THE Unofficial Countdown to AWB II Thread...

The Judiciary committees in the Senate and House are responsible for hearing gun control legislation. Here is the current makeup of the Senate Judiciary committee:

Leahy - Chairman (GOA F), Kennedy, Biden, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer and Durbin (GOA F-). Except for Leahy, every current Democrat member of the Senate Judiciary committee also voted for Kennedy's 2004 "Let's ban all centerfire rifle ammo (including .30-30 by name)" amendment to S.1805.

In the House, John Conyers will be the Chairman of the House Judiciary. He is the last active Representative to have voted for the 1968 Gun Control Act, a co-sponsor of the harsher McCarthy AWB, and has proposed a total ban on handguns. Here are his current Democrat committee members (thanks to ServiceSoon for the NRA grades):

Berman (D) California, 28th - GOA F/NRA-F (sp McCarthy ban 2005)
Boucher (D) Virginia, 9th - GOA A-/NRA A+
Nadler (D) New York, 8th - GOA F/NRA F (sp McCarthy ban 2005)
Scott (D) Virginia, 3rd - GOA F-/NRA D+
Watt (D) North Carolina, 12th - GOA F-/NRA F
Lofgren (D) California, 16th - GOA F-/NRA F (sp McCarthy ban 2005)
Jackson Lee (D) Texas, 18th - GOA F-/NRA F (sp McCarthy ban 2005)
Waters (D) California, 35th - GOA F-/NRA F (sp McCarthy ban 2005)
Meehan (D) Massachusetts, 5th - GOA F-/NRA F (sp McCarthy ban 2005)
Delahunt (D) Massachusetts, 10th - GOA F-/NRA F (sp McCarthy ban 2005)
Wexler (D) Florida, 19th - GOA F-/NRA F (sp McCarthy ban 2005)
Weiner (D) New York, 9th - GOA F-/NRA F (sp McCarthy ban 2005)
Schiff (D) California, 29th - GOA F-/NRA F (sp McCarthy ban 2005)
Sánchez (D) California, 39th - GOA F-/NRA F (sp McCarthy ban 2005)
Van Hollen (D) Maryland, 8th - GOA F/NRA F (sp McCarthy ban 2005)
Wasserman Schultz (D) Florida, 20th - GOA F/NRA F

So every year since 1989, we have seen AWB legislation proposed in Congress. I think it is highly likely that we will see it proposed again in 2007 and it will go through those committees like the proverbial crap through a goose unless the Dem leadership knows they won't have the votes. If it looks like a close vote, or they think they have the votes, it will go to a floor vote in either the House, the Senate or both.

Beyond that, I can't predict what will happen because it will depend on how bad gun owners want to defeat that legislation and how hard they are willing to work for it. If some of the anger I've seen here in the past few days can be channeled into positive activism, I think we will manage to win the vote in at least one side of Congress.

I also think the new proposed ban will be nasty. I think it will likely prohibit transfer entirely of grandfathered firearms and it will go after magazines in a big way. This one will definitely not have a sunset clause.

Unlike many who think the Dems may pursue the "death of a thousand cuts" strategy, I think they will go the opposite way. They won't have the time or desire to deal with multiple gun bills so they will try to grab everything they can up front. The amendment process in the Senate almost guarantees this will happen.

I will say this, don't waste your money buying vulnerable rifles and magazines unless you just don't own any because chances are good you won't be able to transfer them anyway (like in California) if a new ban is passed. You'd be better off sending the money to a pro-RKBA group for the big fight we are going to have the next two years.

Yes, the committees will be stacked with our worst enemies. All that means is that the scary legislation has a much better chance of coming to a floor vote. That doesn't mean that it'll pass. There are still enough Republicans to maintain a fillibuster, and those freshmen Dems from otherwise conservative states will be real hesitant to ignore their constituencies.

Our key to survival is putting as much pressure as we can on all of our reps and senators.

Grrrrr . . .

by mbt2001
Hey buddy,
Read the rest of what I wrote.

Click to expand...

Sorry, dude.

I just washed my brain and can't do a thing with it.

Most of my rant was not aimed at you, personally; rather it was a boil-over from reading defeatist pronouncements.

We need to make gun control hurt so bad whenever they introduce it that they will eventually look at the burns on their hands and go, "uhhhh, y'know, that's awfully hot."

It's got to be a hot potato that they dare not touch. It's got to make them sweat every time they think of it. Make them reach for the Maalox.

"Gun control? Gulp! No thanks. I'm allergic."

Aversion therapy at its finest.

edit: Colton's post was deleted by the mod, but was something to the effect of 'if you can't hit an attacker with 10 rounds and an extra 10 round mag, you need to get to the range.'

Colton, Do you assume it will be *one* attacker?

Once the line is crossed and a person is justified in using deadly force, does it matter what gun that person chose? or what caliber? or how many shots he is allowed to take to end the threat? How many shots would you fire to protect your wife and kids? Once the criteria for deadly force are met, what right does the government have to say how many chances you get?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15012086/

110 shots fired at this dirbag. Justified. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I realize that it took a whole SWAT team to fire that many shots, but in a crisis I will be alone with my family, and if that were to ever happen I would assert my right to live.

yeah; what Carter said.

Click to expand...

Would have been funnier if I had been able to say AR-14 or AR-16, one number off, but those actually exist, I think.

Somebody should start a pool. I'm in for 20 bucks that says AWBII by the end of 2007. Not sure if President Bush would sign it or not, but while it would be very important to some of us, to a politician it's just another chip to bargain with. If he could trade that chip for something he really wanted, then he'd sell it.

The largest mistake in things like this is that people think that everyone is on one side or another. Most people aren't. I doubt George owns an assault rifle. It doesn't matter to him. If he can trade the political chip for another, he will. In his shoes, I would too. Not this chip, but some other chip that didn't make any real difference to me.

Nio

Well if history is any reference... You guys had better start getting good with your revolvers and single barrel shotguns.

If it is going to happen, it is going to happen and there is practically nothing we can do to stop it.

Afterall, we couldn't stop it in '94... recent history has seen an erosion of the BoR unlike ever before.

Where was the outrage at Bush's assault on the 1st and 4th Amendments? Im sure more that a few gun owners, I think maybe quite a few THR'ers even supported his efforts there? Bush got away with his attack on the BoR... if the Dems want to attack the 2nd, they will. And they will most likely win. Because they know that they will pretty much get away with it.

All we can do is hope, right?

I predict with 100% surety they will put something on the floor of both houses, no question at all with the judiciary committee I see coming.

Whether it will pass I dont know-if it does, I predict a lot of Dems will lose their jobs in 2 years. If not, we may be in for a long haul until the conservatives get their act together again and start running real candidates.

Shweboner quote:

Where was the outrage at Bush's assault on the 1st and 4th Amendments?

Click to expand...

There wasn't any. Bush had an (R) after his name, and that was good enough for most of us. The rest were cutting him some slack and justifying his political expedient conduct while waiting patiently for him to start acting like a conservative.

Still waiting. . .

I agree with the poster that said, some Fienstien hack will have an AWB on the floor that outlaws just about everything from a sling shot on down. Then the "blue dogs" will wrangle over it and get something that allows the sling shots...

Terror... Isn't that the Democratic agenda?

The Prince says that they'll try to pass some sort of legislation, but it can't be anywhere NEAR as extreme as people think. Complete semi-autos ban... no way in hell, same thing with registration and/or confiscation. Again, as I stated in another forum (or was it earlier in this one? oh well) There'd be too much confusion over a gun turn-in program and too much expense with registration (see Canadian Gun Laws and Registration). Also, the number of AW owners is MUCH higher than in 1994. I am relatively new to gun ownership (only owned for 2 years) but almost everyone I know owns at least ONE AW... especially younger buyers. Many of us (20s-30s) don't hunt or didn't grow up hunting. And if you're particularly urban, like me, you prefer your dockers on a city bench to your cammies in the deer blind, but we still like something that looks cool and is multi-function- should I choose to hunt, my AK can do that as well. (as a side note, I have NO problem with hunting, I just don't desire to hunt).

Basically, one of the wacko far-lefties will produce some sort of bill and a large portion of gun owners are going to tell the anti to go F-themselves.

I know name calling is rather childish, but I figure if we call these people "too weak in character" to handle a firearm and publicly emasculate them, we probably will win our gun rights back.

I don't care what happens in the house, no anti gun legislation is going to get out of the Senate (and be at risk of the feckless president signing it).

Here's my current whip count going into the 110th for gun issues.

Folks, it just aint happening (sure they might yell - but not too loud cause 2008 is around the corner - but they will fail)

StrikeFire83, can you move me to the
Dems might win some AWB II victories, but not all camp?

I don't think they'll get one through that has no grandfathering or manditory confiscation.

I am not sure I understand the question being asked in the poll that is being conducted.

Are you asking if an AWB will be passed into law?

Or are you just asking if it will pass in either the House or Senate by the Democrats, but fail to become law?

Preservation of Second Amendment Act

Whereas it is the tendency of small minds and cowards to disarm victims and

Whereas it is the tendency of tyrants to enact laws to disarm populations and

Whereas criminals love unarmed victims and

Whereas an armed citizenry is a strong and secure citizenry and

Whereas the founders of the United States of America promised that its citizens shall never be disarmed

NOW THEREFORE is it HEREWITH ENACTED that it shall be forbidden for any state or local body or the Federal Government itself to enact any rule, ordinance, or legislation restricting the ownership of individual arms.

Okay, so IANAL. I'm sure that someone who's more ANAL than I am can come up with something more complete and comprehensive.

Several pages of blather saying, basically, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

After all, it seems that when you say it too simply, there are minds incapable of grasping the concept.

Maybe a small tome that says it over and over and over in all kinds of different ways would do the job.

So, I wonder, am I kidding?

I'll play.

But I have 2 ideas of what will happen.

Negative ArthurCW says: Yep, they get a sweeping bill that makes even the OWNERSHIP of EBR's illegal. Turn them in boys and girls or risk a cavity search, deep and hard. Oh, and no sunset.

That was my thinking until reading this thread.

Pessimist ArthurCW NOW says: Nope. It will be THE issue that the Conservative Dems bail on their leaders to "show" that they are conservative. They will take that back to their districts in august '08 and say, "See what good stewards we are? Put us back in."
They will be re-elected and more with them and when they have been firmly ensconced in their power THEN they will pass a sweeping AWBII. Gun turn-ins with stiff jail time for offenders and a BATFE let free to clean up the evil gun owners. Then there will be a massive push to register all other guns that will pass. No sunset for either… for the Children of course.

So to recap...
Negative ArthurCW says: AWBII by late 2007. It passes about the same time as the Fairness Doctrine and the MSM does all that it can to make sure the "Conservative Dems" have cover and get re-elected.

Pessimist ACW says: It comes up in the summer of '08 and is the issue used by the Dems to make their Freshmen Conservatives palatable to the electorate again. Then in '09 or '11 we get nailed harder and deeper then we could imagine.

A Side note: Yes, I do think they will get hammered after that. They will probably be run out of town on a rail. But that will not change the fact that the law will be enacted. And once enacted who will give a crap. It’s in place for the next run at socialism. I believe the Stalinist rally cry was “2 steps forward and one step back.”

How’d I do?

StrikeFire83: FWIW, you might want to wait until the Dems actually take over the Congress before starting the countdown---say January 1st or so...

Then watch the legislation fly....

I don't believe that a AWB II will become law.

Biker

Counter Top said:

I don't care what happens in the house, no anti gun legislation is going to get out of the Senate (and be at risk of the feckless president signing it).

Here's my current whip count going into the 110th for gun issues.

Folks, it just aint happening (sure they might yell - but not too loud cause 2008 is around the corner - but they will fail)

Click to expand...

IIRC, Counter Top, you work up there in the septic tank. I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for why it ain't gonna happen. I personally think Democrats are power-hungry, socialists tending toward marxists, and cunning. They are not stupid and I think it would be politically stupid to stir up an advocacy group they have already attributed victory in at least one presidential election and two congressional elections. They have not changed their spots. So why do you think it ain't gonna happen?