THE Unofficial Countdown to AWB II Thread...

[StrikeFire83]

Okay, so the election is over and Republicans got hosed, big time. Whether they deserved it or not is a question for a different thread, and doubtless in the coming days and weeks it will be talked to death.

The doom and gloom around here led me to wonder how long it might take the Democrats to enact a new “Assault” weapons ban, with one, two, or ALL of the following characteristics:

1) Magazine capacities above 10 (or 6!!!) banned in new firearms manufacture.

2) A requirement that all existing firearms exceeding the limit be subject to mandatory federal registration as “assault weapons”

3) Federal REGISTRATION of every NEW firearm purchased by a citizen.

4) Federal REGISTRATION of all EXISTING handguns owned by a citizen.

5) Federal REGISTRATION of all EXISTING long-guns owned by a citizen.

6) Several “scary looking” or “military style” guns banned by NAME, at legislators’ discretion, regardless of magazine capacity. (IE AR-15 and AK-46)

7)A Federally mandated WAITING PERIOD.

8)A Federally mandated LIMITATION on number of guns purchased PER MONTH.

9) Large-scale federally-funded gun buyback/destruction programs.

My Prediction: NONE of these things will come to pass in the form of national legislation. Most of the Democrats added to the House are simply not liberal enough to vote for these kinds of restrictive gun laws. They won’t want to queer the party's chances for the presidency in 2008. Even if the Democrats control the Senate, they’ll only control it by one seat. Finally...Bush, his questionable judgment and lame duck status not withstanding, WILL use his veto to strike down such legislation in the unlikely chance it crosses his desk.

I will be posting DAILY updates to this thread (even if it’s just a bump) and encourage everyone’s participation.

Please don’t attack me. Simply state your position clearly and we’ll let TIME determine who is correct.

2 Days since Democrats Voted into Power, and NO AWB II.

NOTE: I am aware that Dems won’t be able to exercise their power until 2007, but for my own purposes I am counting the day AFTER election day (NOVEMBER 8th) as the beginning of the Democrats' reign.

 

[crazed_ss]

I imagine a second federal ban would be something like CA's ban.
There a list of banned stuff and on top of that, there's a features ban... You get one evil feature per rifle.

 

[seeker_two]

StrikeFire83: While I can appreciate your optimism, recent history puts your faith in Bush's veto usage in the same category as Lousiana hurricane policies...

Remember the '04 elections? Republicans asked the voters to have faith in Bush to appoint conservative judges (...like Meyers... ) and push for tax reform and Social Security reform (...which has resulted in ...). I didn't buy it then; and, esp. after Bush's "giddy for bipartisanship" press conference on 11/08, I am apprehensive of his future actions.

Bush will sell out the conservative base in a heartbeat to get his globalist neo-con policies past the Democrats--esp. RKBA. Watch it happen....

 

[Warren]

If the republican leadership has the capacity to learn they will try to prove themselves hard right OGs and will make it very difficult for the dems to get that passed and then signed by Bush.

If the Rs continue to be stupid they will write a less grabby version of the AWB and get that passed as a 'compromise' with their new Democratic overlords.

 

[1 old 0311]

GWB has said in the past he WILL sign a AWB that comes to his desk. Yes it is going to happen. When, how severe? We will have to wait, and see, but I expect to see a policy like they have here in California. Stock up now kids. Ain't gonna get any better.

 

[RealGun]

An AWB at this time would be filibustered into oblivion. Anyone who thinks Republicans would want to be accountable for allowing it going into the 2008 elections is not paying attention.

 

[gunsmith]

NO he did not!

GWB has said in the past he WILL sign a AWB that comes to his desk. /QUOTE] He said he would sign the 94 AWB if it got renewed in 04
Which it was clear it would not.

If a new AWB came up I expect he would sign it as he seems to sign everything.
his one veto was the anti Dubai ports deal which hate it or love it was a pretty dumb thing to do, as only country club globalist seemed to like it.

I expect the blue states will enact their own AWB's for now...

 

[GoRon]

Welcome to Illinois guys!!

 

[Lonestar]

All you need is one wacko, or one bad event like another school shooting to stir up the outcry for renewal of AWB. Right now Iraq is on everyones mind. It will take a backburner for a few years until the 2008 when either a Democrat or a liberal republican get in the White House

I also see #7 and #8 being possible Federally, or at least a push for states to adopt the pratice. Unfortunately it might happen soon in PA, with Rendell as Gov. and more Democrats in the state house.

It stinks, I was just getting use to high capacity mags.

 

[RealGun]

If a new AWB came up I expect he would sign it as he seems to sign everything.
his one veto was the anti Dubai ports deal which hate it or love it was a pretty dumb thing to do, as only country club globalist seemed to like it. - gunsmith

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/22/MNGSUHCJF31.DTL

The veto was the stem cell bill. It is true that Bush threatened to veto any legislation that sought to block the Dubai Ports bill. That was not as bad as some say. I side with him completely, in that it totally threw a monkey wrench into foreign relations with Middle Eastern allies.

There is still the open issue of the US being liable for reneging on the deal, after money had already changed hands based upon the commitment. We could well have to buy out the part of the deal that relates to US port management. That resolution would still have to be going on in the background and will probably come to the fore, now that the election is over.

We then have to explain to allies, technically in good standing, why they are disqualified from such transactions. We also have to look at what other countries manage ports and what their real status is regarding political relations with the US. Try the Chinese for starters.

It's just trendy to be against all sorts of things without knowing the facts or considering the potential consequences.

Now, back to the AWB question.

 

[coyote_jr]

what an original subject for a thread

 

[Molon Labe]

My prediction:

Upcoming gun shows will be very active.

 

[Helmetcase]

what an original subject for a thread

I do think the mods could probably join together or merge about 17 or 56 of the currently active threads.

 

[The Drew]

NOt all Democrats are rabidly anti gun... Just look at the last issue of your NRA magazine which shows their ratings. While pro gun seats in the house did decrease, The shift was much lower than the R-D shift.

Keep in mind that even back in 94 the AWB only passed because the VP broke the tie and I believe the senate was much more in favor of the Dems back then.

 

[bclark1]

Just as a limited aside, does anyone want to guess what the odds of grandfather clauses are federally and in specific states?
I'm trying to decide whether to put off a new shotgun this winter for a Mini-30 so I've got another "AR," but there's no point in it if it's just going to get grabbed. As appealing as the whole "bury 'em" idea is, if they actually bothered to do confiscations I'm not sure they'd be convinced you "lost it," and at least in Illinois I know you're required to keep your bill of sale for 10 years if somebody else gets it.

 

[carterbeauford]

what an original subject for a thread

What does AWB stand for again?

Curious as to how fed registration would be enacted, would they use records of sale to know what guns we have?

 

[hillbilly]

Here's what I think will happen.

Feinstein or Pelosi (go look at Feinstein's web page. She has AWB II listed as a "high priority" for herself) will propose a completely awful, horrible, terrible AWB, a lot more restrictive than the first one.

All those "pro-gun Dems" (who like duck shotguns, but not much else) will courageously wrangle and debate and fight to turn a completely awful, horrible and terrible AWB into one that is merely terrible.

The "pro-gun Dems" will then declare "victory" and talk about "common sense" gun laws.

hillbilly

 

[buzz_knox]

All those "pro-gun Dems" (who like duck shotguns, but not much else) will courageously wrangle and debate and fight to turn a completely awful, horrible and terrible AWB into one that is merely terrible.

That's how politics works and how many bills get passed. It's also a standard negotiating tactic.

 

[hillbilly]

My AWB prediction

Here's what I think will happen.

One of the usual anti-gun suspects in Congress will propose AWB II, and package it as "anti-terror" legislation.

AWB II will be totally, completely, absolutely horrible and terrible in its scope.

The "courageous" allegedly pro-gun Dems (who don't like anything much beyond duck or trap shotguns) will fight and scrap and claw against their own party until the AWB II is compromised down from totally, completely, absolutely horrible and terrible to a kinder, friendlier AWB II that is merely terrible.

No sunset provision. "Common sense" gun law will prevail. And it will not be vetoed.

And the "pro-gun" Dems will be able to say, out of both sides of their mouths, hey, look, we fought courageously for "gun rights." Nobody lost their deer rifles or duck shotguns.....but we also enacted "common sense" gun laws to protect the homeland from terror.

That is my prediction.

hillbilly

 

[American By Blood]

Hillbilly gets it.

Those "pro-RKBA" Dems are going to vote with their party, especially if they're congressional freshmen. If you want to bring home the bacon you have to toe the line. The DNC may have learned that campaigning on gun control is ballot box suicide, but they seem to think they can safely argue for it on the floors of the House and Senate if the recent history of introduced legislation is any indicator. Congress does a whole lot of business every session and people have a tendency to forget last week's issue. Don't think the anti-gunners won't take advantage of that.

If you want to get really scared start taking a look at the probable make-up of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. As they say elsewhere on the internets, "itz coming..."

 

[GotGlock]

I think the dems will try to win 2008, a new AWB will assure they loose.

 

[longeyes]

You may well be right. We are all going to learn a lot about "terror" in the coming years. Look, we all knew this was coming and we all know that it is going to take a concerted resistance to stop our RKBA from being destroyed. Time we got on with making sure the Second Amendment isn't a casualty of "progress."

 

[sumpnz]

6) Several “scary looking” or “military style” guns banned by NAME, at legislators’ discretion, regardless of magazine capacity. (IE AR-15 and AK-46)

Well, they can ban the AK-46 every day of the week and twice on Sunday for all I care.

 

[The Drew]

The Democrats are not willing to blow their "political capital" on AWB II they cannot be that stupid. If they do they will surely lose the house in 08 and probably the senate too.

Keep in mind that many of these races that put them over the top were very close elections.

 

[longeyes]

We have moved into a period where we are going to need to be stubborn, defiant, and tedious. We will have to make clear that the Bill of Rights is not to be abrogated for ANY REASON, no matter how grave the exigencies of the globe nor how socially progressive and philanthropic the alleged cause. It doesn't matter if every security-obsessed suburbanite in America wants to obliterate the Second Amendment, I say our response to that must be two-fold: a) okay, amend the Constitution, by proper process--if you can; and b) don't expect us to not secede from the Union if you do.