Do you think the AWB would be repealed if it wasn't set to expire?


PDA






Lone_Gunman
June 14, 2004, 12:34 PM
Or do you think we would be stuck with it indefinitely?

I always thought that if we ever got the House, Senate, and Presidency controlled by Republicans at the same time, that we would see some repeal of gun control laws. I have donated money to the Republicans in the past and have consistently voted for them because of their supposedly pro gun stance. Yet I dont see them doing anything to actually get rid of laws, they just arent pushing real hard for more.


Is all hope lost or am I just having a bad Monday?

If you enjoyed reading about "Do you think the AWB would be repealed if it wasn't set to expire?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ewok
June 14, 2004, 12:37 PM
Well, the short answer is that you need more than a simple majority to pass legislation to which the other party is strongly opposed.

Zach S
June 14, 2004, 12:40 PM
IIRC a vote to have the AWB repealed made it trough the house in '96, but didnt see the floor of the senate.

Lone_Gunman
June 14, 2004, 12:40 PM
No, a simple majority is all it takes.

Don Gwinn
June 14, 2004, 01:14 PM
No, I don't.

Fastlane
June 14, 2004, 01:16 PM
To many RINO'S in the Republican Party. Just look at the number of RINO'S that Ohio has. And we keep voting for them because they are Republicans.

A death of a thousand cuts comes to mind.

antsi
June 14, 2004, 01:51 PM
Without the sunset clause, it never would have gotten passed in the first place. The bill was dying, and the sunset clause was a last minute deal to save it.

Lone_Gunman
June 14, 2004, 02:17 PM
Antsi, that may be true, but didnt answer the question.

hillbilly
June 14, 2004, 02:22 PM
Lonegunman, antsi's answer does answer your question.

If the Democrats had attempted to pass the AWB without the sunset provision, it would have never been passed in the first place.

The only thing that allowed the AWB to pass by exactly THREE FREAKIN' VOTES (one of which was the tie-breaking Senate vote cast by Vice President Al Gore) was the sunset clause.

No sunset clause, no AWB.

It's pretty much that simple.

hillbilly

Bartholomew Roberts
June 14, 2004, 02:58 PM
Actually, the Republicans tried to repeal the ban in 1996 (two years after it was passed) and it died in the Senate after Clinton promised to veto it even if it did pass. Republican representatives like Ron Paul (and Tom Coburn - now running for Senate in OK) continued to propose a repeal of the ban even as late as 2002.

None of those went anywhere because the Senate has always been the sticking point. The original ban passed as an amendment (S.AMDT 1152 to S.1607) by a vote of 56-43.

In March, the renewal of it passed as an amendment again but this time the vote was only 52-47. With the Senate still closely divided (Republicans have 51 seats), we lost because although only seven Republicans supported gun control, even fewer Democrats opposed it.

Four of the Senators who voted against us are retiring this year from southern, pro-gun states (NC, SC, LA, FL). In addition, some of the other Senators who opposed us are facing tight battles for reelection (Daschle). This will be the first time in a long while we have a good chance at enough pro-gun votes in both the House and Senate (and a President who will sign them)

No, a simple majority is all it takes.

Unless a die-hard grabber like Feinstein or Schumer, etc. wants to filibuster a bill in the Senate - then we need 60 votes to reach cloture. Until we have a filibuster-proof majority of pro-gun votes in the Senate, no legislation will get repealed unless Dianne and Chucky just decide they don't want to fight that fight.

Yet I dont see them doing anything to actually get rid of laws, they just arent pushing real hard for more.

They can't get rid of laws without the tools to do that (Enough Representatives and Senators to support the push). Even with this, they did manage to pass the Tiahrt Amendment easing some restrictions on FFLs and giving greater privacy protection to buyers under NICS.

Personally, I like our chances for this November in the House and Senate. Wouldn't it be nice to have a majority in both the Senate and the House and a President who hasn't vetoed a bill yet?

We will still have to deal with filibuster attempts that we aren't strong enough to override; but even powerful Senators like Feinstein don't have endless political capital - one or two will get through.

Lone_Gunman
June 14, 2004, 04:30 PM
Why arent the Republicans at least bringing the issue up from time to time?

Other than the AWB, I haven't heard any of them suggest anything else be repealed.

Seems like they want our votes, then don't push the issue once they get them.

Werewolf
June 14, 2004, 04:45 PM
Other than the AWB, I haven't heard any of them suggest anything else be repealed.It would be interesting to hear exactly what Gun Control laws they should be trying to repeal.

As far as I'm concerned unless they repeal the GCA of 1934 and 1968 what little that would be accomplished would be like offering a man dying of thirst some heavily salted beef jerky.

What exact laws should the lawmakers be trying to repeal?

Standing Wolf
June 14, 2004, 04:51 PM
Counting on the Republican party to do the right thing for the nation's civil rights is like counting on Wal Mart to save your house if it catches fire.

Frankly, I think every law ought to have a sunset date.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 14, 2004, 05:32 PM
Why arent the Republicans at least bringing the issue up from time to time?

You know, you should go down to your local Republican party and ask them that question. If you let them know that you supported them in 2000 and 2002 and haven't been happy with the results, that is information they can relay up the chain.

THR is a more immediate way to express dissatisfaction with policy; but sadly it doesn't necessarily have the same impact.

Other than the AWB, I haven't heard any of them suggest anything else be repealed.

What are they going to repeal when they can't even get traction with the semi-auto ban repeal? Isn't this kind of like criticizing somebody for not having detailed investment plans for the lottery money they haven't won yet?

LAR-15
June 14, 2004, 06:46 PM
The Republicans aren't going to waste time on bills that won't pass.

I wouldn't.

S 1805 had a fair number of Democrat cosponsors actually.

But obviously a lot of senators like the AWB too.:(

7.62FullMetalJacket
June 14, 2004, 07:29 PM
Mr. Roberts is doing a winderful job at running the ball on this one.

We have just stopped the gun control laws. Incrementalism. Gun control has been made a loser political issue by our efforts. The next step will be forward movement (that darn inertia thing). The House did pass the Gun Mfg. Liability bill and the Senate tried to get it through. Feinstein, Schumer, Kerry, Kennedy (and others) orchestrated the straw that broke the camel's back. The efforts of four senators from 2 states killed it.

We are getting there. Stay the course and keep fighting.

carpettbaggerr
June 15, 2004, 01:40 AM
What exact laws should the lawmakers be trying to repeal?


1. Follow up on the AWB sunset with a repeal of the section of the FOPA '86 which banned the manufacture of new machineguns. The Grabbers played off most peoples ignorance to get the semiauto ban. Now we can use the same thing to get new machineguns. People heard the law already expired, so they won't fight as hard against new machineguns.

2. Remove silencers from the NFA as a safety measure. Protecting everyone's hearing dontchaknow.

3. National CCW.

Lone_Gunman
June 15, 2004, 01:46 AM
Mr. Roberts, I can get no one in the Republican party to respond to my letters. I have written several times, and get no response.

They do, however, continue to send me requests for donations about once every 2 to 4 weeks.

carnaby
June 15, 2004, 01:51 AM
hell no. Thank god for the sunset clause.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 15, 2004, 08:42 AM
Lone_Gunman, have you tried showing up at the local party office and addressing your concerns directly in person? Usually they have meetings, conferences, etc. that allow some discussion of issues.

The more involved you are in the party process, the more weight will be given to your comments. If you are Joe Smith writing them a letter, it is going to carry less weight than a letter from Joe Smith, local Republican activist (unless you happen to have sent them a lot of money).

Traning a political party is like training a dog, positive reinforcement and food (money) are very effective behavior modification tools.

Lone_Gunman
June 15, 2004, 08:51 AM
No, I havent gone to any local meetings.

Seems odd to me though that various senators and congressmen have been able to write me back personal letters addressing questions I raised. I am not talking form letters, I am talking letters that actually addressed specific questions.

But the Republican Party leadership has no system or ability to respond to letters its own members?

I get nothing except requests for more money, which they aren't getting until they answer my questions and stop running liberals.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 15, 2004, 09:03 AM
Seems odd to me though that various senators and congressmen have been able to write me back personal letters addressing questions I raised....But the Republican Party leadership has no system or ability to respond to letters its own members?

Well, your Congressman serves a district that would probably include about 600,000 people. Your Senator serves the entire state of Georgia and all of its population.

Neither of those are easy tasks even with staff dedicated solely to that function. At the National level, a political party is going to receive millions of letters from all across the country. Answering even part of those can be a daunting task, assuming the letter went to the right place to begin with and didn't go to some level in the party where such mail is routinely roundfiled. Finally, add to it that because it is a national party any comment from them has to be so vague and gladhandling as to be meaningless since they must run the risk that the most inoffensive comment in their letter to you might somehow become public and offend people clear across the country in the vital swing county of Bugtussle.

This is why I recommend you contact your local Republican party - they don't have to deal with the entire nation and they are likely to know who to contact in the national party to get answers to your questions. They can also give you straight answers that the national party will never give you even if they know the answer.

Treylis
June 15, 2004, 03:26 PM
To many RINO'S in the Republican Party. Just look at the number of RINO'S that Ohio has. And we keep voting for them because they are Republicans.

Just wait--in 10 years, maybe 20, the "RINO" of today will be the toeing the standard Republican party line. Hell, it's like that now--look at the party plank of the Republicans, which calls for "vigorous enforcement of current gun laws". That's how conservatism works--compromise, move along, move to the center... and when the center is being dragged ever leftwards by people with more consistent and more evil principles, it's a recipe for disaster.

Frohickey
June 15, 2004, 03:34 PM
No, a simple majority is all it takes
Not when you have the Senate rule that requires 60 in order to stop a filibuster.
Democrats have been proficient in using the filibuster, while Republicans are spineless in this tactic.

Frohickey
June 15, 2004, 03:51 PM
Georgia GOP (http://www.gagop.org/default.asp?pt=doc&doc=about)
Go to the url, select the county or district that you are in and sit in on their monthly meetings.

Come to think of it, I need to do the same.

Waitone
June 15, 2004, 05:50 PM
No

In my view everything congress does ought to have a sunset on it. Taxes in particular followed quickly by environmental law.

Republicans are still in a "Go along to get along" mode. Makes no sense for the majority party to think that way but there it is.

greyhound
June 15, 2004, 06:34 PM
Well, I think "gun control" in general is one of those hot button issues that most politicians would rather not address.

That's why the March vote on S1805's AWB extension was such a big deal - it forced the RINOS and Democrats from "red" states to show their true hands.

Heck, even John Kerry came in on Super Tuesday to give the thumbs up for the AWB extension.....

TheOtherOne
June 15, 2004, 09:43 PM
Just wait--in 10 years, maybe 20, the "RINO" of today will be the toeing the standard Republican party line.I've heard people say that Democrats from JFK's time make the Republicans of today look like diehard liberals.

Treylis
June 16, 2004, 09:52 AM
I've heard people say that Democrats from JFK's time make the Republicans of today look like diehard liberals.

That's true. You think we're ever going to hear a prominent Republican even passingly mention the merest idea of maybe considering abolishing Social Security? Hell, no. And with each passing second, it becomes less and less likely.

"It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea."
--Robert Anton Wilson

halvey
June 16, 2004, 10:42 AM
We'd be stuck with it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Do you think the AWB would be repealed if it wasn't set to expire?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!