Can the AWB be renewed on 9/13?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There just isnt enough time in the four days next week to get it done - and with the far more pressing need to pass appropriations bills...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



...to each and every one of which the Democrats will attempt to attach a rider. Stay frosty; keep those cards and letters coming...

Actually under the rules proposed by Robert Byrd (and accepted some time ago), amendments proposed to general appropriations bills in the Senate must be germane to spending. Whether a bill is extraneous or not is determined by the Senate Majority leader and his decision can only be overridden with 60 votes from the Senate floor.

Since Frist has already filled the tree once in order to halt any attempt to offer a ban renewal, I'd say we know how he'll rule on an obviously non-germane attempt to append it to an appropriations bill. We also know the Senate doesn't have 60 votes to override him.

 

[Roadrunner]

Actually, Executive Orders do not require Congressional consent to take effect. Unlike the "normal" legislative process by which a bill is introduced into Congress, hearings generally held, Congressional reports issued, the bills language massaged by committees and eventually a bill is sent to the President for his signature. EOs are totally different. That's why I'm still concerned that the President could issue something regarding the AWB.

Don't forget, President Clinton (and I think Bush Sr.) issued EOs banning the importation of assault weapons into the US.

http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html

"Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress.

...

Controversy

Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution -- that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. In effect, this leaves the decision to the federal agencies involved and the President that stands at their head. When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide those details in the form of Executive Orders."

He can issue any executive order he wants, but it will have zero impact. Unless it passes out of the House, Senate, and then Conference before making its way to the White House for signature . . . BEFORE September 13, 2004, it is finished.

 

[tulsamal]

From your own link:

Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program.

See, that's the whole point. An EO gives guidance to the appropriate Executive department on how to interpret and enforce a law. It doesn't put a new law in place. The AWB is legally scheduled to sunset. There is nothing the President could do to "enforce a law that is no longer in effect."

I agree with a previous poster that the Brady people are just doing this whole thing to get one last moment of publicity and to try to make it seem like the whole thing is Bush's fault. None of these people would EVER consider voting for Bush no matter what he did.

"Don't worry be happy!"

Gregg

 

[mrapathy2000]

I just got back from football game in Ames for ISU vs UNI. Senator Grassly of Iowa was there. I dont think an AWB renewal has a chance. he assured me senate's schedule is booked solid they want to finish the session up in october 1st. I trust Grassly why cause the brady campaign website sure does not praise him. 10% support. voted for 3 items brady campaign wanted out of 28.

minus EO which I believe is unlikely cause he would see polls shift slightly away from him. though other polls towards bush especially if clinton kicks the bucket on operating table begging for renewal and bush makes it happen somehow.

it is in our favor till next session. .

 

[LoveMy45]

Roadrunner, you need to take a breather and relax (just a little).

President Bush cannot and will not reinstate the AWB through an EO. He's not the evil gun-banner that you seem to fear that he is. True, he's not been a 2A purist like many of us, but he's no Clinton or Kerry.

I'm a bit aggravated that he even gave lip service to the AWB. It's been very apparent -- and the gun-banners are livid about this -- that President Bush does not want an AWB renewal bill from Congress.

If, in the four days that Congress is back in session before the AWB expires, they somehow manage to pass a renewal through both the House and the Senate (which is very unlikely in the House), then President Bush will be faced with a bill on his desk that he didn't want, but said he would sign. In that unlikely event, that will be the real test where the rubber meets the road.

President Bush and his advisors are very aware that guns-owners abandoned Bush #41 in 1992 because of his EO restricting the importation of certain weapons (unless they had a minimum number of certain parts manufactured in the U.S.)

While I'm not totally relaxed about the AWB expiration (I have written many letters to many elected officials about it, some just days ago), I believe that President Bush will not push for, Congress will not pass, and President Bush would not sign a renewal at this point. Believe me, if I hear from the NRA, GOA or CCRKBA that such a bill is making progress, I'll be making phone calls like crazy and urging others to do the same.



08 Days; 04 Hours; 03 Minutes & change!!!

 

[kidcoltoutlaw]

this will happen

the gun sellers will tells us to buy before they pass another law. it will sell lots of guns but is it real or a trick to sell guns. it's a gamble .

 

[mrapathy2000]

it will not happen this year. senate only in session some 18 days sept 7th to oct 1st. weekends not included.

they have lots of stuff to work on.

 

[CarbineKid]

I also have a question: If the ban sunsets, can my post ban AR-15 be legally converted to a pre ban AR(stock,flash suppressor, bayo lug etc) since the law is no longer in effect??

 

[sumpnz]

since the law is no longer in effect

I think you just answered your own question.

 

[mrapathy2000]

yes carbine kid. because the definition of post/pre ban changes it DOES NOT GO AWAY but it changes.

it will refer to the 1989 ban sporting arms and import and the 1986 ban fopa and machine guns.

no more 1994 preban and post ban so you can do anything but full auto parts.

 

[CarbineKid]

Thats what I thought, but I was somewhat unclear on it.
THANK YOU

 

[TamThompson]

Shouldn't we be planning parties???

And, when it sunsets, stocking up!!!

 

[mrapathy2000]

be a good time to start planning parties and planning the next plan of attack. 1989 sporting arms and importation along with EO's presidents have passed and 1986 fopa machine gun ban.