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

[crazy-mp]

If the media suddenly starts reporting shootings or bank robberies where "assault" rifles were used and they keep talking about it over and over. If another crazy man with a gun shoots a congressman or woman. They will try and convince the general populous that they need these new restrictive laws and that they will benefit everybody. But their security detail will still have full auto-pistols with high capacity mags. (see Rosie O'Donnell interview)

If there is ever new legislation passed it will most likely be a 11:55 vote before a holiday weekend when the media has already gone home, and it will be tacked on to a bill nobody wants to vote against. Like a new anti-discrimination law for people with disabilities no senator or congress man is going to say no they don't want that vote brought up at re-election.

The fear is not with the congress and senate right now, they are too busy fighting back and forth to get anything done. Its the Executive orders, that the President can hand down, if its worded correctly his order could be treated as law.

 

[gp911]

I'll add that the internet is a huge asset now, back in 93 gun owners didn't have the networking abilities they do now. It's not like there was enough traffic on rec.guns to spread the word throughout the shooting community like we can do now via all the message boards, etc.

 

[alsaqr]

Yes, the internet is an asset. However, one must be able to separate genuine threats to our Second Amendment rights from the rumors, innuendos, distortions and outright lies.

 

[Rembrandt]

Another assault weapon ban would be much tougher today.....when the original went into effect few LEO's were equipped with the emerging AR type firearms. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) used the early ballooning civilian AR & AK market to spread fear that the populace were better armed than law enforcement. About the same time the Hollywood shootout and some high profile crimes painted the black gun as toxic to politicians.

That's all changed, the shear numbers of assault type firearms in civilian possession is staggering....add to it the fact that those rifles are more accepted by more gun owners than ever before. Look at the number of gun oriented shows on cable that show the sporting applications and acceptability of these rifles. The practical use for defense since 9-11 and sporting applications illustrates their place in society. Politicians are no fools, the fear tactics used by Metzenbaum and others wouldn't work today....and they know it.

 

[mortablunt]

Well, one warning sign will be the return of more restrictive gun laws around the country. Another will be the revival of the gun control movement to the point that they have massive rallies televised. The last sign will be the proposition of a bill. At that point, very calmly search through all your accounts, wallets, cushions, and trousers for cash you can use to purchase the final legal black rifles before the ban goes on, and then sell them for massive profit 9 years later.

 

[MAKster]

All the people who mention the 1994 ban need to remember that at the time the country was going through a massive cocaine fueled crime wave. Murders were at all time highs and crime was the number one issue facing politicians at the local and federal level. The total opposite situation exists today. Violent crime is at a 50 year low and fear of violence doesn't even rank in the top issues. It's just a nonissue for 99 percent of people.

 

[Tommygunn]

As I remember it the crime rate was dipping prior to the introduction of the AWB, and the trend continued on for a number of years. Dishonest politicians often credited the drop to the AWB despite the fact that the downturn started before it was implemented.
Actual demographers credited the downtrend to those people most responsible for crime growing older and finding other ...."employment" or taking a vacation in the GrayBar Hotel.
Another tidbit of a fact; an FBI study released about that time indicated assault weapons were used in one half of one percent of violent crime, so these weapons were rarely used at best.

 

[drcook]

DPMS, Remington (owned by the same holding company) and any other firearm manufacturer have been putting together models that are camo'd and such for HUNTING purposes. And are marketted as such. They are pretty astute. Having many HUNTING based offerings using the basic AR platform helps to counter the "not suitable for sporting use" arguments. Plus this kind of action is what the current crop of vets and such are familiar with, as opposed to the prior generations bolt action familiarity.

You can bet the domestic firearm mfr'ers have their lawyers working on such nuances to protect their business.

As far as the other platforms, such as an AK, that doesn't have a domestic manufacturer championing them, they could be gone after if named specifically (ie: not saying semi-auto rifle, but specifying semi-auto rifles based upon the AK style of reciever)

 

[MICHAEL T]

If the media suddenly starts reporting shootings or bank robberies where "assault" rifles were used and they keep talking about it over and over. If another crazy man with a gun shoots a congressman or woman. They will try and convince the general populous that they need these new restrictive laws and that they will benefit everybody.

This is the best way it always starts here. They used the same basic tactics in the 1950's to out law switchblades . Congressional hearings Chief of Police and citizens all telling how the streets of America was running red because of these evil knives .That could be bought any place by any teenager
Do the research and you will see. Its same attack they used used on the so called assualt rifles later .

 

[Patriotme]

I think that many people are looking at this issue the wrong way. They are assuming that a Bill would have to get through Congress and the politicians are too clever to risk the gun owner's votes.
I disagree. First of all.....how many Blue Dog Dems voted to put two anti gun Justices on the Supreme Court FOR FREAKING LIFE?
I don't think we will get another AWB through Congress any time soon but don't discount what could happen with Democratic majorities in both houses should things change in 2012.
But suppose a Bill never gets through Congress? Do we have to worry?
Yep....this is the problem. Obama doesn't really believe in the Constitution or even our current form of government. He wants what he wants despite the voters, the laws or even the wants of his own party. Now pretend that he has 4 more years and doesn't have to worry about reelection. He could do a lot of harm in those 4 years if he didn't have to worry about public opinion and reelection.
Let's look at what he wanted in a first term and the results.
Cap And Trade: Didn't happen. Congress couldn't get it done (good). So what does Obama do? He has the EPA put crushing fines and fees on the coal industry anyway and we will start seeing the closing of coal fired power plants. You will seen the price of energy increase. A Cabinet level position was used to regulate an industry when the new laws weren't passed.
Unions.....The NLRB is taking Boeing to court for building a new production facility in S. Carolina instead of next to the existing union plant in Portland.
There's a long list and I don't have the time to go and on. The short story is that they don't have to have another AWB. They could merely drive a lot (but not all) of "Assault Weapon" owners out of the market with BS laws. Perhaps you now need $1million in homeowners insurance to own an AR. Maybe your stolen AK is now cause for a DA to charge you with a crime if it's used in a shooting. I won't even go into the possible taxes and fees.
I don't think that we'll see another AWB but we could see Obama working around Congress (with a wink to the Dems) to make these weapons much more difficult to own.

 

[BeerSleeper]

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 don't think that's possible. [strike]IIRC, a bill not signed within 10 days is called a "pocket veto", and is functionally identical to a bill that has been directly vetoed.[/strike]

I suppose it is possible it was passed by one house in June or July, and then 2 months later by the other house of congress (I am not aware of what/if there is a deadline for a bill being considered by the second house of congress).


edit: just googled that...it's more complicated than that, and my statement is partially incorrect.
If wikipedia is right, if the president sits on a bill for 10 days, and congress is still in session at that time, the bill becomes law, the same as if it were signed. If on that 10th day, congress is no longer in session, that is a pocket veto, effectively the same as a standard veto, except that the bill is not returned for Congress to attempt an override vote, because Congress is no longer in session.

apologies for off-topic, but I preferred to correct my error rather than simply delete it.

Either way, the bill could not have been signed by the president two months after being passed by Congress.

 

[DavidMS]

I tend to stay out of political threads.

Couple of things. Much of the Democratic Party thinks that gun control is more radioactive than the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Just look at the 1994 elections.

From a rules making perspective (I.E. the 89 Ban, that would first show up as administrative rule making. Rule making is generally a good thing because it lets congress tell the regulatory agency the broad outlines of a policy and the agency with its experts fills in the details. I would not want congress to figure out exactly how to keep raw sewage out of my drinking water, just that my drinking water must be potable.

From a legislative perspective, ignore bills that various congress critters introduce. That's for consumption in the home district/state. Carolyn McCarthy will introduce all sorts of gun control laws including banning "That thing that goes up." Most of these efforts won't even get a committee hearing and will die. Worry about the ones that get to committee hearings. Of course by that time, the NRA-ILA will have already helped to kill that proposal.

One of the better things to do is meet your congressional rep or senator and mention that you enjoy the shooting sports (or whatever). I met my rep once and I am unimpressed with him. I had the chance to meet the rep in the next district over and although we almost certainty disagree on gun control, I like her positions on all the other issues much more.

 

[Deanimator]

Eric Holder has pretty much guaranteed that there WON'T be another AWB.

"Fast and Furious" is going to be the gift that keeps on giving to opponents of gun control for the next ten years.

"We need a new <insert crackpot gun law>!"

"Why? The BATFE will just intentionally violate it... massively."

 

[GEM]

Join the NRA! Also, when Holder started to talk about a new AWB, he was shut up quickly.

Recently polls, shall issue bills, gun sales indicate an increase in gun rights support. Yep, the Bloombergs, Chuck and Diane will fume away but with care, I think the tide has turned.

In general people want the goverment to take their hands off their holster and their crotches. The social control agendas of both parties aren't popular with most. Of course, the zealots make the news.

 

[HD Fboy]

"All the people who mention the 1994 ban need to remember that at the time the country was going through a massive cocaine fueled crime wave. Murders were at all time highs and crime was the number one issue facing politicians at the local and federal level. "

This is SO true. There are other differences too. Back then CCW's were available in maybe 2/3's of the states we have today. Few people had ever handled an AR-15 much less owned one. The most widely owned handgun was a 38 spl. Today just about everyone I know has handled an AR and semi autos dominate handgun sales. In may cases the AR is the first rifle people purchase. Back then all liberals and almost all dems including blue dogs voted for the AWB.

Today only the hard core anti gunners support a new AWB. Unfortunately this group is dominated in the current administration, DOJ, and BATF. This is not the case in the Dem caucus rooms on the Hill. Personally they may favor banning guns but they understand it will further erode Dem seats on the hill and Dem influence at the state and local level. I also believe that F&F is actually going to change BATF once the Dems loose the WH. I believe we have a 50-50 chance the ATF will be refocused under a GOP WH.

I would expect today a loosening of the NFA laws has a higher probability of passage on the hill than another AWB would.

 

[Deanimator]

I also believe that F&F is actually going to change BATF once the Dems loose the WH. I believe we have a 50-50 chance the ATF will be refocused under a GOP WH.

The BATFE (its real name) needs to be "refocused" in the way that the Gestapo and Kempetai were: by disbanding it and prosecuting, imprisoning and executing a portion of its former employees.

The BATFE was a corrupt, out of control organization on the day it was created and it will be a corrupt, out of control organization on its last day of existence. It needs to be eliminated IMMEDIATELY.

 

[Art Eatman]

A good many worthwhile points, but it's gotten into more politics than guns or gunlaw...