Does anyone have info on the 1994 AWB voting record?
- Thread starter Balrog
- Start date
- Status
Librarian
Member
Coverdell voted 'nay'
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=2&vote=00295
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=2&vote=00295
LickitySplit
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2007
- Messages
- 83
That was for the final version of the bill (not that it really matters... the end result was still the same).
This is the voting record for Feinsteins AWB amendment to the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 93 (Coverdale voted "Nay"),...
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00375
For those that are interested, this is the vote in 2004 for extending the AWB for another 10 years...
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00024
Deanimator
Member
John Kasich voted for it.
Deanimator
Member
It had a "sunset" provision. If it wasn't renewed by vote, it expired. It was allowed to expire.
LickitySplit
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2007
- Messages
- 83
If you mean the 2004 vote... because even though Bush stated earlier on that he supported a ban on "assault weapons", he gave the measure the old nudge-nudge, wink-wink and made certain that it didn't get any support from the Republican controled Congress.
In fact, the NRA held off any endorsement of Bush pending the outcome of any AWB legislation.
At the time, the NRA was pushing hard for the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act". The charge was led by Senator Larry "Toe Tapping" Craig" (R- Idaho).
The antis had been trying to get several AWB bills to the floor, but to no avail.
The only opportunity they had was to introduce it as an amendment to the Commerce act (along with several other "poison pill" amendments).
As the commerce bill was belong debated, there were back room deals going on that allowed Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy, etc, to bring these amendments to the floor.
The NRA's thinking was that if they passed in it the Senate, they could get them removed in the House version, and bring the bill to a committee decision with the result being the commerce act passing with no AWB.
That didn't happen though.
As the roll call was taking place live and on the Internet, many pro-gun Senators offices and the NRA's office, were being flooded to kill the bill altogether rather than extend the AWB (and close the "gun show loophole", require trigger locks).
Fortunately for us... they actually listened for a change.
alsaqr
Member
In March, 2004 the extension of the AWB passed the US senate by a vote of 52-47. The house never voted on the extension of the AWB.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22618-2004Mar2.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22618-2004Mar2.html
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
After the AWB renewal amendment was successfully added to the Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the NRA pulled its support for the PLCA and it went down in flames. After the 2004 elections, we picked up 5-6 pro-gun Senators in the Senate and the PLCA was later passed without the poison pills - a fact that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) made sure of by a procedural move.
You can read live, as-it-happened, discussions of both bills and the Senate discussion of those bills here in the THR archives. Suffice it to say that CPSAN had a lot of pro-RKBA people watching and listening on those days.
Last edited:
In the past few months, I had been hearing more and more about how the American people "had a temper tantrum" or how they voted over the ecomomy back in 94' by both the liberal and conserative media.
Somehow they either forgotten about the 94' AWB or choose to ignore it altogether, expecially during this election cycle.
Somehow they either forgotten about the 94' AWB or choose to ignore it altogether, expecially during this election cycle.
- Status
