Awb ?

[aeroscout]

This may have been covered, but I was unable to find anything with a search.

If , there is legislation in motion to continue the AWB, but it doesn't take place immediatly following the sunset next month, does that mean that because of that short lapse of the ban that all post Sept 94 weapons/mags won't be able to be considered "post ban" any more and when the new legislation takes place that will reset the date by which we consider a weapon post ban / pre ban?

 

[tulsamal]

Yes, if the AWB "sunsets" then anything after that will have to be new legislation. So it will be as if the 94 law never existed at all.

If they can't pass something by the sunset date, nothing will happen until next year. And probably not even then.

Gregg

 

[Harry Tuttle]

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

indeed, if they don't have a rule in place on September 14th,
the Ex post facto provisions of the US Constitution prevent them from passing a law on October 14th that would be retroactive to September 14th

They cannot criminalize conduct that was legal when originally performed

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section9

they can however create a tax on the possession of what they deem naughty machinery

 

[FW]

if they don't have a rule in place on September 14th,
the Ex post facto provisions of the US Constitution prevent them from passing a law on October 14th that would be retroactive to September 14th

Other provisions of the U.S. Consitution should have prevented the AWB in the first place.

 

[Ironbarr]

The question remains... is there any activity - or planned for a last minute Hail Mary - in motion now?????????

There seems to be a lack of activity - even if only intel - on our part these days. I sincerely hope we are not asleep at the switch.

Hate to lose it in a session called for another topic and find it's riding on the back of an administration "needed" bill.

_Andy

 

[TooTaxed]

IRONBARR, I fear the same thing. Congress will reconvene after Labor Day to consider several budget bills. I fully expect Feinstein & Co to attach an extension of the AWB as a rider on some bill Congress feels must be passed. Hope someone is watching for this and, if so, will get the word out to us!

 

[alan]

tulsamal wrote:

Yes, if the AWB "sunsets" then anything after that will have to be new legislation. So it will be as if the 94 law never existed at all.

If they can't pass something by the sunset date, nothing will happen until next year. And probably not even then.

Gregg







Harry Tuttle wrote:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
indeed, if they don't have a rule in place on September 14th,
the Ex post facto provisions of the US Constitution prevent them from passing a law on October 14th that would be retroactive to September 14th

They cannot criminalize conduct that was legal when originally performed

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...i.html#section9

they can however create a tax on the possession of what they deem naughty machinery


__________________
"Quando omni flunkus moritati"

Gregg:

What you said in closing depends, at least in part, on who is president next year. Then there is question as to the composition of The Congress(House and Senate)

Harry Tuttle:

Re your quoting the constitution concerning the passage of bills of attainder and or ex post facto laws, I can think of one of the latter that has been passed, and is currently "on the books". It was originally known as The Lautenberg Amendment, and as constituted would preclude a person who at any time in the past, had been convicted of or "took a plea" on what is called "domestic violence" from ever owning firearms. It matters not that the charge might have been, according to state law, the most minor of misdeamenors. The most basic of the individduals civil rights is flat gone. If this is not an example of the ex post facto law that you mentioned, then I do not know what would be. Of course, I'm not learned in the law, so I might be wrong.

 

[tulsamal]

What you said in closing depends, at least in part, on who is president next year. Then there is question as to the composition of The Congress(House and Senate)

I don't know if the President part really matters if that's the only variable. Bush would sign such a bill if it got to his desk. The only difference would be Kerry would actually pressure congress but if the GOP still has the leadership, they can ignore him.

Congress is actually more important. The Senate is going to be very close either way and so doesn't really matter either. The only way a single party can dominate the Senate is if they have 60+ members. The House is where the action is and just about every political analyst I've read has said it is VERY unlikely the GOP will lose their majority there. That's critical because the House leadership has much more power of the agenda than the leadership in the Senate. The Democrats used their power as the leaders in the House to frustrate the GOP from 1954 to 1994. The GOP doesn't want to give it back!

The bad part about a Kerry win would be that it might signal an electoral shift. For instance I just said it wouldn't matter much IF everything else stayed the same. So if the GOP controls the House and the Senate, it won't be too bad. But I _assume_ Kerry can only win if the public makes a serious choice to move away from the GOP and vote Democratic. If that happens, then we could have a disaster. That's the real reason to work against Kerry. Too many people vote for one party OR the other. We need them to stay over on the right side of the ballot!

Gregg

 

[alan]

tulsamal:

Your comment about The Congress, might be a good analysis.

As for the AW ban and it's sun-set, even if it goes, there is still a lot of garbage in the U.S. Code, not to mention all those interesting "regulations", otherwise known as LAW BY DECREE, then there are those "executive orders", that seemingly have a life of their own, that will carry on, unless actually voided.