Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Things looking good in the House

Discussion in 'Legal' started by LAR-15, Jun 26, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    225 members are likely against renewal according to AWBANSUNSET.com

    This apparently is a majority.
     
  2. Ironbarr

    Ironbarr Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,221
    Location:
    Virginia
    435??? Not sure, but sounds close.

    If so, 435-225 = 210 = 15 advantage.

    This, of course, if my numbers jibe. Not comfortable with such a small margin considering the clock is still a long way to go. Their are many pet projects to barter.

    Anyone???
     
  3. DTLoken

    DTLoken member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    162
    Congress isn't in session much more this year, only 20 something days.
     
  4. Nick1911

    Nick1911 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    797
    Location:
    Kansas City

    *sigh*

    Another day watching the counter on awbansunset tick down.

    And I sit here, just kind of thinking about stuff... Wonder if we really will be rid of it? Will those days where Ruger 10\22 hi-caps were stocked on Wal-marts shelves come back? Will California's senator screw the rest of the US over once again?

    And, guys, I really don't know. And - FWIW, I really wanna know...


    Just some thoughts

    Nick
     
  5. VaniB.

    VaniB. member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2004
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    TX
    The senate has only 18 days working days left. 4 or 5 of those days being in september. I guess the house is the same. So July is likely the most critical time for it to at least come up.

    I wouldn't take this house count you've noted too serious when there's a margin that close. To me, it's just that: too close!

    You probably know that a number of congressmen will claim to be on our side until the legislation is up for a vote, and they see that the legislation is only a few votes away from passing. Then their true colors come out and they often switch over one by one to enact it at the last moment. This is how the AWB passed the first time.

    HOWEVER, the positive difference now, is we have all branches being Republican, and a very close election coming up. It is my belief that Bush will not even want the legislation to come for a vote. If it did actually come up for an up and down vote. I'd be scared shiftless what the results might be! Pray Bush/Dennis Hastert don't let it!

    It's coming back in 2005 though, SO BUY YOUR STUFF QUICK in 2004!!!
     
  6. Brett Bellmore

    Brett Bellmore Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    979
    Location:
    Capac, Michigan
    Last time, when they needed it, they got a member of the NRA board of Directors to vote for it. (And Dingell STILL hasn't seen fit to apologize, as far as I know.) If it does come up for a vote, the pressure will be high enough to turn coal into diamonds.
     
  7. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    IIRC the House did vote to repeal it in 1996.
     
  8. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    IIRC Dingell did vote against it but ultimately voted for the whole crime bill package with the ban in it.
     
  9. AZRickD

    AZRickD Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,684
    Part of their goal was to villify anything linked to these components. Will companies decide that even though it is legal, it's just too risky in a civil lawsuit sense to produce them for non LEO/Mil consumption?

    On the balance, we've shown yet another gunphobic law to be nonsense. And maybe this one will be the first one to sunset. A good thing on any spreadsheet.

    We'll see.

    Rick
     
  10. Brett Bellmore

    Brett Bellmore Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    979
    Location:
    Capac, Michigan
    If I recall correctly, the '96 vote was scheduled only after it was known for certain the bill would never see the light of day in the Senate. It was scheduled after the primaries, to make sure that Republicans who voted wrong were unlikely to be punished at the polls. AND it was so loaded down with poison pill amendments that we were actually lucky the Senate wouldn't act on it.

    It was a bone thrown to us when it was known it wouldn't matter, so they could say they'd had the vote, without risking actually repealing the law.
     
  11. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,056
    Location:
    United Socialist States of Obama
    It will be back within the next presidential term no matter who gets elected, so don't get too excited.
     
  12. VaniB.

    VaniB. member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2004
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    TX
    Brett has it right. When they voted back then to repeal it, they new it was just a token gesture to Newt Gingrich and a show of solidarity with the huge Republican vote of that "Angry Young White Males". (Darn it, Feinstein came this close to losing her seat too!)

    When it comes down to it, at the last minute a handfull of Republicans cannot be trusted during the final up and down vote talley. They stare at the board in the final minutes to see if the count is high enough that their vote with us won't matter. If they see that the count is very close, and the legislation really has a chance of passing then they decide to get up and change their vote to against us.

    Unlikey though that this time such precarious scenarios will even have the chance to arise. They won't let the legisation progess that far.


    Like the Lone_Gunman says, wait till the next term. Then you'll get to see the true turncoats that will enact another ban.
     
  13. Ironbarr

    Ironbarr Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,221
    Location:
    Virginia
    Maybe it would be a good idea to have all bills that might be construed as affecting constitutional rights to have sunset provisions.

    And ALL bills thereafter with sunset provisions MUST sunset in September or 45 days prior to any general election. The 45day prior requirement would float with any changes in House/Senate constitutional amendments re election dates.

    This would tend to put the onus on both houses to be VERY sure a bill has effected good purpose during its term and is expected to continue so during any extension/modification. This also affects, and is affected by, the new October fiscal year, appropriations being what they are.

    BTW - the AWB: With money tight as it is, I wonder just how much NOT having to support the administration and legal costs of the AWB will be available for FY05. Maybe they've already factored that in.

    Is there a hidden asset in this for us to "suggest" to our Congress? If so, let's find it and use it.

    What say you?

    -Andy
    .
     
  14. sturmruger

    sturmruger Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,055
    Location:
    NW, WI
    My fingers are going to stay crossed until Sept 14th.
     
  15. Walking Wounded

    Walking Wounded Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    30
    It will be harder to bring this issue to the table next term. There's lots of issues to talk about and limited time. If we can beat this ban we will have a good chance of keeping gun control off the agenda for a while. Let's keep the pressure on them, guys.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page