What are warning signs for a new AWB or revised 922r restrictions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Armchair Bronco

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
227
Location
Seattle, WA
I wasn't a gun enthusiast back when the first Assault Weapons Ban took effect, and I'm only now familiarizing myself with the ridiculousness of the current 922r legislation as I'm looking to purchase my first Arsenal AK-74.

Just curious what you think some early warning signs might be if the Gubmint decides to ram through a new AWB or modify 922r in some eggregious way so that you can only have 2 foreign-made parts on an AK (as the BATF initially proposed). Keep in mind that it was a *Republican* president the last time around who got the ball rolling (Bush 41) in 1989.

Back in the late 1980's, how much lead time was there before it became apparent that the Gibmint was going to scale back the 2nd Amendment? I keep hearing that there are bills here and there that would resurrect the old AWB, place restrictions on high-capacity magazines, and what not.

What's your prediction over the next 3-5 years?
 
Last edited:
"some early warning signs might be if the Gubmint decides to ram through a new AWB or modify 922r in some eggregious way"

The current administration gets 4 more years. At which point nothing to run for but plenty of time and resources to punish "enemies." Can you say "scorched earth?" Joe
 
This is pretty much a non-issue since the Dems know it's a vote-loser & no votes will come from the Republicans in Congress.
For it to even be possible, it would take a Dem pres., a dem-controlled House, & the Dems to have 61 seats in the Senate. Even then it wouldn't be close to probable.
 
Why not? It happened once...
Click to expand...

....And the next election resulted in a republican kongress, with Clinton whining that demos had sacrificed their political careers for the AWB.
Nevertheless some demos still want it back. Diane Feinstein still does, though she admits the timing is right.
Hopefully the timing will never be right.
"Eternal vigilence is the price of freedom."
Keep your eyes on Washington.
 
We also had a Dem pres., House, & Senate since then. Where are all the new federal gun bans? (I must have missed them)

Possible does not mean probable.
 
When I was recently reading up 922r compliance, I ran across this on the CheaperThanDirt.com site:

"In 1989, President George H W Bush took steps to stop the import of 43 types of semi- automatic firearms which were considered to have “no sporting purpose” according to the language of the Gun Control Act of 1968. This stopped all the evil “black” rifles from coming in such as the AK-47(series), Uzi, FAL, FNC, HK-91, Daewoo (series), and many, many other cool rifles, just because George Bush thought they should be banned. Be informed, this ban did not start in Congress, but was created by the BATF at the behest of the Office of the President of the United States through the recommendation of “Drug Czar” Bill Bennet.

This was the beginning of the term “pre-ban” rifle. Pre-ban rifle refers to any semi- automatic rifle (on the ban list) with all the “evil” features (such as the AK-47 series) and imported into the US prior to President Bush’s intervention on March 14, 1989. They are still legal to own and sell and are “grandfathered” as far as the law goes."

So it *seems* that Bush 41 played a central role in getting things moving prior to Clinton. Obviously, 922r and the AWB are 2 different animals, but both were "land grabs" but the Gubmint.

http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=472
 
The first warning sign would be an unpopular lame duck liberal president in the last 2 years of his final term with a matching majority in both houses of congress.

The comments about the liberals in congress not being interested in another AWB due to the hammering they took after the last one are right on target, but here's why the conditions above either eliminate or greatly reduce those concerns.

The president can't be re-elected, and if his approval rating is very low, it also means his VP won't have much of a chance of getting elected either.

In the first 2 years of the president's term, a liberal congress will be leery of another AWB because it could cause them to lose big in the mid-term elections (as it did with the last AWB). But once they get past the mid-term elections, with a lame duck president and an un-electable VP, they know that they're likely to take a big hit in the presidential elections anyway due to straight ticket voters. At that point they would be much more inclined to try for an AWB as a last gasp, take what you can get while you can get it, maneuver.
 
belercous said:
This is pretty much a non-issue since the Dems know it's a vote-loser & no votes will come from the Republicans in Congress.
For it to even be possible, it would take a Dem pres., a dem-controlled House, & the Dems to have 61 seats in the Senate. Even then it wouldn't be close to probable.
Click to expand...
They said something like that about the mass genocide, known as the holocaust, after WWII,
Ask an Iraqi Kurd, or any number of African peoples about THAT.

It can, and certainly will happen again if the people of the United States allow it. If Obama is re-elected, he'll have no worries about passing any legislation the Dems push through.

"sigh" I'd better hush before I get into trouble with a mod...
 
What I'm looking for are early warning signs, the way Twitter has trending memes.

Clearly, if we see lots of legislation being debated, that would be something to worry about. Maybe things would start to happen at the state level first. Or maybe there would be statements coming from some Obama-appointed Czar. As noted above, 922r has a direct tie to Drug Czar Bill Bennet.

For the sake of argument, I think we can all agree that it *could* happen again. If so, what should we be looking for?
 
Armchair Bronco said:
What I'm looking for are early warning signs.

For the sake of argument, I think we can all agree that it *could* happen again. If so, what should we be looking for?
Click to expand...
I'm curious what you would do about it at an "early warning sign" stage, anyway? Write your Congressman?

Whether we all agree or not is irrelevant. It can happen. Nothing is more aggravating than feeling obligated to convince others on a matter of fact before addressing it openly. Who cares? 9+4!=12 just because a group of people think the number 13 is unlucky.
 
Good answer, that's what I hoped you'd say. Likewise here.

Frankly, I don't believe my opinionated letter to a Congressman is going to convince him not to do something he's otherwise inclined to doing. Vote the right people in from the start, or you probably won't get what you want.
 
The early warning sign will be a Dem. President in his 2nd term with a Dem. Senate holding a super-majority of well over 60 seats, a Dem. controlled House, the nation to take a sudden & hard turn to the left & a good reason to enact such a ban. It also couldn't happen overnight.

Hearing about it on Twitter will make one late to the game.
Or, one could be paranoid & believe everything posted on the blogosphere. In this case, you should be worried to death right now.

The application of tad bit of critical thinking will go a long way. Seriously, think about it.
 
Far too many people believed that talk about the AWB didn't make any sense so it didn't make sense to worry about it. Once it became obvious in 89 that it didn't matter that it didn't make sense it was too late in the game to kill the momentum it had built up. We got the AWB because not enough of us saw it for what it was early enough, a new way to make political hay by fear mongering a nonissue and demonizing what the politicians saw as a small ineffectual group.

These days we watch politicians like a hawk surveys a city dump for the movement of rats and more citizens own firearms than in nearly 20 years. States issue carry permits and more issue carry permits than before the current administration came into office.

Overt restrictions on firearms ownership are a real possibility, but we'll know about it far earlier than in 89. Regardless of who is POTUS no law gets passed that doesn't first have to make it out of committee to be voted on and passed for POTUS to sign or veto and loudly reminding the politicians on the committee or the House as a hole that we're watching and will work to unseat them makes them wonder if the personal cost is too high or not.
 
It seems to me that the more likely angle of attack in current times is non-legislated regulation. A good example of this is the recent ATF requirement that FFL's in border states report multiple long gun sales. They should not have the authority to pull stunts like this in the first place, and some would argue that they don't, but from a practical standpoint, they do until we do something about it. In this case we write our congressmen and request that they lean on the ATF. Hopefully Holder will get a sufficient but-whooping over his gun walking shenanigans that his successor will be a bit less arrogant. Unfortunately we can pretty much count on the current POTUS to appoint another raging anti.
 
The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. If I remember correctly the bill was signed into law in Sept., but was actually passed by both the house and senate much earlier. I'm thinking June or July.

I know a lot of Democrats were very critical of Clinton for waiting for so long. The way the law worked any weapons, or magazines made before the law was signed were legal. As soon as it became apparent that the law would pass, and during the time between passing in congress and the signing, all companies were working around the clock making as many pre-ban guns and magazines as possible. According to one source I read at the time there was a 15 year supply of pre-ban magazines made during the gap between the bill passing and being signed.

To be honest, for the most part the ban did little to reduce the number of high capacity guns and magazines. It did raise prices. Normal capacity magazines for guns that had been on the market for only a short period of time were expensive and hard to find. The Glock 20, 21, and 22 had only recently been introduced and +10 mags for those guns were pricey, I saw 15 round G20 mags sell for $150.

Although mags for most other guns were overpriced, they were always available. ARs and othher rifles were simply slightly modified to meet the ban requirements. I personally did not miss the flash hider and that is basically the only difference the law made on AR rifles.

I do not expect a major AWB to even come up for a very LOOOOG time. The 1994 AWB did nothing, and even the most vocal anti-gun folks understand that even though they may not admit it publicly. The climate has changed dramatically since 1994. There are way too many gun owners today that are better educated. The weapons that they tried to ban were fringe weapons that most folks did not own in 1994. Today those are the biggest sellers and are simply too popular to try to ban.
 
It seems to me that the more likely angle of attack in current times is non-legislated regulation.
Click to expand...
Correct. This is usually done via the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR's). Without someone on the inside feeding intel to pro-gun groups, the first warning sign we see is the request for public comment.
 
We got the AWB because not enough of us saw it for what it was early enough, a new way to make political hay by fear mongering a nonissue and demonizing what the politicians saw as a small ineffectual group.
Click to expand...

Bingo!!!

Voters kept on electing and re-electing congressmen who claimed to be Second Amendment advocates. One former president became the mythical "gunowners champion" despite his anti-gun record. One cannot predict future anti-gun legislation without first understanding how we got the AWB to begin with.

1. In 1967 CA governor Reagan signed the Mulford Act into law, outlawing the carry of loaded guns in public.
2. In 1984 Reagan banned a semi-auto shotgun: This was the first time a long gun was banned from import. It set a precedent that continues to this day.
3. In 1986 Reagan banned another semi-auto shotgun.
4. Bush I banned over 40 milsurp rifles from import, citing the Reagan precedent.
5. Former presidents Carter, Ford and Reagan demanded the passage of the AWB. Three opposition congressmen were persuaded to vote for the AWB based on Reagans appeal. The AWB passed the house by a vote of 216-215. 38 Republicans voted for the ban and 76 Democrats voted against it.
6. Citing the Reagan precedent, Clinton banned more weapons from import.
7. Bush II stated he would sign an extension of the AWB if congress passed it. The extension passed the US senate. The US house did not vote on the extension of the AWB.

Watch who you vote for. There are pro-gun Democrats and anti-gun Republicans out there.
 
Last edited:
I really don't see how this is anything but a "bash the libs thread" at this point. Probably one of the more informative posts though is this one ...

"Voters kept on electing and re-electing congressmen who claimed to be Second Amendment advocates. [...] One cannot predict future anti-gun legislation without first understanding how we got the AWB to begin with.

1. In 1967 CA governor Reagan signed the Mulford Act into law, outlawing the carry of loaded guns in public.
2. In 1984 Reagan banned a semi-auto shotgun: This was the first time a long gun was banned from import. It set a precedent that continues to this day.
3. In 1986 Reagan banned another semi-auto shotgun.
4. Bush I banned over 40 milsurp rifles from import, citing the Reagan precedent.
5. Former presidents Carter, Ford and Reagan demanded the passage of the AWB. Three opposition congressmen were persuaded to vote for the AWB based on Reagans appeal. The AWB passed the house by a vote of 216-215. 38 Republicans voted for the ban and 76 Democrats voted against it.
6. Citing the Reagan precedent, Clinton banned more weapons from import.
7. Bush II stated he would sign an extension of the AWB if congress passed it. The extension passed the US senate. The US house did not vote on the extension of the AWB.

[...]
Click to expand...

Demonizing whichever capitalist/conservative faction of government you happen to not like isn't a warning sign, recognizing the history of the previous happening is an early warning sign.
So detailed write-ups about the history of how this happened and the legislative steps that were put in place to ensure it could succeed ... those are warning signs.
"I hate Obama!" Darn them Libs!" is rantings.

Similarly as someone pointed out, it may be done via non-voting based legislation "for public safety" instead of high profile stuff. Similar to, for instance, firearms ownership in Germany, essentially anyone who doesn't at least own a three bedroom house can not "safely" store a firearm by law, thus can't buy one. Clever little piece of legislation, that.

Those are threats. Posturing about which color frosting you prefer on your "bought politician cake" annoys the small minority of us who don't like a bought politician, and that's about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
AWB Stays put....What are the new restrictions?
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Treylis
T
D
  • Locked
New anti assault weapons proposals threaten citizens’ rights
Replies
5
Views
602
RavenVT100
R
B
  • Locked
HR5005 new analysis and HR5092 new hotness
Replies
4
Views
512
LAR-15
L
D
  • Locked
Armed militia protects its New Orleans neighborhood
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
LawDog
L
B
  • Locked
NRA The Year In Review
Replies
11
Views
742
hoji
H
Back
Top