Critical: Feinstein/AWB on Senate Calendar!


PDA






CentralTexas
June 8, 2004, 01:47 PM
Time to act now... Don't sit on your hands waiting for someone else to
> call.
>
> Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has once again introduced legislation to renew
> the so-called "assault weapons" ban. S.2498 was introduced last week, and,
> by using a "nuclear option" referred to as Rule XIV, has gotten the bill
> placed on the Senate calendar.
>
> As a Senate educational article on the subject puts it,
>
> "Most bills are routinely referred to the committee with appropriate
> jurisdiction as soon as they are introduced. But if a Senator plans to
> introduce a bill and believes that the committee to which it would be
> referred will be unsympathetic, Rule XIV permits the Senator to bypass the
> standing committee system altogether and have the bill placed directly on
> the Calendar of Business, with exactly the same formal status the bill would
> have if it had been the subject of extensive hearings and exhaustive mark-up
> meetings in committee."
>
> The article goes on to say that this option is considered a last resort by
> Senators, because it "undermines the committee system as a whole and because
> they do not wish to encourage a practice that can be used against their own
> committees."
>
> So, Sen. Feinstein and her 11 co-sponsors (the usual suspects) have thrown
> down the gauntlet, and a true showdown is shaping up. Once again, we must
> contact our Senators, ESPECIALLY those who voted against the AWB renewal
> amendment several months ago, to stand firm in their opposition to this
> ill-conceived and proven ineffective idea. Because the AWB renewal has
> enough votes in the Senate to pass, a filibuster is likely the only way it
> can be stopped there.
>
> The Senators who voted against the recent amendment renewing the ban need
> our support and encouragement to stand their ground, as it the rhetoric put
> forth by the anti-gun side will undoubtedly be intense and viscous.
>
> It is unclear when S.2498 will come up for consideration, so let's get busy
> NOW. You can see how your Senators voted recently on the AWB here:
>
> http://www.awbansunset.com/senate.html
>
> You can find your Senators' contact info here:
>
> http://www.senate.gov/
>
> http://www.awbansunset.com/house_tx.html
>
>
Texas Senators
Kay Bailey Hutchinson- 512-916-5834
John Cornyn- 512-916-5834

--
3016 Men, Women and Children were murdered September 11th,
2001 by 19 men armed with boxcutters. One gun on each plane
could have changed things.

If you enjoyed reading about "Critical: Feinstein/AWB on Senate Calendar!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Blackcloud6
June 8, 2004, 02:10 PM
It is critical to find out when it will come up.

Anyone know how this escaped going through commitee?

Mulliga
June 8, 2004, 03:12 PM
This thread should be pinned until Congress lets out for the summer. ;)

I guess Feinswine and the rest are getting desperate. As long as Larry Craig or Zell Miller is willing to filibuster this thing to death, we have a good chance of finally being rid of this AWB.

kd7ctv
June 8, 2004, 03:45 PM
Well I wrote my senators, though I doubt they will even look twice at the email, since they are ANTI's

Jeeper
June 8, 2004, 03:54 PM
Am I missing something ---- I thought a previous version already passed the senate.

jwmoore
June 8, 2004, 04:01 PM
Jeeper,

A renewal was appended to a bill that was killed. So, there is no renewal yet passed. This is another attempt.

~W

armoredman
June 8, 2004, 04:08 PM
That previous version was attatched to the Lawful Commerce In Firearms Protection Act, which we killed, rather than put up with AWb forever. This one is going under the radar, or trying to...
E-mail sent - snail mail next.:fire:

E-mailed Feinstien - asked her to never leave Cali, and not to visit AZ, as it took us a very long time to get the smell off when Clinton came through....

Feds oughta be knocking down the door in 5, 4, 3, 2, who's there?:rolleyes:

CentralTexas
June 8, 2004, 04:46 PM
I know for a fact most emails aren't looked at, they value letters and calls due to the effort.
I suggest call, when they answer the phone just say "I wish to pass on that I'm against this bill and any future legislation restricting gun ownership and I vote based on such matters"
CenTex

Justin
June 9, 2004, 02:18 AM
BTT

Folks, we've got to get the word out on this one. Contact your legiscritters and let them know that the AW Ban has done nothing to stop crime, while at the same time running the risk of criminalizing all of us over trivialities.

Ben Shepherd
June 9, 2004, 09:55 AM
Question:

For those of us in pro-gun states, whos' congressmen are on our side as it is.

Outside of Frist and DeLay, whom would we be best served by contacting?

Don Gwinn
June 9, 2004, 10:05 AM
PAPER and PHONE CALLS! Let them know! Both my Senators will vote for this monstrosity, so make yours count. I'll lean on mine anyway.

Fitzgerald is a Republican, but he's anti-gun and has already stepped down. This will be one of his last votes, so there's no leverage.

Dick Durbin is. . . . . well, he's Dick Durbin. Fast becoming a national whining liberal poster boy.

But I'll still make my displeasure known. You do the same!

Leatherneck
June 9, 2004, 10:16 AM
I expect the virginia delegation will be split, with RINO Warner showing his true elitist colors yet again. Senator Allen can be counted on to oppose.



TC
TFL Survivor

jwmoore
June 9, 2004, 10:32 AM
My hand-written note going out today.
Dear Senator ___,

I am writing today to call your attention to S.2498, the Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2004, introduced by Sen. Feinstein and placed on the Senate calendar.

I strongly encourage you to take all necessary steps, including filibuster, to prevent this bill from passing. The AWB does nothing to prevent crime, and must be allowed to sunset without renewal.

Pennsylvania gun owners are watching very closely, and will be voting in November. Enemies of the Right to keep and bear arms will not be re-elected if this abhorrent legislation is allowed to survive.

Sincerely,

Clean97GTI
June 9, 2004, 11:06 AM
Letters sent.

Harry Reid (D) will probably vote for renewal.
John Ensign (R) I'm not so sure.

Daedalus
June 9, 2004, 11:29 AM
My hand-written note going out today.

I like the idea of hand writing the letters, it helps show wer are SERIOUS about this issue. I copied yours up to the third paragraph, which needs a little modification to reflect the fact that my senators are democrats and antis, not to mention that one of them is not seeking reelection..


Dear Senator ___,

I am writing today to call your attention to S.2498, the Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2004, introduced by Sen. Feinstein and placed on the Senate calendar.

I strongly encourage you to take all necessary steps, including filibuster, to prevent this bill from passing. The AWB does nothing to prevent crime, and must be allowed to sunset without renewal.

Florida gun owners are watching this issue very closely, and will be voting this November. Politicians and parties who show themselves to be enemies of the right to keep and bear arms can expect to be agressively campaigned against during the upcoming election.

Sincerely,


EDIT-
For Floridians, call Bill Nelson: 1-888-671-4091
call Bob Graham: 1-866-418-9569

ClonaKilty
June 9, 2004, 11:51 AM
RE: FL Senators: I've found Nelson's office to be more inclined to listen to my views than Graham's. Nelson's a weasly bend-with-the-wind politician, so if enough pressure is applied to him, he may abstain from an AWB renewal vote.

I too like the idea of a handwritten note. Will do so today.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 9, 2004, 12:23 PM
RE: FL Senators, NC Senators, LA Senators, and SC Senators

Graham (D-FL), Edwards (D-NC), Hollings (D-SC), and Breaux (D-LA) are all retiring this year AND voted against us in March. If you write them, make it clear that you will punish their PARTY at the polls in November since you can't punish them.

In Texas, both Senator Hutchinson and Senator Cornyn are against renewal. Hutchinson isn't going to stand up and lead any filibuster attempts for us; but she won't vote for a renewal and would support someone else if they led the charge I think.

Cornyn is strong on this issue though. He went to Dallas at a PBS debate and campaigned on not renewing the ban - not exactly playing to your audience. He also made some floor speeches against it in March.With a little encouragement I think we could get him to be more aggressive on this issue.

PUMC_TomG
June 9, 2004, 12:32 PM
Hey All,

I replied in the thread in the General Discussion Board a bit earlier... and I do plan on calling Senators Graham and Nelson later in the day.

My only question is how I should go about the phone call. Will I be leaving a voice mail message, talking to a staffer, or is there a chance that I may get patched through to one of these gentleman?

Just wondering what to expect by those that have been there/done that.

I'm building an AR, and I want my fullsize CZ magazines from the factory darn it!

N3rday
June 9, 2004, 12:40 PM
Wait, is this a stand-alone bill?
How could this pass in Congress if it wouldn't even pass as an amendment a month or 2 ago?

71Commander
June 9, 2004, 12:46 PM
Contacted both of my Dem's. I love wasting my time.:banghead:

burbanite
June 9, 2004, 12:52 PM
PUMC_TomG,

in most cases you get to talk to a real person. This staffer should take basic notes and place your view in a category, you will receive a generic reply based on that. Some are willing to discuss things with you, some go through the motions but it is the quickest way to be counted.

Your chances of talking to "the guy" are slim to none. You can however request a FTF meeting and may get lucky if they are in town and have time, otherwise you may get to meet with another staffer.

Follow up with a snail mail letter and send an email to back it up.


I also posted this on the web page of my local Rep, it will be seen by others and may help get them motivated although there is always the danger of rallying the antis. At least I had my say in the public forum.


http://congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=241&letter_id=94578291

jwmoore
June 9, 2004, 12:56 PM
Wait, is this a stand-alone bill?
How could this pass in Congress if it wouldn't even pass as an amendment a month or 2 ago?

N3rday,

Remember, this DID pass as an amendment (52-47?). It resulted in the host bill being killed (8-90), as it was designed to.

It's possible the votes are there to pass this in the Senate. Let your congress-critter know you don't want it to.

~W

mountainclmbr
June 9, 2004, 12:57 PM
Sent my GOA postcards. Will follow up with letters.

And will send another $50 to the John Thune campaign to help put that Daschle clown in the unemployment line.

Mr. James
June 9, 2004, 01:19 PM
Leatherneck,

It's worse than that. I just got an e-mail alert from the NRA saying Mr. Liz Taylor (RINO, Virg.) is a freakin' co-sponsor.

:barf: :fire: :barf: :fire:

Letter sent, for what it's worth. George Allen should stand strong. He fell off his horse the last go-round and has seen the light.

jnojr
June 9, 2004, 01:25 PM
I think it's especially important to contact the antis. Why write a million letters to a senator we know is going to vote in favor of freedom? But if a grabber gets a critical mass of letters that indicates that their reelection is in danger, they may at least abstain from voting.

Unobtainium
June 9, 2004, 03:09 PM
...this on the RINO Mike Dewine website. They asked that you post
electronically rather than snail mail due to the ricin scare (wasn't that
quite a while ago).:confused:

quote:
Senator; Please withdraw your support of S. 2498 to extend the Clinton
Weapons Ban. This law was flawed from the beginning and evidenced by
your written response to me several months ago you still do not even
understand what it does.

Bill Clinton himself saw and admitted that this one issue was mainly
responsible for his party losing majority in the Congress. Learn from
his mistakes, Senator.

One of the most anti-Second Ammendment groups (Violence Policy Center)
admits that this law has had no effect on crime and will not if
renewed.

It seems to me that from a logical, political and emotional standpoint,
you have nothing to gain by supporting this bill and a lot of votes to
lose in 2006.

M1911Owner
June 9, 2004, 04:57 PM
:( I'd write my senators, except I really don't think I'll get anywhere with Feinstein and Boxer. :barf:

jwmoore
June 9, 2004, 05:23 PM
I'd write my senators, except I really don't think I'll get anywhere with Feinstein and Boxer.
Send a note anyway. Let them know that you, and Americans like you, find the legislation repugnant, and that you will actively campaign against them, in an attempt to replace them with Freedom loving American senators.

It'll make you feel better! :D

~W

txgho1911
June 9, 2004, 05:37 PM
Luger is a RINO and will support this. I understand he is aspiring to find an apointment in the Administration. His responses have made hoosiers statewide physicaly ill.
I would not count on Buyh to be receptive.

LAR-15
June 9, 2004, 06:22 PM
Guys everyone but one senator has voted on this issue already this year.

Go look it up.

And bring the heat.

Write the guys on our side and tell them to stick to their guns.

Especially contact Tim Johnson, South Dakota.

He missed the previous vote.

Foreign Devil
June 9, 2004, 07:13 PM
If your senator is a dedicated anti gunner maybe it would be more productive to write to the party leadership.

Lobotomy Boy
June 9, 2004, 08:06 PM
Write both party leadership and your representatives.

Lone_Gunman
June 9, 2004, 09:00 PM
Oh come on guys,

You know with Republicans in control of the House and Senate, and Bush in the White House, we have nothing to worry about!

:rolleyes:

LAR-15
June 9, 2004, 09:42 PM
You know with Republicans in control of the House and Senate, and Bush in the White House, we have nothing to worry about!

The chances of it passing the House are worse than the chances of me winning the Alabama lottery.

Lone_Gunman
June 9, 2004, 11:26 PM
The chances of it passing the House are worse than the chances of me winning the Alabama lottery.


We'll see.

alan
June 10, 2004, 12:27 AM
The TOLL FREE number for Capitol Switchboard is as follows: 1-800-839-5276.

What with "mail security" and "Irradiation", it's possible that "snail mail" will never get anywhere.

E-mail and faxes should get though, and remember if you will, that the above listed phone number if a FREE CALL.

As the old saying goes, lead, follow or get the hell out of the way, don't just stand there.

Tinker
June 10, 2004, 02:29 PM
I don't know is this is for real or not, but I just read a thread on another site where somebody mentioned hearing Dennis Hastert on the Today Show this morning say that he was willing to bring the AWB extension up for a vote if GW asks him to.

Anybody else hear of this?

NY Patriot
June 10, 2004, 02:46 PM
This is an "all hands on deck" moment guys... Let's get rolling!!!

This Feinstein threat is REAL & serious as a heart attack.

The Essential End the AW Ban Contact List & Sample Letter Thread (www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39429)

Carpe Diem!

Foreign Devil
June 10, 2004, 03:47 PM
With all the security related delays surrounding the mail are email and phone calls actually more likely to get through?

What about a trip to your senator's office if he/she has a regional office in your town?

alan
June 10, 2004, 04:30 PM
Tinker wrote:

I don't know is this is for real or not, but I just read a thread on another site where somebody mentioned hearing Dennis Hastert on the Today Show this morning say that he was willing to bring the AWB extension up for a vote if GW asks him to.

Anybody else hear of this?

I didn't hear it, at least not yet. Having said that, I wouldn't put it past either Hastert or Bush

thefitzvh
June 10, 2004, 04:31 PM
Just called the white house comment line. Actually talked to a PERSON, and judging from her reaction and dialogue with me (she seemed genuinely interested... I pointed her to the HighRoad) I think the message may get through.

James Fitzer

dev_null
June 10, 2004, 06:00 PM
With all the security related delays surrounding the mail are email and phone calls actually more likely to get through?

What about a trip to your senator's office if he/she has a regional office in your town?
Both my Senators have online feedback forms. You can find a listing Here (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm) .

- 0 -

LAR-15
June 10, 2004, 08:00 PM
This weekend Congress is closed due to Reagan's funeral.

madmike
June 11, 2004, 12:30 AM
Bayh has already said he supports it. From a friend of mine:

Dear Mr. balenger:

Thank you for your letter concerning the reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

I can tell, although you seem to disregard them as fast as you welcome them.

The primary purpose of any gun control legislation must be to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals or juveniles.

Since it is already illegal for either of these groups to own firearms, the AWB of '94 is already exceeding your own criteria. But don't let that stop you...

Throughout my public life, I have opposed legislation that fails to appropriately balance the need to maintain a safe society with the ability of law-abiding Americans to own and use firearms responsibly.

Since the AR-15 and M-1a are both valued by target shooters, you have again failed to meet your own criteria. What now?

I have always supported the second amendment and have opposed efforts to impose burdensome regulations on gun-owners.

Can you please list for me what burdensome regulations you have opposed? Since you seem to think the 2nd Amendment discusses a priveledge and not a right, which burdens do you deem allowable to my rights?

I believe that tough and effective enforcement of existing firearms laws is the best way to save lives.

Which is why you continue to support new ones? I don't get it...

As you may know, the Assault Weapons Ban passed as part of the 1994 Crime Bill. This legislation prohibited the manufacture, transfer or possession of 19 specifically named assault weapons, all semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least two features outlined by the statute, and all large-feeding ammunition devices. The Assault Weapons Ban will expire after September 14, 2004 unless Congress and the President approve the reauthorization of the law before this date.

Thanks for the review. As you may know, that's why I wrote you...

On March 2, 2004, the Assault Weapons Ban was offered as an amendment to S. 1805, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. While the Assault Weapons Ban amendment passed, with my support, S. 1805 did not pass the Senate. While reasonable people can disagree about the effectiveness of the Assault Weapons Ban, in the post-September 11th world, I believe that it is most prudent to err on the side of caution.


A few things: What evidence do you have statistically of the evidence of the AWB? So we can reasonably disagree that is? The other thing is that it is pretty low for you to somehow equivocate lawful gun owners with the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocities. Finally, why would you seek to prevent lawful gun owners like myself from having the most effective firearms possible in that same post-Sept. 11th world? You make little sense, sir...

Thank you for taking the time to advise me on this important matter. I value your input and hope that you will continue to share your thoughts with me.


Well, let me share this thought: you must not care very much about me or my vote...

Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope that the information that I have provided is helpful.

It was an opinion, no information. Why don't you send me something, anything from the FBI's UCR showing any correlation between the AWB and crime rates?

My website,
http://bayh.senate.gov, can provide additional details about legislation and state projects, and you can also sign up to receive my monthly e-newsletter, The Bayh Bulletin, by clicking on the link at the top of my homepage. I value your input and hope you will continue to keep me informed of the issues important to you.

I'll keep telling you and it seems like you'll keep sending me form letters telling me where to stick it. why can't you get on the right side of this issue? self defense is a basic human right, now a political football...

Best wishes,


Evan Bayh
United States Senator

Thanks for patronizing me. What about getting me the empirical data I asked for, since surely you wouldn't have an opinion and voting record with no basis? Regards, Mark Balenger
Indianapolis

NY Patriot
June 11, 2004, 01:24 AM
Foreign Devil...
With all the security related delays surrounding the mail are email and phone calls actually more likely to get through?

True enough, my friend. That is why I fax copies of all of my letters before I seal them up & mail them. That way you get both an immediate & delayed reaction to your correspondence. They get your opinion ASAP, and then in 4 or 5 weeks when the mail finally clears their security screening they get it again.

Piece of cake... you double your influence & you are time sensitive to boot!!!

Give it a try folks... it works!

burbanite
June 12, 2004, 05:28 PM
I understand he is aspiring to find an apointment in the Administration.

Colin Powells job...now you just know he has to have pictures of GWB and a donkey...

jimpeel
June 13, 2004, 02:32 AM
This thread, somewhere in its 27 pages, has the tally of the votes cast for the AWB renewal during the Commerce in Firearms debate.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68415

The final tally was:

No: 47
Aye: 52

jimpeel
June 13, 2004, 02:41 AM
Read post eight from the top on this page http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68415&perpage=25&highlight=commerce&pagenumber=2

jimpeel
June 13, 2004, 02:52 AM
SOURCE (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00024)

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Feinstein Amdt. No. 2637 )
Vote Number: 24 Vote Date: March 2, 2004, 11:38 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2637 to S. 1805 (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act )
Statement of Purpose: To provide for a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban.
Vote Counts: YEAs 52
NAYs 47
Not Voting 1


Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Allen (R-VA), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burns (R-MT), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Nay
Graham (D-FL), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Nickles (R-OK), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Nay
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Talent (R-MO), Nay
Thomas (R-WY), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Barbara
June 13, 2004, 06:56 AM
Contacted both of my Dem's. I love wasting my time.

I hear ya. :(

Akurat
June 13, 2004, 06:45 PM
McCain voted nay? Wonders never cease..:eek:

pittspilot
June 13, 2004, 09:45 PM
Hmmmmm. Seems to me that there are a number of Republicans (and some Democrats) that would be the best targets.

For instance

Bingaman (D-NM), Yea. This guy seems vunerable to being shoved by a significant push.

Breaux (D-LA), Yea. The junior Senator from LA seems to see the light, why not him?

Conrad (D-ND), Yea. North Dakotans in favor of gun control? Maybe he hopes that his consitutients don't notice.

Same goes for:

Daschle (D-SD), Yea. Go and give money to Thune, and send a message to Daschle, Johnson as well.

Edwards (D-NC), Yea. Wouldn't he make a great Veep?

Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea. Another Republican in need of an avalanche of mail.

Gregg (R-NH), Yea. Yet another Republican from a smaller state that is ripe for an avalanche of mail.

Kerry (D-MA), Yea. E'nuff said.

Lincoln (D-AR), Yea. Another Senator making a vote from deep within Indian Country.

Smith (R-OR), Yea. Could be somewhat vunerable.

Voinovich (R-OH), Yea. Wonder if he is paying attention to Ohio politics these days?

Warner (R-VA), Yea. *** is this?

So, what the NRA or we should do, is whittle down that list. First by determining when each of those Senators is coming up for election. The pick the ones closest to election, specifically November, and let them know that their vote will cost them.

My feeling is that the majority of these people are hoping to vote with no media spotlight. Let them know that this is not the case.

jimpeel
June 13, 2004, 10:39 PM
Let it be here noted that Kerry and Edwards both came back to DC during their campaigns specifically to vote for this issue. They are both lost causes.

71Commander
June 14, 2004, 01:28 PM
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. I got a reply for my Dem Senator. I don't know what it means yet, (I think nothing), but at least I got a reply.

June 14, 2004


Mr. Dennis Tucker
XXXXXXXXXXX
Waterford, MI 48328


Thank you . . .

. . for contacting me regarding the renewal of the federal assault
weapons ban. I appreciate you taking the time to communicate your views
with me.

As you know, the assault weapons ban of the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 will expire in September, 2004. Senator
Dianne Feinstein has introduced the Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization
Act (S.1034), which would reauthorize the ban for 10 more years.

Similarly, Senator Frank Lautenberg has introduced the Assault Weapons
Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003 (S.1431) which would
increase the scope of firearms defined as assault weapons, and prevent the
federal assault weapons ban from expiring.

Currently, both these bills are pending in the Judiciary Committee, of
which I am not a member. I share your concern about protecting second
amendment rights and assure you that I will keep your strong views in
mind if this important matter should come before the Senate for
consideration.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to do so again if
I may ever be of assistance in the future.


Sincerely,
Debbie Stabenow
United States Senator

thefitzvh
June 14, 2004, 02:51 PM
I got a response from my representative. It's a freakin form letter, but at least I know where this guy stands. He'll keep my vote.

I just noticed it doesn't say his name. It's Duke Cunningham

Also, Navy fighter ace :D



June 14, 2004

Mr. James R. Fitzer
1051 West El Norte Parkway
Escondido, CA 92026-3349

Dear Mr. Fitzer:

Thank you for contacting me with your strong opposition to
additional gun control legislation. I appreciate hearing from you
on this important issue.

Like you, I believe we can fight crime without trampling on
the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
Unfortunately, there are a number of bills before seeking to restrict
the second amendment rights of Americans. Please be assured that
I will continue to oppose anti-second amendment legislation. You
will be pleased to know that I support legislation that shields gun
manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits, I am opposed to the assault
weapon ban, I voted against campaign finance reform, and am a
cosponsor of legislation to allow residents of the District of
Columbia to carry handguns. Please be assured that I will continue
to protect the rights of constitutional Americans as I continue my
work in Congress.

You can be assured that I will keep your thoughts and
strong support for the Second Amendment in mind. Thanks again
for contacting me. It is an honor to serve as your congressman.
Please do not hesitate to contact me again with any of your
questions or concerns.

71Commander
June 14, 2004, 05:19 PM
Hey thefitzvh, wanna trade. I'll give you 2 Senators and a House Rep (John Conyers) for your Rep.
:p

thefitzvh
June 15, 2004, 05:43 AM
No way dude. We need all the help we can get here in Kalifornistan! :neener:

Bartholomew Roberts
June 15, 2004, 08:36 AM
For instance

Breaux (D-LA), Yea. The junior Senator from LA seems to see the light, why not him?

Retiring this year, so he doesn't have to listen to his constituents anymore. Only thing you can threaten him with at the polls is to punish his party for his votes. Meanwhile make sure that both the Democratic and Republican candidate replacing him are pro-gun.

Conrad (D-ND), Yea. North Dakotans in favor of gun control? Maybe he hopes that his consitutients don't notice.

Yes, this guy has got to be vulnerable on this.

Daschle (D-SD), Yea. Go and give money to Thune, and send a message to Daschle, Johnson as well.

Daschle is definitely vulnerable. He is in a tight election for the Senate. We need to make sure he does lose. That will send a bigger message than anything if we can show that even the Senate Minority Leader owes his position to gunowners.

Edwards (D-NC), Yea. Wouldn't he make a great Veep?

Also retiring this year; but he has Presidential aspirations and will be back again. We should hit him hard for that reason alone. He may not change his vote this year; but we might impact his platform when he runs for President again.

Voinovich (R-OH), Yea. Wonder if he is paying attention to Ohio politics these days?

I'd rather see Dewine go down - that will serve as a better message to Voinovich than any letters will.

Warner (R-VA), Yea. *** is this?

Warner is also retiring but his term isn't up for awhile yet, so he is effectively a rogue Senator now.

Lone_Gunman
June 15, 2004, 08:54 AM
Let it be here noted that Kerry and Edwards both came back to DC during their campaigns specifically to vote for this issue. They are both lost causes.

So how is there opinion of the AWB different from that of Bush?

six 4 sure
June 15, 2004, 10:54 AM
Save your time and effort writing Fitzgerald in IL., I can post the letter I got from him if you want to get depressed. He’s not running for reelection in Nov. so he can vote without fear of repercussions.

Oh, and don’t bother writing Durbin from IL either. The letter returned to me was praising the AWB. My local rep was the only one that said he would not support another ban (surprising for a dem). Of course I heard that in 94 too, my rep was one of the dems that changed his vote for the third and final vote.

jimpeel
June 15, 2004, 01:56 PM
So how is there opinion of the AWB different from that of Bush?Bush didn't vote for it nor did he put all of his priorities on hold to do so.

Diggler
June 16, 2004, 11:48 AM
Just got this letter back from Rick Santorum (R-PA). Hopefully we can get more senators to feel the way he does.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=1064188

alan
June 16, 2004, 12:37 PM
Diggler:

Santorum is one of my senators too, however respecting the response, a copy of which you posted, did you ever stop to wonder at all the ink spilled by whomever it is that composes these form letters, in an effort to seemingly AVOID making a straight forward declaration of opinion, position or intent?

For instance the "As you may know ...". Well no kidding, but wasn't you who e-mailed, wrote or phoned in an opinion, comment or request on this matter in the first place? Given that it would appear to be so, it is difficult to explain this "as you may know...", and yet remain within the bounds of polite conversation. Interestingly, "as you may know" appeared twice, must be some sort of pet phrase, especially for the linguistically handicapped.

Next most interesting is the following, "I will be sure to keep your views in mind", which one is to take as meaning exactly what. Now then, given that Senator Santorum claims to be a supporter of The Second Amendment, who doesn't, one still wonders, looking at this form letter, as to exactly what his position might be.

In conclusion, the letter makes mention of both "assault weapons", the meaning of that term being quite well known to many, and "semiautomatic assault weapons", a term that, to stay within the bounds of polite conversation, has the ring of that well known OXYMORON about it. Once again, I wonder as to whom it might be that is responsible for the composing of such form letters as are sent out over the signature of elected officals?

Diggler
June 16, 2004, 06:08 PM
I think you're reading too much into it.

He voted against the Feinstein amendment.

He said that he was forced to vote against the bill because of Feinstein's amendment.

Also, he has "opposed legislation that would restrain legal gun ownership." That means that he has opposed anything that would make any more guns illegal. Also, the comment that the criminals are the 'real assault weapons' shows how ludicrous he thinks the whole ban is.

Anything could happen, but I'd bet next month's salary that he will vote NO on extending the ban. Senator Sphincter, on the other hand... I'm not so sure about.

Jim Diver
June 17, 2004, 06:04 PM
Try this... It would generate a better response from your congress critters.

Draft a message as you would write to a friend stating the problems with the AWB and asking them to watch it closely. Also ask your friend NOT to vote for any congress critter that supports the bill.

CC this letter to 10-20 friends AND CC your congress critters too. Makes your letter look alot more imposing and threatening to thier re-election.

atek3
June 20, 2004, 02:34 PM
if this passes....

:fire:
atek3

alan
June 20, 2004, 11:28 PM
Diggler:

Likely, we shall never know for sure, however it might be that you are not putting enough into it, rather than me putting to much into it. I still wonder as to how come it seems that altogether to many political types have to couch their satatements in a manner designed to "offend nobody".

A simple "I do not support reauthorization of this Assault Weapons Ban, and will oppose same in any form or wording" would seemingly eliminate any and all question as to positions.


In general, iot sytrikes me that the giun owners of this countrey can loose this by simply assuming that "the other guy will write the letters or make the calls" when in truth this "other guy" does not exist.

If we do not do it, and try to get our friends/relatives and so sorth to help, then it isn't going to get done. All to often, the pro-gun side "wins" one and then seemingly goes to sleep. This is something that I personally could never understand.

Diggler
June 21, 2004, 04:33 AM
Obviously, I AM still writing letters, even to Santorum... That's how I got the above letter.

:D

sch40
June 21, 2004, 09:07 PM
The Senate's website says that the bill (S.2498) has been placed on General Orders Calender No. 545. I think they're on Calender No. 503 now. I also have no idea if these are the same "calenders," and I don't know if this gives us any sort of discernable timeframe, but maybe someone knows...

itgoesboom
June 22, 2004, 12:26 AM
I thought we were under 30 working days left for the senate and house?

How much time do they have to try and pass this this year?

I am still pissed my RINO senator Smith. :fire: I do have some hope, since his aides say they were bombarded by us last time when he voted for it.

How are we looking in the House?

I.G.B.

jimpeel
June 22, 2004, 01:28 AM
Here is what we all need to do. Send the following in a letter or on a postcard to your Senators. Copy it verbatim with no changes or embellishment. Then sign your name or Mr. and Mrs. -- which they see as two lost votes -- and mail it to them.

"The last Congress also passed the Brady Bill and, in the crime bill, the ban on 19 assault weapons. I don't think it's a secret to anybody in this room that several members of the last Congress who voted for that aren't here tonight because they voted for it."
-- William Jefferson Clinton, State of the Union 1995

VaniB.
June 22, 2004, 10:57 AM
I thought we were under 30 working days left for the senate and house?


As of today, (Tuesday) there's 22 days, not including weekends. But who's counting? :D

However, it would seem to me that if any serious action is going to occur, allowing enough time for the conference committee, and the presidents signature, Feinstein needs to get it really going in the next 2 1/2 weeks (17 days). I would imagine a last minute finale occuring in the last 5 days of the September legislative session just days before the Clinton Ban expires would be very unlikely.
An 11th hour enactment to renew the ban would require vigerous assistance from the Republicans. That I can tell thus far, the Republicans are happy to stay clear of addressing the AWB. But it's really hard to tell what's on the minds of these politically correct Republican clowns. Last minute caving in with them and Bush would not surprise me.


BTW, I've already sent off individual letters to Dennis Hastert, Carl Rove, Bill Frist, and Tom Delay. I didn't bore with a long note and debate about the merits of the 2nd amendment and my rights. I simply stated to them what REALLY would concern them, that I would not bother to vote on Nov. 22 if they didn't let the AWB die in peace. (I let them know I was a Registered Republican who has voted in EVERY election since FORD!)If they think that you won't vote Democrat, they're probably right. But if they hear from you that you're just going to stay home, that'll worry em sick! They know that tight elections are easilly lost in that manner.

DID YOU GUYS SEND YOUR LETTERS OFF YET? WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? If you need these addresses let me know, I'll be happy to forward it to you.
-Vanishing Breed

alan
June 22, 2004, 05:50 PM
jimpeel:

I believe that your excerpt from Clinton's 1995 State of The Union address might well garner some thoughtful attention.

I sent is to both of my Senators, Specter and Santorum.

jimpeel
June 22, 2004, 07:24 PM
Didn't they just re-elect that senile old crapper Specter? He recently said that he was considering changing his vote on an important piece of environmental legislation because of a movie which the plot line was based on fiction.

jwmoore
June 22, 2004, 11:01 PM
Specter is up for election in November. He just won the primary against Pat Toomey.

~W

jimpeel
June 22, 2004, 11:10 PM
You guys better get one Hell of a write-in campaign going, then. Specter is a specter of what is wrong with the idiotic thinking of Senators who have outlived their usefulness.

TooTaxed
June 23, 2004, 10:41 AM
Let's not forget President Bush, who has stated that he supports extension of the ban.

Note that the NRA still has not endorsed President Bush, as stated by NRA-ILA Exec. Director Cris Cox at the NRA annual meetings in May.

Besides this particular issue, we need to insist that the government pass legislation to guarantee the basic rights of good citizens to possess and use firearms.

Barbara Boxer is up for reelection this year. I have donated money to the California Republican Party requesting that it be used anti-Boxer.

Nick1911
June 26, 2004, 10:45 AM
My handwritten letters have been mailed...

I don't think it'll make any difference to those two :cuss: -ing morons

Nick

alan
June 26, 2004, 12:09 PM
Nick1911, and other interested persons:

Your effort, while perhaps invain, should certainly be supported.

"Problem" with such effort might be as follows, and please note, I would NEVER knock the efforts of someone who did something more than sit in front of their television set, and bitch.

I did however, see the following commentary on one of the sites I view/conbtribute to. It was the writers evaluation of public input. Letters written be the individual were likely weighted highest, with phone calls coming next. E-mail, the writer offered, was least valued, due to what he described as it's "ease of sending". I personally, am not certain as to this aspect, for no matter how written material is sent, it has to be composed first. Of course, there might well be a tremendous volume of E-mail messages to contend with. I do not recollect what value, if any, was placed on pre-printed postal cards, which I suspect you have seen elsewhere.

I do not know if the writer was correct in his evaluation, a subjective conclusion perhaps, however what with "security measures" these days in place, and the significant delay in the delivery of "snail mail", to government offices, the following question comes to mind. Will your carefully composed, thoughtful, personally written letter get anywhere close to the addressee, in a timely manner?

Likely not, which is why I would suggest the following. Use the telephone. Call the local offices of your "elected things", and their D.C. offices. These can be reached TOLL FREE via the following number: 1-800-839-5276, where you can, at the least, leave a message, these messages are tallied. You might also speak with the particular staffer who is involved with the subject of your interest, whatever that might be, particularly should the matter be the subject of pending legislation. Faxing your comments might be a way to go also, as faxes escape the "irradiation process", and it's delays.

GeneC
June 27, 2004, 02:53 PM
Hi, may I suggest going here and signing our petition? http://patriotpetitions.us/nogunban/

Ironbarr
June 27, 2004, 06:27 PM
Done!

.

orygunmike
June 30, 2004, 05:37 PM
A copy of the letter I am sending to both of my Senators (R-Smith, D-Wyden) and to President Bush (slightly modified). I borrowed portions of my letter from something I had seen written by Senator George Allen (R-VA)

===========================================

Dear Senator:

I write to request that you fight against extension of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (also known as the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban) currently being sponsored by California Senator Dianne Feinstein under S.2498. This symbolic ban of nineteen firearms chosen for cosmetic reasons is a meaningless law that has virtually no impact on crime, and serves only to deny law-abiding citizens the right to own certain weapons due to their cosmetic features.

Police reports and federal felony surveys have consistently shown
that so-called assault weapons are used in only one to two percent of
violent crimes. Crime victim surveys indicate the figure is only
one-quarter of one percent. Murders with knives, clubs and hands far
outnumber those with “assault weapons” by over 20-to-1. Put another way,
notwithstanding this ten-year ban of nineteen firearms, criminals continue
to commit illegal acts; they just do so with other weapons; with other
guns, knives or objects.

The simple fact is the Assault Weapons Ban only attacks the cosmetic
features of a gun, banning some guns even though they function exactly the
same as hundreds of other semi-automatic firearms. The ban does not refer to the fully automatic firearms or machine guns that many Americans view as assault weapons – the Uzi and the AK-47. It also does not refer to guns that can be readily or easily converted to fully automatic firearms. Current federal law already bans the sale of such guns.

Most importantly, I am concerned that reauthorizing this gun ban legislation will serve as a platform, inviting added restrictions on Second Amendment rights. Extending the current law, then, only makes sense if the ultimate goal it is to ban more and more guns in the future; something I hope no American who understands the Constitutions of our country and the state of Oregon can support.

I hope that you will take a stand for all Americans who enjoy exercising this part of our heritage, guaranteed to us by the founders of this country, and secured by those who took up arms in defense of these and other American freedoms. I look forward to hearing from you on this important matter.

alan
June 30, 2004, 06:05 PM
orygunmike:

For reasons related to the significant delay in the delivery of "snail mail" to our federal elected things, all that security you know, I've given up that sort of communication. This is solely a PERSONAL DECISION, and is NOT intended as a criticism of anyone who opts to use the mails. At least you are trying.

I think that you might consider the following though.

1. Assuming that you have a copy of the letters, fax them to your Senators, and House member.

2. Use the telephone. Call their local offices and or use the following TOLL FREE PHONE NUMBER. 1-800-839-5672. The ladies who answer identify themselves as Capitol Switchboard, and will put calls through to any congressional or senate offices. You can leave a message with whomever it is that answers the phone, or ask to speak with the staffer who involved with the type of legislation you are interested in, in this case, firearms.

3. Try E-mail. Some claim that this sort of communication tends to be dismissed, do to "the ease of dispatch". Possibly so, but even if sent via E-mail, one still has to compose whatever it might be that they are saying. Otherthan this, one cannot force the recipient to pay attention to whatever it is that others might have to say, nomatter how the message might be sent, however standing mute accomplishes nothing.

orygunmike
July 1, 2004, 10:37 AM
Thanks for your feedback......much appreciated, and I don't disagree with your reasoning or approaches.

I really posted this here as I find that people sometimes don't do anything because they don't know where to start or how to put their thoughts into words. Perhaps someone can borrow from what I wrote to send their own letter, fax, or smoke signal.

Anyway, take care.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 1, 2004, 10:45 AM
HEADS UP

The Class Action Fairness bill (S. 2062) is scheduled for debate on July 6th. This is the bill that Feinstein told the Virginia MMM group in a conference call that she would try and attach the semi-auto ban to.

This bill has good support in the Senate; but the Association of Trial Lawyers opposes it and they are the fourth all-time donor of political money in the U.S. (90% of it to Democrats). Chances are good that Feinstein will try to attach the ban as an amendment hoping to kill the bill outright.

CALL YOUR SENATORS!

The House version of this bill has already passed without any anti-gun amendments, so we still have conference committee and the final vote to fall back on; but it would be a lot safer to kill any ban renewal in the Senate.

alan
July 1, 2004, 05:11 PM
Bartholomew Roberts offered:


CALL YOUR SENATORS!

The House version of this bill has already passed without any anti-gun amendments, so we still have conference committee and the final vote to fall back on; but it would be a lot safer to kill any ban renewal in the Senate.

By all means, call your senators, if you hadn't already been doing that.

Bart, with reference to your reference to A Conference Committee being something to "fall back on", assuming that I didn't misunderstand, have a care there, especially given the fact that one never knows, respecting conference committees, who did what to whom.

It is, as you noted, ever-so-much better to kill nastyness in committee or on the floor.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 2, 2004, 08:58 AM
Yes, I didn't mean to imply that a conefrence committee was a good solution, only that we weren't dead yet if we didn't win in the Senate; but going to a conference committee is not a positive step.

LiquidTension
July 5, 2004, 04:51 PM
Senator Lindsey Graham actually wrote me back. Well, I'm sure it's a form letter, but the envelope was signed in ink at least :scrutiny:

===========================

Dear LiquidTension:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have always believed that it is every law-abiding citizen's right to possess firearms. Please be assured that I will continue to fight to uphold the true spirit of the Second Amendment.

Accordingly, in 1996, I supported H.R. 125, the Gun Crime Enforcement and Second Amendment Restoration Act of 1996, which would have repealed the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons. This legislation passed the House of Representatives on March 22, 1996, but was never considered by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary before Congress adjourned on October 4, 1996.

During the current Congress, Senator Diane Feinstein and Senator Frank Lautenberg have introduced the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act, which has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am a member. I do not support reauthorization of the ban and will vote against it should the ban be considered.

Thank you again for contacting me regarding this important issue. If I may be of any further assistance to you or your family, please do not hesitate to call on me.

Sincerely,

Lindsey O. Graham
United States Senator

=======================================

Cool :)

sch40
July 6, 2004, 12:06 PM
Any news about the attachment/Senate? (I don't have cable)

Bartholomew Roberts
July 6, 2004, 01:50 PM
The bill that they plan to amend is scheduled for debate this afternoon. As of now, it has not yet come up as they are still tied up with judicial nominations.

VaniB.
July 7, 2004, 12:21 AM
Seems, I heard a bit of it being discussed on the Senate floor today. According to the Thomas website, consideration of it will resume again tomorrow. (Wednesday)

Bartholomew Roberts
July 7, 2004, 09:12 AM
They barely managed any debate on this last night. Senate will reconvene at 9am this morning and they will handle routine business and Senate leaders will wheel and deal until about 10-10:30am when debate on the bill will begin again.

No word on amendments yet other than both sides have asked that there be no non-germane amendments.

SnakeEater
July 8, 2004, 02:39 AM
<----SnakeEater daydreaming of an oath taken not so long ago, can't quite remember, oh yes ....."protect the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic...."

Sawdust
July 8, 2004, 10:01 AM
Bartholomew spoketh:

They barely managed any debate on this last night. Senate will reconvene at 9am this morning and they will handle routine business and Senate leaders will wheel and deal until about 10-10:30am when debate on the bill will begin again.
Where does one look to get a detailed floor schedule?

Thanks,

Sawdust

alan
July 8, 2004, 04:28 PM
Sawdust:

You might try the senate web site.

www.senate.gov

Sawdust
July 8, 2004, 06:01 PM
Yeah, Alan I saw what's listed on the Senate site.

It seemed to me that Bartholomew had more detail, though. Now that I look at his post again, I was reading more into it than was warranted.

My mistake.

Sawdust

themic
July 9, 2004, 02:42 AM
orygunmike:
i got that letter from Allen in an e-mail recently, too. it appears to be directed at people who do not support our views, and i thought it was an excellent to-the-point message.

Schuey2002
July 9, 2004, 09:32 PM
What's the latest news on this? :o

crewchief
July 10, 2004, 10:31 PM
Boy this is turning into a real nail bitter. I have sent my letters, but unfortinately I live in NC at the moment. I will be moving to Ohio though in two days, what is the stance of the Ohio legislation on this. Although they don't have the best CCW (too new) neither does NC and at least Ohio is better about other firearms law like purchace requirements and private sales. I am looking forward to the move.

71Commander
July 10, 2004, 11:21 PM
crewchief.

Don't go.:what:

Bartholomew Roberts
July 12, 2004, 08:59 AM
Where does one look to get a detailed floor schedule?

The only way to get a detailed schedule of what will happen in the Senate in a given day is to listen to CSPAN all day or go to the Senate site and read the Congressional Record to see what has been discussed the previous day - even then they often change things at short notice. Originally S.2062 was scheduled for a cloture vote on Friday; but it changed to Thursday with little warning.

Ironbarr
July 12, 2004, 03:45 PM
I've been checking CSPAN2 off and on today and last week. I don't hear anything about her tagging on an amendment to anything - yet.

Anyone have different info?

-Andy

71Commander
July 12, 2004, 04:23 PM
She was on today talking about the marriage amendmant. I didn't catch it all, but it seemed like a good chance. Attach her bill to this and in order for the Republicians to ban gay marriages, you would ban assault weapons. It was a win, win for her.

I dunno know:confused:

Bartholomew Roberts
July 12, 2004, 05:17 PM
The gay marriage amendment is going nowhere as it is. It will get there just as fast with or without Feinstein's amendment.

By the time they get done debating that amendment, it will be extremely difficult to pass any renewal as there will be little time left on the calendar to enact such legislation.

I wouldn't be too concerned until they start considering the appropriations bills; but with exactly 9 days left on the Senate calendar before summer recess and no appropriations bills in sight, I think we can wave goodbye to the ban until 2005.

71Commander
July 12, 2004, 05:31 PM
The gay marriage amendment is going nowhere as it is.

I agree. But it will be addressed in the near future and she will sell out her supporters in order to get the AWB on the docket.

She has no chance of stopping a federal amendment on gay marriages. It would pass 2/3rds easily. She will give the Republicians this amendment in order for hers to pass as an attachment. I don't see any thing else on the horizon.

They're some sneakey critters though. They (both sides) could come to an agreement and have it passed and signed before the blink of an eye.:what:

Ironbarr
July 12, 2004, 06:13 PM
Like the LEO national carry bill, huh?

Schuey2002
July 12, 2004, 06:22 PM
I wouldn't be too concerned until they start considering the appropriations bills; but with exactly 9 days left on the Senate calendar before summer recess and no appropriations bills in sight, I think we can wave goodbye to the ban until 2005.
Now THAT's what I wanted to hear.. :)

71Commander
July 12, 2004, 06:32 PM
Like the LEO national carry bill, huh?


Excellent example.

alan
July 12, 2004, 11:35 PM
Re national concealed carry for retired and active LE, proposals which sadly were passed in both houses and have since been sent to "shrub", who will likely sign the fool thing, I'm curious as to the following. How many who posted seemingly critical references to the concept, bothered to contact their elected things, prior to enactment?

By the way, in or at/on other discussions, I've seen/heard/read comment to the effect that the enactment would be a good thing, for it could then lead to national carry for "civilian" licensees.

Taking what I consider to be a realistic look at the antics of police bureaucrats, police organizations and their leaders, as opposed to The Street Cop, who never gets featured in media stories, I tend to sort of double over in/with bitter laughter, every time I hear this song and dance.

Of course, I could be completely wrong re this, I've been wrong before. It's just that I do not think that this situation will be one of those instances. I simply think that this will be another of those deals where, as a result of special privilege granted to the few, the rights of the many will suffer.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 13, 2004, 09:53 AM
Like the LEO national carry bill, huh?

If you don't understand why the LEO carry bill is a much different political animal than the semiauto ban, then I don't have the time to explain it. Suffice it to say that LEO carry passed the Senate with unanimous support - something the ban will never have.

She has no chance of stopping a federal amendment on gay marriages.

On the contrary, there are no votes to pass a federal amendment on gay marriages in the Senate. The amendment is going to die regardless of whether Feinstein can attach a bill or not; but the Dems have already agreed to a straight up/down vote on that proposal so I wouldn't be overly concerned.

Now I am not saying to quit now and go home. We still need to be vigilant and will need to continue watching even after the ban does sunset; but right now it looks very, very good.

Lobotomy Boy
July 13, 2004, 10:21 AM
I wouldn't expect any substantial action on anything from the congress right now. There will be blustering rhetoric from both sides as they try to shore up their bases going into the election. The Dems will spout off about how the Republicans unleashed a new wave of assault weapons on the public to motivate their dogmatic core to vote for a lackluster candidate and the Republicans will try to work the Christian extreme right wing of its ranks into a perverted frenzy about what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms to try to distract the ultra conservative Republicans and make them forget about Bush's liberal spending habits and creation of a huge, expensive new entitlement program, its liberal policies towards immigration, and its misguided and incompetent efforts at nation building.

I'm not saying we should let our guard down, but right now both parties need distractions to whip their core constituencies into mindless frenzies--distractions like evil black rifles and homosexuals getting married--more then they need real accomplishments.

I think a more real danger right now is the possibility of having all our guns confiscated in the event of a terrorist attack that leads to the suspension of elections and the declaration of martial law.

Ironbarr
July 13, 2004, 10:54 AM
You're scaring me... I thought this was just another, but an important "another", effort of CCW (Congress Critter Watch) - martial law indeed.

Screw the "terrorists" - Vote!

-Andy

halvey
July 13, 2004, 10:57 AM
Republicans will try to work the Christian extreme right wing of its ranks into a perverted frenzy about what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms Really? I didn't know people got married in the privacy of their own bedrooms.:D

71Commander
July 13, 2004, 11:07 AM
If you don't understand why the LEO carry bill is a much different political animal than the semiauto ban, then I don't have the time to explain it. Suffice it to say that LEO carry passed the Senate with unanimous support - something the ban will never have.



I could be wrong, but I think it was being used as an example of how fast a bill could be voted on in both chambers and become law. I think the subject matter was irrelevant.

Ironbarr
July 13, 2004, 12:39 PM
Thank you.

-Andy

alan
July 13, 2004, 01:43 PM
I noticed that someone mentioned "gay marriage". Seems to be a m ite off topic to me, but let that slide.

On "gay marriage" itself, my take is as follows, for whatevber it might be worth.

If "gays" want to live together, fine with me, provided they do not bother me, or endanger my safety by so doing. Should they opt to "marry", that too is O.K. with me. After all, why should only heterosexuals be miserable?

Lobotomy Boy
July 13, 2004, 02:25 PM
The anti gay marriage amendment was brought up as a possible vehicle for attaching a renewal of the AWB. My point was that both are largely symbolic to the general public (unless you are gay or a gun afficianado), and making each an issue is designed more to appease the extremist element of the respective major parties (Radical Dem=hate scary black rifle; radical Repub=hate scary married homo). Eliminating battle rifles won't reduce crime because most criminals don't elect to purchase expensive military weapons to commit crimes. Eliminating married gays won't reduce heterosexual marriage because if you are so insecure about your sexuality that you join the other team when they legalize gay marriage you are probably a butt cowboy already. If you dig women you'll still dig women if gay marriage is legalized.

Neither issue will effect anyone but gun fans and homosexuals, both relatively small percentages of the population. But they will be effective stirring up the political extremists, which, given the tepid support for both candidates within their respective parties, will be badly needed come November. Understanding how this works will help to make us more effective at ensuring the AWB is not renewed.

I apologize if my tactless language has offended any gay members. For the record, I think anything consenting adults choose to do is fine, as long as it doesn't hurt any innocent person. The two things I find perverted are people who do things to unwilling people or animals (rapists, child molesters, bestophiles), and people who take an interest in the sex lives of other consenting adults (the guy peeking through the bedroom curtains is a much bigger perv than the people in the bedroom, regardless of what they are doing). The way I see it, there are two people whose sex lives concern me. One is me myself and the other is my wife.

Diggler
July 13, 2004, 02:28 PM
Hey, if they want to jump in and experience the income tax marriage penalty, go for it...

Brett Bellmore
July 13, 2004, 02:54 PM
I don't think it's technically feasible to attach the AWB renewal to the FMA, unless they're planning on trying to get 38 states to ratify renewing the ban. One's a law, the other a Constitutional amendment.

Ewok
July 13, 2004, 03:41 PM
My point was that both are largely symbolic to the general public (unless you are gay or a gun afficianado)

Or both. ;)

Schuey2002
July 13, 2004, 04:35 PM
On the contrary, there are no votes to pass a federal amendment on gay marriages in the Senate. The amendment is going to die regardless of whether Feinstein can attach a bill or not;
From Reuters:

President Bush's bid to amend the Constitution to ban same sex-marriage headed toward defeat on Tuesday, with Democratic foe John Kerry accusing him of divisive election-year politics.

Proponents scrambled to win the support of half of the 100-member Senate, but both sides said the measure seemed certain to be blocked on a procedural vote on Wednesday.

If its mostly Republicans backers are unable to get 60 votes to end debate and move to a vote on passage, the proposal will likely be dead for the year. But proponents vowed to try again next year.

"You've got to put senators out there and get a vote total, and then people will say, 'Hey, we disagree,"' explained Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican and a leading backer of the measure. "People will react."

Polls show most Americans oppose same-sex marriage, but split on whether a constitutional ban is needed. Surveys also find voters believe a host of other issues are more important -- such as health care, education and national security.

Republicans forced consideration of the proposed amendment two weeks before Kerry, a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, will receive his party's presidential nomination at the Democratic national convention in Boston.

Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, oppose same sex-marriage, but argue amending the Constitution is not the answer.

Like many Democrats, they say it should be left up to the states to define marriage. They also accuse Republicans of pushing the measure merely to rally their social-conservative base.

Republicans contend gay marriage devalues traditional marriage, which they say is a pillar of civilization, and should be outlawed for the sake of children. ..

Bartholomew Roberts
July 13, 2004, 05:35 PM
Feinstein and Schumer spoke on the Senate floor concerning the semi-auto ban today. Not much to say really...Chuckles lied outright and claimed that the Street Sweeper shotgun (regulated as a destructive device by the ATF) would be back on the streets if the 1994 ban expired.

Mostly they just tried to bring pressure on the President to contact Hastert and allow a vote on the ban renewal. I think it was primarily posturing as they could force the bill out of committee if they had the votes to pass it.

Ironbarr
July 13, 2004, 07:08 PM
Thank you, BR... I hadn't kept up much today.

Shuey, et al -- There's another aspect I heard today that makes sense. If left to the states - with several states opting for the same-sex marriage (SSM) thing and others vehemently anti - SCOTUS would eventually rule it the the law of the land. The amendment would make it harder for SCOTUS to play games.

Domino
July 14, 2004, 12:21 AM
Republicans will try to work the Christian extreme right wing of its ranks into a perverted frenzy about what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms
It's not about what they do in their own bedrooms, it's about a minority attempting to force thier lifestyle into acceptance. I could give a crap less about what gays do but nothing justifies their attempt to errode the family unit by making themselves legitimate and legal couples in matrimony for their own selfish reasons (note... I am not religous in the slightest). There is only one real reason to get married, that is to have children and a family. Gays wishing to get married are only doing this to have thier own silly desires of a ceromony and wedding bells. I will say again that I have no interest in what anyone does in the privacy of their own home but does anyone here actually want to have to explain to their son or daughter that gay marriage is the same as the marriage between you and your partner, because we all know it is not. Imagine you have a gay couple next door and your child is brought up to believe by society and the media that it's OK and acceptable. I apologize for getting off topic.

Lobotomy Boy
July 14, 2004, 07:57 AM
This is getting way off topic, but according to your logic there is no point for me to be married since after 16 years we have no children and we can never have any children. Sorry, but that's developmentally disabled thinking. I suspect that there are enough people that the human race can withstand my wife and I being married simply because we love each other.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 14, 2004, 11:41 AM
Please take the off-topic stuff to another thread and leave this one for updates on what is happening in the Senate.

Ironbarr
July 14, 2004, 02:16 PM
they are now considering which "other bills" they should NOW Today consider since they have shot down the marriage amendment, setting it aside, and now have time for "other things".

Remember Wrangell and DIFEI got to bring up the AWB yesterday, so it's "in the hopper" somewhere.

Stay tuned!

-Andy

sch40
July 14, 2004, 05:15 PM
anything happen today?

TooTaxed
July 14, 2004, 06:54 PM
Folks, whether this ban temporarily ends here...or not?...it won't go away. We'll be fighting it in the next session of Congress.

We must strive to elect as many pro-gun congressmen this year as possible...and defeat as many anti-gun congressmen as possible. To that end I've donated funds to the California Republican Party earmarked to defeat Barbara Boxer. If Schumar comes up for reelection in New York, I'll certainly do the same there. And, dont foget the NRA's ILA! I'm also talking with those friends of mine who are anti or undecided about gun rights.

Nice to work with you folks!:D

Ironbarr
July 21, 2004, 12:19 AM
Last post was a week ago - anything happening out there? Let's not let someone sneak in on us.

-Andy

alan
July 21, 2004, 12:55 AM
I cannot verify it, one way or the other, but I've heard some rumors to the following effect.

That Republican leadership might be willing to make a swap. Extend the AW ban, which I believe would be a very bad move on their part, in exchange for passage of the law to bar idiot suits against gun makers, distributors and dealers. If Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist had done his job, the poison pills that served to kill the anti suit legislation would never have gotten to the floor, or even have been voted on. Alas, he failed dismally.

By the bye, even if the AW ban does sunset, as per schedule, there are still problems. In the August issue of American Rifleman, page 91, you will find references to some of the "problems".

Aside from those mentioned, there are the following, and these are simply things that pop into mental view.

1. GCA '68
2. The Machinegun ban of 1986
3. The National Firearms Act of 1934
4. Any number of Executive Orders, from past presidents. Clinton and Bush the First come to mind..

TooTaxed
July 21, 2004, 09:05 AM
This is worth posting here... The single best site listing the voting record of ALL Senators and Representatives on 21 anti-gun bills is:

www.bradycampaign.org/facts/scorecard

Use this to call candidates on their campaign statements! (By the way, Kerry voted the Brady position on all 21, earning a 100% rating from them!)

thorazine
July 23, 2004, 04:25 PM
http://www.gunowners.org/a072204.htm


www.gunowners.org
Jul 2004
Anti's Trying to Rescue the Semi-Auto Ban from Death Row
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585
Friday, July 23, 2004

Thanks to your efforts, the Clinton semi-auto ban is about to expire.

The ban on magazines and firearms -- passed in 1994 -- represents one of the most hated pieces of gun control ever enacted. But with less than two months to go (and Congress being in recess most of that time), the ban is scheduled to sunset on September 13, 2004.

Anti-gun Senator Dianne Feinstein, however, is not giving up and is pushing hard to get the semi-auto ban tacked on to some other bill.

So far, you have been instrumental in bolstering the resolve of a few key Senators, who have managed to thwart Feinstein's every move and, thus, keep the semi-auto ban from getting to the President's desk. Consider what you have accomplished in recent months:

* In March, you encouraged Senators to kill a bipartisan bill that had become loaded down with anti-gun amendments -- riders which included the semi-auto gun ban. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist could have used parliamentary tactics to disallow all gun-related amendments, but he specifically rejected that strategy. The underlying legislation, which would have helped to protect gun makers from frivolous lawsuits, fell under the weight of your activism against the anti-gun riders.
* Most recently in July, your efforts resulted in Senator Frist using the very parliamentary tactics that he had rejected only a few months earlier. This time, grassroots pressure convinced him to block the semi-auto ban as an amendment to the class action bill (S. 2062).
Now, there are less than a dozen legislative days left. And the gun banners are "pulling out all the stops" to get this bill passed.

The focus of their ire is being directed at Senator Frist, since he was instrumental in keeping anti-gun amendments from being offered to S. 2062. One anti-gun website is calling on its readers to "flood Dr. Frist's office with tens of thousands of e-mails telling him to stop blocking the Assault Weapons Ban renewal."

They are also calling on fellow gun banners to pound House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office with calls to renew the ban.

So here's the bottom line: We are winning. The clock is ticking and the Clinton ban will soon die. But the battle is not over yet! The other side is playing its ultimate trump card -- the friendly liberal media -- and is reaching deep into its war chest.

Major newspapers are running anti-gun editorials in favor of renewing the ban. Former Presidents are lobbying Congress with the same message. Law-enforcement bureaucrats are issuing sound bites in cities all across the nation.

And Hollywood types such as Dustin Hoffman, Robert Redford and Barbra Streisand have written a letter to the President, urging him to extend the ban for 10 more years.

There is an all-out effort by the other side right now, and we need to make sure that we are NOT silent. We need to keep the pressure on.

Like the Phoenix, the gun ban renewal could arise out of the ashes at any time. After all, both presidential candidates SUPPORT the ban. Both Kerry and Bush have indicated they want to see the ban renewed.

And even though Majority Leader Tom DeLay has thus far managed to keep this bill off the floor of the House of Representatives, he is being threatened by a politically motivated prosecutor in Austin. His tenure remains in question for the time being, which means that we, gun owners, must remain eternally vigilant!

ACTION: Please urge your Representative to OPPOSE the renewal of the semi-auto ban. Remind him or her that this is an election year and that strident calls from the Brady Bunch in the liberal media do not decide elections! Here’s what you can do:

1. Use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbers are also available).
2. Remember also that since all members of the House are up for reelection -- and Congress is due to take a long summer break -- chances are excellent that you can confront your Rep. in person during the coming weeks. Don't miss an opportunity to do so.
----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear Representative,

I have noticed an alarming and well-coordinated campaign within the mainstream media recently regarding the expected sunset of the semi-auto ban. It is imperative that you not fall victim to the scare tactics -- that instead, you do the right thing and make certain that the semi-auto ban dies its well-deserved death.

Anti-gun forces are trotting out law enforcement bureaucrats, former public officials, Hollywood stars, and anyone else they can find to decry the Bush administration's "lack of action" in calling for Congress to immediately reauthorize this odious gun ban.

Truth be told, those gun grabbers are scared -- they know the American people have thrown out numerous U.S. Representatives in the past for voting to outlaw these common semi-autos. With a mere handful of legislative days remaining before the ban sunsets, they are doing the only thing they can -- working feverishly with their friends in the liberal media, hoping that press coverage alone will spook you into getting aboard the gun-ban train.

I urge you to stand fast. The sky has not fallen, and it will not fall on September 14th. No matter how loud the disarmament crowd and their lackeys in the press scream, these simple weapons have never been the choice of criminals and never will be.

The ban should sunset, and no pro-gun Member of Congress should fear for his or her seat as a result, since media hype does not translate to defeat at the polls. If the media decided elections, Ronald Reagan would never have been President.

Hold the line. Better, remind your pro-gun constituents that you are publicly willing to state that this useless and pernicious law simply needs to go away.

Sincerely and with a watchful eye,

****************************
Help Defend the Second Amendment Every Time You Place a Long Distance Call

Gun Owners of America is in Washington fighting for the Bill of Rights and your Second Amendment freedoms every day.

And you can help GOA every day as well -- or at least as often as you make a long distance phone call.

GOA has partnered with LifeLine -- a conservative, pro-gun long distance provider that gives 10% of your monthly long distance bill to GOA.

LifeLine is NOT affiliated with any anti-gun telephone companies such as MCI, Sprint or AT&T -- all companies which support anti-gun candidates.

LifeLine's newest 2.9 cent Savings Plan offers you the lowest long-distance rate available that directly supports the organization of your choice. For only $4.95 per month, you can get up to 500 minutes of long-distance at one of the lowest rates available today.

And for as little as $49.95 per month, LifeLine Unlimited gives you the freedom to call virtually anyone in the USA, at any time, without ever watching the clock! Plus, get local phone service and all of your favorite calling features; all on one bill, and all for one low price per month.

You can help yourself and help GOA by using LifeLine. Call their toll free number and find out which plan will work best for you. That number is 1-800-800-7550. Or, go to http://www.lifeline.net/index_goa.cfm to sign up via the web.

Please note: Those of you who were previously supporting GOA through Promise Vision phone service should be aware that the company which bought them out, UAT, is NOT honoring the previous commitment of donating a portion of your phone bill to GOA. UAT customers, please consider switching to LifeLine by calling 1-800-800-7550.

alan
July 23, 2004, 07:02 PM
TooTaxed:

Good link, thank you for posting/digging it up.

All:

Re death of the Assault Weapons Ban, much to be hoped for, it's "death" is just the beginning. I suggest that those who have access to American Rifleman, look at the August issue, page 91, which among other things makes mention of other legislation that still exists, for instance the Unsoeld Amendment.

In addition to this, there are, so far as I can remember off-hand, the following, which need to be gotten rid of.

1. The National Firearms Act of 1934.
2. The Gun Control Act of 1968, which was an amendment to the 1934 Act.
3. The 1986 Machinegun Ban.

Hypnogator
July 24, 2004, 05:57 PM
In addition to this, there are, so far as I can remember off-hand, the following, which need to be gotten rid of.

1. The National Firearms Act of 1934.
2. The Gun Control Act of 1968, which was an amendment to the 1934 Act.
3. The 1986 Machinegun Ban.


Amen! :) :) :)

TooTaxed
July 24, 2004, 09:36 PM
The AWB is Feinstein's "cause celebre". I still fully expect her to tack an extension as a rider on some unrelated bill that many congressmen will want to pass...perhaps a budget bill.

I'll celebrate when the AWB is truly expired for this session...until then I'm watching with bated breath...:scrutiny:

alan
July 25, 2004, 12:01 AM
Quote from TooTaxed:

The AWB is Feinstein's "cause celebre". I still fully expect her to tack an extension as a rider on some unrelated bill that many congressmen will want to pass...perhaps a budget bill.

I'll celebrate when the AWB is truly expired for this session...until then I'm watching with bated breath...


__________________


Absolutely. We all need to keep the pressure on those "congress critters". There is no finessing of this issue, no "business as usual", no last minute or back room deals, no gentlemenly arrangements, The Assault Weapons Ban Must Die.

Ironbarr
July 27, 2004, 12:11 AM
Much attention is now on the Dem convention and in those things that might be done re the 911 committee findings. The senate work is about to wind up. So...

Let us not lose our attention to the possible opportunity available for DiFei to slip something through while we're not looking.

-Andy

Leatherneck
July 27, 2004, 07:11 AM
It probably is a good time to contact your Senators and Reps to remind them that we're watching closely...:scrutiny:

TC
TFL Survivor

Ben Shepherd
July 28, 2004, 12:22 AM
The 1-800 number to the whitehouse switchboard is on my fridge, right under the now imfamous picture of the fabulous 4. Called today(7/27), and sent out yet another batch of letters.

DO NOT let you gaurd down on this one folks. Our good buddy Bill Clinton mentioned it in his speech to the democratic conventioners last night, so it is fresh on thier minds.

FREE RIFLEMAN
July 28, 2004, 09:51 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to this, there are, so far as I can remember off-hand, the following, which need to be gotten rid of.

1. The National Firearms Act of 1934.
2. The Gun Control Act of 1968, which was an amendment to the 1934 Act.
3. The 1986 Machinegun Ban.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This what I call an excellent start!

Oh, hi! This is my first post... I heard of the site while on FAL Files, stopped by and liked it so much, I joined! (It was the "Molon Labe!" that did it!)

Yes, I've written, I'm ignored like the rest of you.
In between letters, I reload. I suggest everyone here do the same.
If all we do is worry and hinder the Anti-Freedom Bigots, we are doing a great service to freedom without even squeezing a trigger. A side benefit is that it is fun to annoy liberals... Of course, that doesn't mean we don't have our "full capacity" magazines loaded. Happy Hunting!

Apache
July 29, 2004, 05:53 PM
Bama candidate- "a champion of gun cotrol!"
Someone should tell them that with friends like BAMA, they need no enemies!
They're going to now and forever lose the gun owners' vote!

Ironbarr
July 30, 2004, 11:22 PM
Let's see - isn't toting an UZI in WashDC illegal... (immoral, and fattening)?

Did she pay her $200 and get her ticket?

Isn't mere possession (as in NOT the owner/ticket-ee) illegal?

If loaned to her for the occasion, isn't the loan-or at risk?

Isn't "holding and UZI outside the U. S. Capitol", somewhat akin to brandishing - and can it not be construed as a threat to those inside?

If you or I had done this, where would we be today, I wonder?

Hmmm....Weapons ban faces a quiet death
Politicians seem reluctant to stir up trouble in an election year by
renewing an assault weapons law.
By WES ALLISON, Times Staff Writer
Published July 24, 2004

WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, her political identity
forever one of grieving wife and mother, stood outside the U.S.
Capitol this week holding an Uzi, as she passionately decried her
colleagues' disinterest.

Ten years ago, fueled by a flurry of public mass murders and rising
disgust with gun violence, Congress handed gun advocates their worst
defeat in years, passing a ban on assault weapons and limiting the
number of bullets a magazine can hold to 10.

It was a hard-fought victory, and passing it meant acquiescing to a
key provision: In 2004, the ban would expire unless Congress renewed
it.

The ban expires in six weeks. Congress does not appear likely to renew it.

"That's good news for the criminals, the drug dealers, the terrorists
who are supposedly in our country," McCarthy, D-N.Y., said outside
the Capitol.

She sought office after her husband was one of six people killed in
the Long Island Railroad shooting in 1993. Her son was badly wounded.
"Renewing this ban is about whether America will tolerate weapons of
war on our streets and in our neighborhoods."

National polls show broad support for the ban - 60 to 70 percent of
Americans typically favor it - but the politics aren't as clear as
one might think. As the expiration date nears, Democratic and
Republican leaders in Congress have shown little enthusiasm for
renewing the ban, as each party hopes to temper the divisive issue of
gun control in the upcoming elections.

The assault weapons ban marked a major victory for the Democrats back
in 1994, but renewing it has not become a priority for Democratic
leaders, especially in the House.

Although popular among rank-and-file Democrats in Congress, and 124
of them have signed onto a bill to renew the ban, championing gun
control has hurt the party among white working-class voters,
especially in the South and Midwest; some say they have lost races
because of it - including the 2000 presidential election.

Robert Spitzer, author of The Politics of Gun Control, said many
Democrats believe Al Gore's strong antigun stances cost him West
Virginia, which usually votes Democratic, and helped him lose
Arkansas and Tennessee.

John Kerry, like President Bush, supports the ban on assault weapons,
and in March he left the campaign trail to make a Senate vote for
extending it. But he has spent more time portraying himself as a
friend of firearms, twice going hunting with the press corps in tow.

"So they (Democrats) have tried to back away, or approach it the way
John Kerry is approaching it - talking about Second Amendment rights,
hunting, sportsmanship," said Spitzer, a political science professor
at the State University of New York at Cortland.

"In a certain respect, they have mixed feelings about pushing that
issue above other issues."

The assault weapons ban is the one issue where President Bush has
split with the National Rifle Association, which maintains the ban
punishes law abiding gun owners and is ineffective against crime.
Bush has publicly backed the ban since his campaign of 2000, and he
has indicated he would sign the renewal - a popular position among
suburban swing voters in close states, including Florida and Ohio.

But the White House has not pushed the matter in Congress, and
Republicans in the House say they won't bring it to the floor unless
he does. If Bush doesn't have to sign it, lawmakers say, he faces
little risk of alienating his conservative Republican base, which
tends to be staunchly pro gun.

"It's probably a good thing for the president if this doesn't come
up," said Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Oviedo, adding that "quite a few folks
in the gun owning community would be offended if we did take it up."

Every major law enforcement association supports continuing the ban,
and Jill Ward, lobbyist for Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said she
believes it would pass the Senate, where it was approved as part of a
larger measure in March.

But House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has no plans to get it to the
floor, lawmakers say. Lacking a major push by voters as lawmakers
campaign in their districts next month, supporters are not overly
hopeful.

"This works out very comfortably politically for everybody," grumbled
Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., who cosponsored a bill with McCarthy to
extend the ban.

The assault weapons ban was the most contentious part of a
$30-billion crime bill in 1994, coming after high-profile shootings
on the Long Island Railroad, in a cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, and in
a police station in Washington, D.C. It passed the Democratic led
Congress only after intense lobbying by President Clinton and with
the aid of former Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

The provision bans the manufacture and sale of 19 types of rifles and
machine pistols that are generally designed to fire multiple rounds
quickly, including the Uzi, the AK-47, the TEC-9, and the M-11. It
also bans high-capacity magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets.

The law exempts guns that already were on the market. It also exempts
650 types of semiautomatic rifles and pistols commonly used for
target practice, self defense or hunting, but limits them to just two
"evil factors," as some gun dealers call them - muzzle flash
suppressor, extended pistol grip, folding stock, bayonet mount and
the ability to accept a high-capacity magazine.

The effect of the ban is difficult to gauge. To support their side,
advocates and opponents cite dueling studies and, in at least one
case, the same Urban Institute study. Funded by Congress and
published in 1997, that study concluded that murder rates dropped
slightly more than expected after the ban took effect.

But the NRA points out that the Urban Institute also said "the
assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun
murders, because the banned weapons were never involved in more than
a modest fraction of all gun murders."

Rep. Clay Shaw, a senior Republican from Fort Lauderdale, voted for
the ban in 1994. He said that before it expires, Congress at least
should hold hearings to determine how effective the ban has been.

"We shouldn't just have a knee-jerk reaction to it and then let it
fall on the floor like red meat," Shaw said between votes on the
House floor this week. "Study how it's worked, how it's benefited us,
if anybody feels like their ... constitutional rights have been
interfered with."

The expiration date is Sept. 13, 10 years to day after Clinton signed
it. That's about six weeks away, but Congress left town Friday and
won't return until the day after Labor Day, leaving members just four
more working days until the deadline.

Rep. McCarthy will address the Democratic National Convention
Wednesday in Boston, her best chance to appeal to a national
audience. In an interview from her district on Long Island, she said
she believes most people will be surprised to learn the ban will
expire.

The man who killed her husband, Dennis, on the train in Long Island
back in December 1993 did not use a gun covered by the ban. He used a
9mm pistol still legal today.

But his magazine held 15 rounds - five more than allowed under the
assault weapons ban - which let him keep firing as he moved through
the train car. Passengers rushed him when he stopped to reload.

jimpeel
August 1, 2004, 02:08 AM
But his magazine held 15 rounds - five more than allowed under the assault weapons ban - which let him keep firing as he moved through the train car. Passengers rushed him when he stopped to reload.Yeah. For the SECOND TIME!

I love the way they attempt to make it seem like he was rushed when he reloaded the first time and they could have spared lives if he hadn't had that extra five rounds.

FACT: Her husband and son were among the first to be shot and would have been shot even if he had had a ten round magazine.

FACT: The other passengers stopped him using the only arms they are allowed to bear in NYC -- the ones attached to their shoulders.

FACT: The shooter bought the firearm in CA at B&B Guns. B&B had a corporate policy of adding one day to the waiting period so he waited sixteen days instead of the normal state mandated fifteen days.

FACT: He purchased the firearm fully seven months before he went on his rampage.

FACT: The shooter was a racist who bypassed Blacks for White and Asian targets.

FACT: If Carolyn McCarthy's husband and son had been Black, they would be alive today.

FACT: Colin Furguson was never charged with a hate crime.

alan
August 1, 2004, 06:54 PM
jimpeeland anyone else interested:

Re McCarthy on Assault Weapons:

Her husband and son were shot with an ordinary handgun, illegally in New York. No Assault Weapons, real or so-called, were involved.

Other than a terrible campaign put on by the Republican opponent, likely the only thing she had gong for her was the sympathy vote, and the idiocy of the electorate.

I wonder as to how long a time will pass before Mr. Ferguson is declared "cured" and is released?

Last, but not least, just like with the airplane hijackings of 9/11, if any of the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS who were passengers on that train had been armed, quite possibly the only person shot might have been Ferguson. Given that such was not the case, we are left to speculate on a number of things.

benEzra
August 1, 2004, 07:41 PM
Someone should write a very polite letter to the author of this story and point out the glaring factual errors in what the ban actually covers.

"Machine pistols"?

"Exempts 650 semiautos"? Hardly. Exempts less than 10 self-loaders, doesn't it? And ZERO handguns.

alan
August 2, 2004, 12:02 AM
Ironbarr wrote:asked
Senior Member


Interesting...
Let's see - isn't toting an UZI in WashDC illegal... (immoral, and fattening)?

Didn't you know that those congress critters and other special persons, as with the late Carl Rowan, of garden/swimming pool shooting fame, get "special consideration", not available to us mere mortals.

The Gentle Lady from Long Island, N.Y. is one such.

Ironbarr
August 2, 2004, 01:23 AM
I - just - had - to - ask....

AimHigh
August 2, 2004, 01:53 PM
I heard President Bush speak this morning concerning terrorism. A reporter asked him if he would call back Congress for a special session. He said no, he would let them think about some issues (concerning terrorism). So, as those of us have been stating for some time, the AWB is just about over (for now). Unless of course we do something really stupid, like vote in John sKerry.

Ironbarr
August 2, 2004, 03:03 PM
AWB - yeah, but...

I heard a call for a special session last week. Kerry's calling for it now. I don't have a doubt one that DiFEI would attach an amendment to whatever a special session would come up with. Also, they could just call the proper committee for "revue and action" then bring in the rest (before 9/14) for a vote - even after midnight.

Don't think for a minute that the fat lady has aready sang her Swan Song.

alan
August 2, 2004, 04:46 PM
Ironbarr AWB - yeah, but...

I heard a call for a special session last week. Kerry's calling for it now. I don't have a doubt one that DiFEI would attach an amendment to whatever a special session would come up with. Also, they could just call the proper committee for "revue and action" then bring in the rest (before 9/14) for a vote - even after midnight.

Don't think for a minute that the fat lady has aready sang her Swan Song.

Re the foregoing, Might I repeat something I've already said, multiple times. We ignore the continuing need to keep the pressure on our "elected things", AT OUR PERIL.

jimpeel
August 3, 2004, 12:13 AM
Her husband and son were shot with an ordinary handgun, illegally in New York. No Assault Weapons, real or so-called, were involved.I am quite aware of that fact. It was a Ruger handgun purchased from now-defunct B&B Sales.

HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Ferguson) is the story

Colin Ferguson was convicted of the December 7, 1993 shooting of 25 people aboard the 5:33 pm Long Island Rail Road commuter train out of Penn Station, at Merillon Avenue station in Garden City, New York. Ferguson was wrestled to the floor of the train by three men, as he reloaded his Ruger P-89 9mm pistol for the third time, and held until the arrival of police.

jimpeel
August 3, 2004, 12:16 AM
Something else that is of interest in tha Ferguson case.

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/spree-killers/colin-ferguson/

4 Mar 1996 A meritless lawsuit filed by victims' families against Olin, manufacturer of Black Talon ammunition, and Ruger, manufacturer of the gun Ferguson used in the killings, is dismissed because it would involve a wholesale expansion of tort law. McCarthy v. Sturm, Ruger and Co., Inc., 916 F.Supp. 366 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) She didn't get the money so she decided she'd get even.

Ironbarr
August 3, 2004, 03:04 PM
Some congress critters are back in WashDC considering the 9/11 recommendations and Bush's comments - which means (in my insidious mind) that any action coming out of this, now or in Sept before 9/14, could include an AWB extension attempt. After all, the new intelligence mogul, etc., is a big hot button now.

Let's stay on top of this, my friends.

-Andy

mec360
August 4, 2004, 10:11 AM
This morning, Dennis Hastert was on NPR's Morning Edition. The interviewer asked him about the AWB, and Hastert said "been there, done that," and expressed doubt that the renewal could get past the Senate even if it could clear the House. More interesting was his tone toward the question. During the other parts of the interview, he was pretty responsive to the questions, but for this question, he acted like this was old news and he was clearly ready to go on to the next question.

I think you can actually listen to the interview on NPR's website, but I don't know how long their archives stay up.

71Commander
August 4, 2004, 10:18 AM
Hey mec360, welcome and thanks for the update.

Leatherneck
August 4, 2004, 11:17 AM
What ironbarr said. I can hear it now: "As part of securing ourselves and our chirren from 9/11 Redux, we must extend the AWB--it's for our Saaaafety!" :barf:

TC
TFL Survivor

Bartholomew Roberts
August 4, 2004, 03:13 PM
I am going to defloat this one as the Senate will not be meeting to pass legislation until September 8. We can start a new thread then if necessary.

If you enjoyed reading about "Critical: Feinstein/AWB on Senate Calendar!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!