AWB sunset: cut and dry?


PDA






dadman
August 9, 2004, 10:10 AM
I'm under the assumption that when the AWB sunsets and there's no last minute extension game played, that's it. No post- or pre-ban. A post-ban can be be modified with the previously banned features.

Is there any possibility that there will be future legal interpretation to say that this or that receiver was made during the AWB period, and thus can't be modified? Could there be a new class considered as "AWB era", yet no more pre-/post- ban?

If you enjoyed reading about "AWB sunset: cut and dry?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ssr
August 9, 2004, 10:23 AM
I'm only speculating, but I would think that it would be as if there was never any ban. Everything would essentially be like "pre-ban".

The thing that concerns me, however, is that the fight will not be over. In fact it will probably intensify. There will still be potential federal ban fights. But there will certainly be all the hoopla over the ban sunsetting, and then individual states and local governments trying to enact their own bans. And it will be knee-jerk bans that will come up right away as soon as the ban sunsets, since people will (mistakenly) think that the sunset means that all of a sudden AKs and Uzis, etc will be "flooding" the streets. That is what will will have to contend with. And then the possibility of a new future federal ban.

Kharn
August 9, 2004, 11:12 AM
If Maryland, of all places, can defeat a proposed state-level ban, any other state should be able to as well.

Kharn

2nd Amendment
August 9, 2004, 11:13 AM
If the ban expires that's that(On the federal level). It no longer matters when what was made or what configuration it had or was required to have. BUT, that could change with a law suit and an activist court decision. Of course that would take time and money and effort. The anti-rights faction is much more likely to spend its time and money on getting another AWB rammed thru. If Kerry is "elected" they'll succeed. If Bush wins then we, probably, get a four year reprieve...

ny32182
August 9, 2004, 11:19 AM
If the ban sunsets, it will be as if there was never any federal ban. All the 94-04 guns will be able to be modified as desired. The law will not exist anymore, and therefore it will be impossible to break. You can't break a law that doesn't exist. A judge can be as activist as he wants, but there is no room for interpretation on this point. The law will be gone... therefore you can't be convicted on anything based on it.

ssr
August 9, 2004, 11:33 AM
Yep. I've got alll my telescoping stocks, etc all ready to go.

TallPine
August 9, 2004, 11:43 AM
It also seems to me that it means that you can modify anything you want to fit anything you want, almost indefinitely, regardless if a new AWB is passed later. How can they prove that you didn't modify a mag or something in the interim between AWBs ??

The only way that wouldn't work was if a draconian new AWB was passed that said you couldn't posses X regardless of when X was made, even if you already own it. And if THAT happened, it would be time to load up all those mags, IMO :evil:

2nd Amendment
August 9, 2004, 11:52 AM
A judge can be as activist as he wants, but there is no room for interpretation on this point.

Would take someone with more knowledge than myself to say for certain but based on some of the activist rulings I've read I wouldn't bet on this. A judge can do whatever he wants. Doesn't mean it wouldn't fall on appeal but you've got to be able to afford the appeal. Considering the ilk we're talking about and the depths to which they will stoop to "win" anything is possible.

Regardless though, like I said, I doubt they'll pursue such a course and take resources away from pushing another, even more extreme, AWB.

justashooter
August 9, 2004, 12:56 PM
so a preban receiver can lose it's preban status by being seperated from the features that made it an assault weapon?

mayeb the sword cuts both ways?

Shadowman
August 9, 2004, 01:24 PM
Folks,

What happens if by Executive Order he extends the ban for all intents and purposes (his dad did something like this)?

Thumper
August 9, 2004, 01:43 PM
What happens if by Executive Order he extends the ban for all intents and purposes (his dad did something like this)?

Then he probably wouldn't have demanded that the lawsuit immunity bill NOT have the AWB rider.

Did you miss that little fact?

ctdonath
August 9, 2004, 01:50 PM
It is possible to write a future law defining such a "pre/post-ban" era, mostly by re-instituting the current ban and declaring it applies to '94-'04 items. There would, however, be little point in doing so.

Far more effective (for them) to create a new, more accurate, more effective law (like: ban all centerfires which take detachable magazines of mechanically unrestricted size).

Methinks they learned from the AW ban. They will abuse this new knowledge well.

Lone_Gunman
August 9, 2004, 01:58 PM
The anti-rights faction is much more likely to spend its time and money on getting another AWB rammed thru. If Kerry is "elected" they'll succeed. If Bush wins then we, probably, get a four year reprieve...


That's humorous, seeing as how Bush is on record as supporting the AWB. The only reason he doesn't push for it now is because he knows it would be a good way to end up in the unemployment line in November.

I'll believe Bush won't sign a renewal when he is safely out of office.

Shooter 2.5
August 9, 2004, 02:57 PM
Bush doesn't support a AWB. If he did, he would be out there in the middle of the Rose Garden actively fighting for it. He's not and because of the Republican majority, there will be a sunset of the law.

Thank Bush and the Republican Party by voting for them in November.

Destructo6
August 9, 2004, 03:01 PM
That's humorous, seeing as how Bush is on record as supporting the AWB.
Once again, in a shrewd political move. Knowing that Democrats could not help themselves but to add numerous provisions to the 1994 ban, which he could veto because it was not identical to the 1994 ban. Or, better yet, Republican and gunny Democrats would keep any such ban far away from his desk.

I know, it just doesn't sink in with some.
It is possible to write a future law defining such a "pre/post-ban" era, mostly by re-instituting the current ban and declaring it applies to '94-'04 items. There would, however, be little point in doing so.
Retroactive legislation is, if I'm not mistaken, unconstitutional. You can't be held responsible for what becomes illegal in the future.
so a preban receiver can lose it's preban status by being seperated from the features that made it an assault weapon?
No need. The pre/post ban distinction becomes meaningless. For imports, however, one must still conform to the 1989 import restrictions (922r) and the parts count.

Sam Adams
August 9, 2004, 03:41 PM
It is possible to write a future law defining such a "pre/post-ban" era, mostly by re-instituting the current ban and declaring it applies to '94-'04 items. There would, however, be little point in doing so.

Retroactive legislation is, if I'm not mistaken, unconstitutional. You can't be held responsible for what becomes illegal in the future.

Uh, retroactive legislation (ex post facto laws) are SUPPOSED to be unconstitutional. However, we already have had several: one was Clinton's tax hike, passed sometime after January 1, 1993, which retroactively increased the Estate Tax rate and (if I'm not mistaken) the top income tax bracket back to 1/1/93. Another is the Lautenberg bill, which retroactively bans the ownership or possession of a firearm by anyone convicted of certain offenses - even if those offenses were only misdemeanors at the time of commission, and the time of commission was prior to the effective date of the law. So, we have both a civil and a criminal statute which are clearly Ex Post Facto, and both are still on the books despite being blatant violations of the EPF clause. The tax issue even went to the Supreme Court, which said that this was OK.

Anyway, it isn't necessary to have an EPF law...a new law can merely state that it is illegal to possess a firearm with any of the following characteristics, or more than 1, followed by a long list of common features. This would cover ALL guns, whether pre-AWB, AWB, or post-AWB. Then you'd have a NJ type ban (i.e. an ACTUAL ban, not just a production ban for the future). Of course, you might say that this violated the 2nd Amendment, but we all know how much such arguments have protected us in the past.

Simple point: the gubermint will obey or ignore laws and the Constitution as it sees fit. If you want to do something about it quickly, then regrettably the only option is to get on a horse and go from town to town yelling "the JBTs are coming!, the JBTs are coming!"

2nd Amendment
August 9, 2004, 03:48 PM
That's humorous, seeing as how Bush is on record as supporting the AWB. The only reason he doesn't push for it now is because he knows it would be a good way to end up in the unemployment line in November.

I'll believe Bush won't sign a renewal when he is safely out of office.

As has been repeatedly explained here and elsewhere, Bush never supported the ban. Mouthing platitudes to quiet a noisy faction is not support. Support is pushing for the legislation. Making calls, twisting arms, making speeches. Instead Bush made it quietly clear he expected to never see the thing cross his desk, then lefted not a finger to help it. That's playing smart politics with a hot-button issue.

Whether he signs it or not is up to us and CONgress. If it hits his desk then I have no doubt he'll sign it. So it is necessqry to keep the heat on the CONgress Critters. OTOH, if Kerry squirms into the WH it becomes unlikely we can stop a new bill based on the guarateed fact of Kerry's rabid support for such a thing.

As for safely out of office, THAT is humorous. If Kerry manages to insert himself into office we'll never know what "safety" is on any level.

MP5
August 9, 2004, 03:54 PM
Bush doesn't support a AWB.

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/George_W__Bush_Gun_Control.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A11013-2003Apr11&notFound=true (scroll down a bit)

among other sources

Mouthing platitudes to quiet a noisy faction is not support.

No, it's evasion or cowardice.

Thumper
August 9, 2004, 04:12 PM
Deeds, not words...

Explain this memo, if you can, mp5:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67194&highlight=white+house

Carlos Cabeza
August 9, 2004, 04:22 PM
No news is good news MP5 !

Shooter 2.5
August 9, 2004, 04:25 PM
MP5.
Check the dates of those quotes. They were made before the election.
The second link had a White House spokesman explaining it.
That's a far cry from clintoon's morning Rose Garden talks.

He also said he would sign it IF it reached his desk. If he was supporting the law, it would have been on his desk already.
It's not. It won't be. It's going to be sunsetted. Vote a straight Republican ballont and kick the anti gun dems from office. .

Highland Ranger
August 9, 2004, 04:27 PM
Regarding the original post: No more federal AB correct - there are still several states that passed their own separate AWB like NJ and I believe California and Mass . . . . not sure who else.

2nd Amendment
August 9, 2004, 04:32 PM
No, it's evasion or cowardice.

No. It is smart politics. It is how the game is played at the national level. Those who don't play don't get elected. Those who don't understand that can't debate the issues accurately. That is just how things, sadly, work these days. Also, you cite links showing his words, which I specifically adressed. You ignored the body of what i said so you could repeat your stance. Bad form.

As Thumper said, it's a matter of deeds, not words.

Waitone
August 9, 2004, 07:13 PM
Never ever underestimate the inventiveness and tenacity of a regulatory bureaucrat.

Any number of bureaucracies can pick up the ball and run with it. Combine that with Bush's inability to police his own bureaucracy and you have the potential of at least parts of the ban showing back up.

It was congress with the aid of Senators Feinstein and Boxer that passed and Bush signed legislation mandating the training and arming of airline pilots. A Clinton holdover dragged his feet to the extent he effectively shut the program down using every bureaucratic trick in the book. The situation was so bad congress re-entered legislation to tell the bureaucracy to get busy because congress was not kidding about arming pilots.

To the best of my knowledge Norm Maneta is still steering the appropriate ship. He has defied congress successfully and Bush has done (ready for this) absolutely nothing to get Norm's mind right. Bush does not have a sterling history of cracking the whip to get the bureaucracy lined up. Far, far too many holdovers still draw a paycheck. Until that changes any repeal of the AWB is only temporary until some do good agency decides to help.

Lone_Gunman
August 9, 2004, 07:28 PM
It doesn't matter whether he supports the AWB or not, what matters is whether or not he will sign it if it gets to him, and he is on record as saying he would sign it.

Does anyone here really think he would stand up for once and veto the AWB if it came to his desk?

If you think he would veto it, why do you think that?

He didn't support the 1st amendment when Campaign Finance Reform was sent to him, so why do you think he would care any more about the 2nd amendment?

tulsamal
August 9, 2004, 07:40 PM
What happens if by Executive Order he extends the ban for all intents and purposes (his dad did something like this)?

The President can only sign an Executive Order which lays out how they want some current law enforced. So we had Presidents in the past declaring that such and such gun was not "sporting" and therefore not importable. But the law was already there and in place. They are just re-defining the boundries. (And the President does have some special powers regarding foreign policy.) A President can no more "make a law by decree" than Congress can. Otherwise there are quite a few things Bush would like to see be law that he would be sending out Executive Orders on. And I guess that would be the end of our style of democracy! Congress has to pass it. Both houses. Same bill. The President has to sign it. And the courts have to agree that it is constitutional. That's the way the system works. Happily enough, the whole checks and balances thing keeps a President from being able to do things like that. It would be great if it was a bill you wanted to see be law but not much fun if you were against it.

Gregg

If you enjoyed reading about "AWB sunset: cut and dry?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!