal of the AWB could pass which would apply to possession of all rifles they deem as "assault weapons". But that would take a direct act of the legislature. If a person refuses to seel something that is legal because it might be made illegal in the future then the problem is in the sheepish nature of the seller, not the legal technicalities which seem to be confusing at times.

& for those of you who think the AWB renewal has no chance of passing - I hope you're right but I see no facts to support your belief.

DeLaye does not set the calender in the House. Hastert does. While DeLay seems to be opposed to the AWB Hastert has left the door open for it. & if you go by GOA's ratings (which I find much more accurate than the NRA's) the House has enough anti-gun reps 9those with F & D ratings) to come real close to passing it. They'd lack about 10 votes. But they'd have a pool of about 50 (IIRC) C rated reps to win over so it shouldn't be too difficult.

The Senate? The only way it could be stopped there is for a filibuster to happen. A long drawn out filibuster. My faith in filibusters isn't great, considering that deals are often cut & filibusters are seen as bargaining chips rather than strategy's to block bad laws (although this is not always the case).

Matter o' fact DiFi is actively looking to tack an AWB renewal to something as we speak. If a filibuster doesn't happen (which is possible if it's tacked onto a bill that at least 61 senators think must be passed no matter what) then it goes to the house. If Hastert allows the vote without letting it be stripped off (which is real damn iffy in the first place) then I think there'll be enough support to pass the bill with the AWB renewal attached.

The danger we face isn't in some legal mumbo jumbo ( the grandfathering thing) but in letting our guard drop & doing nothing cause we think it won't pass.

Let em say this again: The senate has enough votes to pass it right now & the House has almost enough votes to pass it right now. Delay can't stop it. Hastert could but he doesn't seem to be opposed to it. The only real chance we have is to annoy the hell out of our senators to filibuster any AWB renewal & annoy the hell out of our reps to vote against any AWB renewal that reaches the house.

Bush supports an AWB renewal. Schwarzenegger (the "stealth pro-gun candidate") is giving publicity to his support of it. If they bring any pressure to bear (especially Bush) then it'll move quickly.

The only reason it didn't get renewed in March (when it was tacked ontot he Lawful Commerce in Arms bill) was because people like you wrote your senators & the NRA & said this will not be tolerated. They killed the bill that contained an AWB renewal because you didn't sit on your asses & let the NRA, GOA & others do your work for you.

That's gonna be necessary again when (not if but when) the AWB renewal gets pushed hard in the senate &/or the house.

So consider this a warning: if yuo don't want the AWB renewed then call your congress critters now & be prepared to call them frequently every time it comes close to being voted on. When it ocmes close to being voted on I'll (& a few dozen others) will let y'all know & try to keep you up to date. In return I'll expect you to contact your senators & reps even if they're hardcore anti gun. It might not change their minds but it might make them nervous, & more importantly it might make their fellow congresscritters nervous.

So please don't say that the AWB will sunset or think that it's smooth sailing. I see nothing whatsoever to make me think the AWB will sunset peacefully. The hardest fight is yet to come.

VaniB.
June 5, 2004, 02:11 AM
Publico,

I think much of what you say is correct. And I think the most of us are not expecting a smooth sailing process either. But a great many of us are not shy about having our voices heard too. (It's the basic nature of many folks who will frequent these boards) I check the NRA news site, as well as this web site and other sites to see what the latest news is, and to thus stay abreast and be able to react fast when necessary. In fact, it was with my quest to find more up-to-date news sources about the AWB expiration that I discovered this site. (Not primarilly to bs about guns) I believe the majority of us will let our voices be heard as this critical time winds down. I personally have downloaded all the address of those poloticians that I will need to shoot a letter to at nary the start of trouble. I'm waiting to see the whites of their eyes when I will fire off a barage of my letters. I've got my finger on the trigger, and I'm just waiting patiently to see just what the enemy does. No signal yet. When something does finally start going down, the poloticians should suddenly get a crap load of calls and letters from us accross America. I believe it would make for a better effect, then a sporatic call here and there from the same person over and over that I'm sure some guys here are doing. (Nothing wrong with that either. The more the merrier.) Surprisingly, we have yet to hear from the NRA, or be sent the usual 3 or 4 postcards that they request we send out during a crisis. Hopefully, with their lobbiests, they are on top of things and see no serious threat at the moment. But I'm watching, and am not depending on them exclusively. And yes, 3 1/2 months is a long hurdle to yet jump.

No, I don't have a lot of faith in our Government's concern about our second amendment rights. It is for this reason that I think the Sunset will happen, but it will be short lived. The Republicans will dare not renew it before the election, because Bush knows he does not have a safe margin of votes to win. The Republicans know that they can't afford to lose even a handfull of votes this time! George W. hasn't forgotten too how the gun lobby helped him win the Governorship in Texas, after Ann Richards vetoed the CHL bill there, but he promised he'd pass it if elected. He's a country boy who hangs out at the ranch, and guns don't scare him as much as John Kerry does.

The Republicans think you have no choice but to vote for them. So.... TELL THEM IF THEY RENEW THE BAN, YOU'RE JUST STAYING HOME! That is a real fear and possibility that will concern them!

Now after Bush gets in and does not have another election to worry about, I believe he will cave under pressure to the Dems and "the children" and reenact it. Or, after a few thousand idealistic fools vote Libertarian and make Kerry President, the ban will come FAST! It's too bad there will not be nearly as many green idiots voting for Nadar to offset the damage. (I'm sure there were a few hundred dopes in Florida last time who THANK GOD voted their "conscience" for Nadar, rather then using their head instead, and voting for Gore.)


I'm a realist, and I only expect just a few weeks or months to buy my long sought after collector's stuff after September 14. I think we're screwed soon after that with our gun rights no matter who's elected. We may ultimately even wind up turning in our stuff, or be forced to register it as classlll weapons eventually. But, for right now, let's take it one step at a time. With Bush, there will be less damage to our gun rights for another 4 years then if we get Kerry in there. I also prefer to have a president who fights terrorism with bombs instead of UN Councils, elects conservative Judges, and let's me keep a lot more of my hard earned money.

I enjoyed your input. Every reasoning opinion is food for thought, and perhaps a plausible idea or action to be considered.

Vanishing Breed

Daniel T
June 5, 2004, 04:51 AM
Or, after a few thousand idealistic fools vote Libertarian and make Kerry President, the ban will come FAST!

Better to vote libertarian than be an idealistic fool and vote Republican and see then AWB renewed all the same, with the help of those YOU voted for. What will you do then? Ostrich-like behavior will not change things.

I'm a realist, and I only expect just a few weeks or months to buy my long sought after collector's stuff after September 14. I think we're screwed soon after that with our gun rights no matter who's elected. We may ultimately even wind up turning in our stuff, or be forced to register it as classlll weapons eventually.

You say this stuff, and yet you still vote for those who you know will make what you say some true. What kind of logic is that?

jimpeel
June 5, 2004, 05:50 AM
What ever happend to:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

?

It died on September 30, 1996 with the inception of the Lautenberg Act.

VaniB.
June 5, 2004, 10:41 PM
Those of you out there who use common sence and vote to win (whether it be Republican or Democrat):

Are we having fun with the Anarchists on this thread? Should I continue stirring these idealist dopes, or should I just let it go? Because it's like talking to a block of wood, or a LaRoche groupie, we will not be able to accomplish anything usefull during debate with them, like hoping to convert them to a usefull vote to save our rights. To them, trying to work within the system is impossible. But voting for an unknown Anarchist by the name of Michelle Badnick, or Mitchel Bad breath,(....or was it Mikail Beatnick???) makes perfect sence to them. So I'll not address them any further unless you're having fun with the entertainment value of it. :D

SodiumBenzoate
June 5, 2004, 11:27 PM
VaniB, I hate the Republican platform. I also hate the Democratic platform. I agree with the Libertarian platform.

Assuming I was voting this election, would it make sense to vote for a candidate I dislike, a candidate I dislike, or a candidate I agree with?

Not a hard decision.

But voting for an unknown Anarchist by the name of Michelle Badnick, or Mitchel Bad breath,(....or was it Mikail Beatnick???)

For someone who is likely a decade or two older than I am, you are incredibly immature.

VaniB.
June 6, 2004, 02:29 AM
Junior,

What's immature about satiracilly making the point that I have never heard of this man's name in my life? I listen to much of the cable conservative news and national radio media and talk shows, as well as read my daily subscription of the newspaper. They have yet to mention your Anarchist party or candidate. Why should they? He amounts to ZERO, and is unworthy of their time and mention. It remains a fringe of little or no interest except to the smallest minority of the population. All of them seemingly being here on this site!

Winning, takes more then nominating your Dad for elective office just because you know him to be a wise, ethical and wonderfull person.
Perhaps, I might better endorse you Dad's views, compared to what I do know of your Anarchist party.

You know, after discovering this website, I have been assured that the sterotype of the lunk head named "Bubba" does not hold true for
the Gun Toting enthusiasts I have encountered here.
To my surprise and dismay, I am more inclined to believe now, that this small and unconventional minority can better be classified as....uh...let's see....how shoud I label them? .....uh, Morons!

You and your cohorts must surelly know that your candidates can't win or even make a noteworthy stand. Right? So then what do you think happens when you cast a vote for Beatnik, (Budnick?) and a Democrat casts a vote for Kerry? hmmmmm? Do you remember a recent election that was won by a mere 250 votes? hmmmm...?

I have no other way to logically describe those who CLAIM TO LOVE THEIR CONSTUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, but knowingly cast a vote for Kerry, only because they can't have what they want in Bush. That Junior is Stupidity. That, and a useless Degree from the Art institute, with a 1971 copy of Che' will buy you a donut for your "Logical" choice.

You may respond how you like, but frankly I find this Libertarian nonsence a serious threat to MY immediate gun rights, and am not enjoying seeing and hearing such widespread stupidity.
I will respond no further to it on this thread. So fire away Junior. Knock yourself out. Talk virtue, and lift your candidate high up. (So on election eve John F'ng Kerry can laugh at the both of you. The same we laugh at idealist Greens)

Publicola
June 6, 2004, 04:52 AM
VaniB,

Chill.

A lot of people here have differing views, even on the subject of the Right to Arms. But the thing is we're all civil about it. Civil. Ya know - polite? Respectful? Courteous?

There's a lot of things that could be said about Libertarians (note: anarchy is something a bit different. I'll be more than happy to explain but please make a note of it) & a lot of things could be said about the Republicans as well as the Democrats. But the thing is that despite a lot fo disagreement about a lot of things (many of which are more important than being offended by a political view that you're ignorant of) we try to discuss our views calmly without resorting to name calling (Hey - I said we try). There's going to be a lot of points of disagreement if you stay around here. In general if you reflect on things I think you'll agree that understanding what someone else is saying & then deciding whether or not you agree is a much cooloer way to go about it than blindly yelling "all you (insert collective identity here) are Morons!!!"

You can disagree & if you have any logical, rational or factual basis for disgareeing I'd love to hear it. But chill on the name calling, k? It doesn't impress anyone & tends to make the name caller's view not be taken seriously.

BTW, you said earlier that you think Bush will cave in after the election in regards to the AWB. If you believe that then why do you seem so worried about Kerry getting in office? I realize they differ (although only slightly) in other areas but as far as the AWB goes how can you prefer one to the other when both support it?

Glock Glockler
June 6, 2004, 08:57 AM
"You may respond how you like, but frankly I find this Libertarian nonsence a serious threat to MY immediate gun rights, and am not enjoying seeing and hearing such widespread stupidity."

It seems that the widespread stupidity and threat to gun rights is coming from your Republican buddies. If they weren't voting for the AWB and Feinswine bill we'd hve a lot more reason to vote for them.

If Bush was supporting...

- The Kennedy Education Bill
- The perscription drug giveaway @ 500+ Billion and counting
- A 120 Billion welfare package for farming
- a campaign finance reform bill that he even pledged he wouldn't sign
- The AWB renewal

...I might be tempted to vote for him.

I'd be more than happy to vote for a Tom McClintock/Ron Paul Republican, so when they stop spitting in my face I'll come back, but dont criticize us for us for having principles that dont condone trying to out-Democrat the Democrats.

DMF
June 6, 2004, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Bartholomew Roberts:
The ATF can't do anything without some statutory authority from Congress. Unfortunately certain groups have done such a thorough job of villifying ATF through half-truths and out right lies that many people don't get that simple truth you posted.

Mr. Clark
June 6, 2004, 02:35 PM
VaniB.

Your name calling is not welcome here. If you think we are morons, go away.

7.62FullMetalJacket
June 6, 2004, 02:53 PM
The ATF can't do anything without some statutory authority from Congress.

This is true. However, if laws are vague, as they tend to be these days, then the bureaucracy is left to interpret. Think "sporting purposes."

Publicola
June 6, 2004, 04:22 PM
DMF,
Most of the bad rap that the ATF has comes from the ATF.
They've done & are doing some horrible things in the name of enforcing unconstitutional laws. I'm not sure of the half truths & outlright lies you refer to, so feel free to list examples. Just don't be too surprised if those half truths & outright lies turn out to be verifiable facts.

But as I said, the problem with the ATF's reputation is not what people make up about them, it's what people can actually verify about them.

DMF
June 6, 2004, 04:44 PM
Publicola,

You must not have seen any of the posts I've made in the past, but what you are saying is wrong. Feel free to do a search for my user name and the keyword ATF, as I have posted at length on this subject, and don't think we need to hijack this thread with a sidebar debate.

VaniB.
June 7, 2004, 12:20 AM
As mentioned earlier I will not address the Libertarian topic further.

I appreciate those who have voiced their opinion on the Grandfathering issue. It seems to be an unlikely scenerio, but never the less it seems a remote possibility through an agencies creativity. We'll just have to see. However, a new AWB (written after the 1994 bill sunsets), is apt to be of greater concern to us through the possibility of it being retroactive.
Buying a $1,000 weapon in September of 2004, only to have it declared contraband early in 2005, would be outrageous test of the Goverments will over the people.

If you enjoyed reading about "After the sunsetting, could they declare grandfathering?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!