What about the Bush (41) AWB executive order?


PDA






AmericanFreeBird
August 9, 2004, 05:29 PM
When the '94 "Crime bill" assault weapons ban expires this September (assuming it does), what will happen to the Bush Sr. (41) executive order that bans importation of certain receivers and their parts?

Was it superceded by the '94 ban or will it still be in full force?

AFB

If you enjoyed reading about "What about the Bush (41) AWB executive order?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
2nd Amendment
August 9, 2004, 06:29 PM
Two totally separate issues, are they not? The EO stands on its own legs until directly recinded by another EO or vacated by act of Congress, I believe.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 9, 2004, 06:33 PM
The ban on importation of parts is not an EO; but a law passed by Congress (the Unsoeld Amendment). So it will not be going away until Congress repeals it...

AmericanFreeBird
August 10, 2004, 09:18 AM
Well, IMHO, this ban expiring is really only a small event. There are many laws that need repealing and I just can't see that happening in my lifetime with these breed of politician/liars (on both sides of the house).

What a pittiful bunch of bliss ninnies this country has devolved into. :rolleyes:

Tamara
August 10, 2004, 09:33 AM
The ban on importation of parts is not an EO; but a law passed by Congress (the Unsoeld Amendment). So it will not be going away until Congress repeals it...

I don't believe that they were referring to that, but rather to the Bennett-hyped Bush Ban, which (in the form of an EO to the BATF) introduced several new bugaboos to the American gun lover 'way back in '89:

1) A list of guns by name, which were no longer approved for importation.
2) A list of features which, if possessed by an otherwise banal semiauto firearm, rendered it a slavering "assault weapon" of the "non-sporting" variety, and unfit for importation.

Bush and Bennett pushed to get the Import Ban used as a model for legislation that would apply to domestically-produced weapons as well, but it never gathered enough inertia 'til some five years later, and was then only passed on the condition of a ten year sunset. It did make Perotnistas out of a lot of gun owners, since they'd been treated rather poorly at the hands of Bush.


EDIT: Whoops! My bad! You were right; however, all the kids getting cranked up about running out and buying the SIG 550 or HK G36 of their dreams should take note of what I've written above... ;)

AmericanFreeBird
August 10, 2004, 10:04 AM
So I'm correct that Bush the older did ban importation via an EO. :banghead: I had no idea though that he used the Hitlerian "sporting purposes" language though. That I find very disturbing.

I'll probably be voting Libertarian anyway as Bush has no chance of winning CT state this election season anyway. Hopefully they'll crest that magical 5% threshold and be a nationally recognized party? :scrutiny:

PigPen
August 10, 2004, 12:24 PM
Americanfreebird,

I feel that I must remind you of a lesson I learned in 1968. Seemed that just about everyone would vote for the third party candidate (at least they said so)...............I certainly thought so from all the folks that I talked with. (pardon the preposition) But when the dust settled, those older and perhaps wiser than I had not voted for the third party...................they had voted for Richard Nixon who as we all now know won handily. Had a significant percentage of them not done so, things might have been much worse.

Now this year, I will decide which of the two major parties candidates I most agree with.

Once burned twice shy!! My advice to others is to do likewise.

PigPen

Treylis
August 11, 2004, 03:52 AM
Once burned twice shy!! My advice to others is to do likewise.

Yes, because Nixon was such a spectacular President.

Some of us think ahead longer than just the next election. If you want to keep sanctioning evil, don't act surprised if it gets worse, and it will.

Sam Adams
August 11, 2004, 07:33 PM
Some of us think ahead longer than just the next election. If you want to keep sanctioning evil, don't act surprised if it gets worse, and it will.

How, exactly, will a Kerry Presidency be better for gun owners than a Bush 2nd term? I am no Bushbot - I'm royally P.O.'d about campaign finance reform (i.e. gutting the 1st Amendment), elements of the Patriot Act (gutting the 4th), excess spending, not fighting for judges, immigration and a bunch of other things...but consider the following:

The next President will almost certainly appoint between 2 and 4 Supreme Court Justices, along with the usual 100+ lifetime federal judges on the District and Appeals Court levels. Whether merely considering the gun issue, or looking at a host of other issues of major importance to this country, which of the 2 will do far more damage to our country? Courts rule based on precedent (usually), and the precedents established by 2-4 "living Constitution" Justices will echo through many generations of history. Maybe Bush's Justices will be raging moderates on average, but what is the alternative? On this issue, how is defeating a less-than-perfect Bush better in the long run for gun rights than the alternative?

Bush, while not actively pro-gun, has told the UN to shove it regarding gun control. What would Kerry have done and, more importantly, what WILL he do when the issue is inevitably revisited?

Bush has also not lifted a finger to help the cause of gun control (and even demanded a "clean" lawsuit protection bill this past March). He also signed a concealed carry law in Texas back in '95. Compare and contrast to Clinton's 8 years. Now, which of these would Kerry emulate? What has Kerry EVER done that could even remotely be called neutral on guns, let alone pro-gun? What do you expect from each of them in terms of Executive Orders, support for legislation, etc. on the gun issue? Kerry will be FAR worse, no doubt about it - and we may never recover. At least with Bush, you won't have too many changes (if any), and with the growing number of carry licenses out there, we have a chance of turning the tide - not so with Kerry.

Regarding foreign and defense affairs, I can't see Kerry being as proactive in defending this nation against terrorists, or in keeping this nation's military as well supplied and keeping its moral high. Argue however you will about the current war in Iraq, at least Bush is viewing Islamic Fundamentalism as an enemy, not a criminal enterprise, and is DOING SOMETHING about keeping the SOBs off of our shores by killing them in large numbers.

What about the economy? Bush is a proven tax cutter, and Kerry is proven to be the opposite. Tax increases are promised by Kerry (one of the few promises that I believe, given his past record), and won't improve the economy.

Again, I'm no Bushbot, but unless Bush signs a renewal of the AWB, then he's got my vote (and if he does, I'll either stay home or vote Libertarian). Kerry is just too much of a disaster waiting to happen on too many issues that he CANNOT be allowed to live in the White House.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Waiting for the perfect candidate on the gun issue is like waiting for Godot - he'll never arrive. Politics is the art of the practical - you can never get everything you want, but if you want to win over the long run, then you get what you can now and try to stave off disaster until your position is stronger - and then you get more.. Gun control as we know it came by the salami slice over a period of some 60 years (1934 NFA to '94 AWB), and it won't be rolled back overnight. Please keep this in mind when casting your ballot, and when talking to other potential voters.

flatrock
August 12, 2004, 09:35 AM
Some of us think ahead longer than just the next election. If you want to keep sanctioning evil, don't act surprised if it gets worse, and it will.

Exactly how is voting for someone who has no chance of winning, and allowing the worse of two evils thinking long term?

Futile efforts won't change things, and if you want to think long term, the presidential election is the wrong place to start.

The best chance libertarians are going to have is to get representatives in the house and start building a base of power that might make them a more effective force in national politics.

The next hurdle is the senate.

Until libertarians have noticable representation in both houses, their presidential candidate has no credibility, because even if they did get in office there's little they could do.

Kharn
August 13, 2004, 08:11 AM
I wonder if all we need would be W to write an EO saying that Three-Gun, IDPA, ISPC, etc guns are for sporting purposes (wording something like "a sporting firearm is any firearm that can be used in an event or competition with over 500 yearly participants nation-wide"). That should get around the "sporting purposes" clause the import ban is based on.

Kharn

mountainclmbr
August 14, 2004, 08:59 PM
Bushie #1's import ban was the reason I, and many of my friends voted for Perot in '92.

Bushy #1 and Gore (Clinton really admitted it) attest that it is political suicide. Any future "believers" should be placed in a mental health facility before they can off themselves.

madcowburger
August 14, 2004, 09:52 PM
It cost Bush the First my vote, and the NRA's endorsement, and possibly the 1992 election.

But it certainly did not make me a Perotista, because I heard Perot say during one of the televised debates that he favored things like the "Brady Bill" and certain gun bans, and that such things, while good in themselves, were only a necessary first step.

I also knew that he had made statements to the effect that the reason the German and Japanese economies were doing better than ours at the time was that they had shiny new, post-WW II constitutions, while we were handicapped by a 200-plus-year-old one; and that he thought the military should cordon off "poor neighborhoods," and then go door-to-door doing warrantless searches for, and I quote, "drugs, guns, and illegal money." I didn't know it was illegal for poor people to have money.

I voted for the Libertarian Party ticket of Andre Marou and Dr. Nancy Lord in 1992.

Whether I vote for Bush the Second or for Libertarian candidate Badnarik this November depends entirely on what happens about the AWB. None of this other stuff about gay marriage, flag burning, the Ten Commandments, prayer in schools, taxes, and even Iraq even enters into my decission process at all.

MCB

Standing Wolf
August 14, 2004, 11:52 PM
Never—ever!—trust a R.I.N.O.

If you enjoyed reading about "What about the Bush (41) AWB executive order?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!