Assault Weapons ban sunset 2004
- Thread starter John/az2
- Start date
Careful...there are currently (that I count) 3 different bills trying to elongate this ban and 1 is set to make ALL itmes, even preban, illegal to transfer or own. Another is written to make the workaround weapons illegal (thumhole stock, muzzle brake instead of flash hider).
Check out http://thomas.loc.gov and search for "firearm ban" for more info.
[This message has been edited by JeepBear (edited March 03, 2000).]
Check out http://thomas.loc.gov and search for "firearm ban" for more info.
[This message has been edited by JeepBear (edited March 03, 2000).]
jeffelkins
New member
Can anyone name any federal gun laws that have ever been repealed? The AWB is here until the revolution 
Gopher a 45
New member
Wasn't the whole NFA declared null and void since the BATF wouldn't collect the tax on post-May 19, 1986 machine guns? So I guess it wasn't repealed, but it was struck down.
Of course, try arguing THAT one if you get caught with an unregeistered MG! So, I guess even if a gun ban is repealed, the repeal gets ignored. >:< (How the heck do you make a p.o.'ed smiley anyway??)
Of course, try arguing THAT one if you get caught with an unregeistered MG! So, I guess even if a gun ban is repealed, the repeal gets ignored. >:< (How the heck do you make a p.o.'ed smiley anyway??)
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The chances it will renewed under a Republican are 50-50. Guess the chances
with a Dem?
Need a lifeline?
Call Mom?
Ask the Audience?
with a Dem?
Need a lifeline?
Call Mom?
Ask the Audience?
Jeff, the is a huge, tremendous, colossal difference between a repeal and a sunset. You are right that no "gun control" is ever repealed, because of inertia and the necessity of passing NEW (repealing) legislation. However, sunsets are more likely than not to occur for precisely the same reason, inertia - a specific act of Congress renewing the bill is required, which is never easy to do, esp. if we're ready for the fight - I am quite hopeful that the 94 crap will sunset.
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=25465
On September 13, 2004, The "assault weapons" ban will sunset. If Congress at anytime during your
administration passes
legislation to make the ban permanent, will you sign it or veto it?
His {GWB} answer:
I will not sign it. If it passes congress, which I am very doubtful that it will, it will happen during the later
part of 2004. If I
signed that, it would be political suicide and I know it. Quite a few Congressmen lost their jobs because of
this law. I doubt
that it will even get out of committee so I hopefully won't have to deal with it.
On September 13, 2004, The "assault weapons" ban will sunset. If Congress at anytime during your
administration passes
legislation to make the ban permanent, will you sign it or veto it?
His {GWB} answer:
I will not sign it. If it passes congress, which I am very doubtful that it will, it will happen during the later
part of 2004. If I
signed that, it would be political suicide and I know it. Quite a few Congressmen lost their jobs because of
this law. I doubt
that it will even get out of committee so I hopefully won't have to deal with it.
Brett Bellmore
New member
It SUNSETS???? You mean I only have to hold out another 4 1/2 years, and I'll be able to afford new magazines for my Calico 9mm carbine? (Currently, I think they cost more than the original retail price of the gun!)YAAHOO!
'Scuse me if the above cheer wasn't serious; Look at how the Lautenberg amendment got passed, and ask yourself this: How many opportunities will there be in the next four years to stuff a few words into a 2000 page omnibus spending bill in committe, and then not tell anyone about it until it's been signed? It's not like they let the members actually READ the bills they vote on, you know; Much of the time the bills haven't even been WRITTEN at the time they're enacted!
We desperately need some reforms of the way Congress handles legislation internally, and the Republicans have NO excuse here; The President doesn't get to veto House and Senate rules.
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
'Scuse me if the above cheer wasn't serious; Look at how the Lautenberg amendment got passed, and ask yourself this: How many opportunities will there be in the next four years to stuff a few words into a 2000 page omnibus spending bill in committe, and then not tell anyone about it until it's been signed? It's not like they let the members actually READ the bills they vote on, you know; Much of the time the bills haven't even been WRITTEN at the time they're enacted!
We desperately need some reforms of the way Congress handles legislation internally, and the Republicans have NO excuse here; The President doesn't get to veto House and Senate rules.
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
Brett Bellmore, says that essentially the Republicans have played fast and loose with the rights of gun owners. Remember that not every Democrat is anti gun, nor is every Republican pro gun, and they all vote monies to DOJ, which doesn't enforce the law.
Know something? I think that he is right, and his reference to the way legislation is handled "internally" that is conference committees, dead of the night amendments and such, are very much to the point. Cyeck their voting records, not their double talk.
Know something? I think that he is right, and his reference to the way legislation is handled "internally" that is conference committees, dead of the night amendments and such, are very much to the point. Cyeck their voting records, not their double talk.
jeffelkins
New member
I'm aware of the difference between a sunset provision and a repeal. Whichever Republicrat makes it into office will gladly sign legislation re-banning 'evil' guns and accessories. The sheeple will demand it. We'll be lucky if new restrictions aren't added.
I'm not trying to be negative, just realistic about the current environment. Hey, if I'm wrong, I'll GLADLY buy everyone in this thread the beer of their choice!
[This message has been edited by jeffelkins (edited March 03, 2000).]
I'm not trying to be negative, just realistic about the current environment. Hey, if I'm wrong, I'll GLADLY buy everyone in this thread the beer of their choice!
[This message has been edited by jeffelkins (edited March 03, 2000).]
Brett Bellmore
New member
Alan: Regrettably, this is NOT a matter on which "checking voting records" helps; Everyone in Congress with the exception of a few sneaks on a conference committe could be in our corner, and they could still pull this off... Because most members wouldn't KNOW that there was an anti-gun provision in the bill they were voting on!
The language is already drafted, you can be quite certain of that, and they're just waiting for the right time, and the right vehicle. They need a bill which is large enough nobody is likely to sit down and read through from start to finish, and which is going to be pushed through in enough of a hurry that the final vote takes place BEFORE copies of the bill have been distributed. And then it's got to be done at a time when the potential of a '94 style uprising is minimal.
They almost certainly will NOT do this before the fall election, as they don't want every gun owner in the country pissed off on election day. If Bush gets elected, they'll do it during the lame duck session after the election; Not the best time to be sneaking things through, as everybody is on the look out, but they'll need an anti-gun President to sign it. If Gore wins, look for it in one of those mammoth appropriations bills next year. [On second thought, it occurs to me that the Republican leadership MIGHT cooperate with the Democrats in doing this before the election, in the hope of replicating '94. They're unprincipled enough, but would the Democrats be stupid enough to go along? Maybe.]
And, as I said, checking voting records doesn't stop something like this, as most members would have no way of knowing what they were voting for. There's only ONE way of stopping this, and that's reforming Congressional rules so that bills ABSOLUTELY have to be made available to read, (Or better still, be posted on the internet.) long enough in advance of the final vote to have time to check them over. Something the "leadership" of Congress will fight tooth and nail, because sneaking things into conference bills, and then lying about it, is one of the "perks" of their positions.
By the way, this isn't just a RKBA issue, either; They can screw ANY group this way, and have.
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
[This message has been edited by Brett Bellmore (edited March 05, 2000).]
The language is already drafted, you can be quite certain of that, and they're just waiting for the right time, and the right vehicle. They need a bill which is large enough nobody is likely to sit down and read through from start to finish, and which is going to be pushed through in enough of a hurry that the final vote takes place BEFORE copies of the bill have been distributed. And then it's got to be done at a time when the potential of a '94 style uprising is minimal.
They almost certainly will NOT do this before the fall election, as they don't want every gun owner in the country pissed off on election day. If Bush gets elected, they'll do it during the lame duck session after the election; Not the best time to be sneaking things through, as everybody is on the look out, but they'll need an anti-gun President to sign it. If Gore wins, look for it in one of those mammoth appropriations bills next year. [On second thought, it occurs to me that the Republican leadership MIGHT cooperate with the Democrats in doing this before the election, in the hope of replicating '94. They're unprincipled enough, but would the Democrats be stupid enough to go along? Maybe.]
And, as I said, checking voting records doesn't stop something like this, as most members would have no way of knowing what they were voting for. There's only ONE way of stopping this, and that's reforming Congressional rules so that bills ABSOLUTELY have to be made available to read, (Or better still, be posted on the internet.) long enough in advance of the final vote to have time to check them over. Something the "leadership" of Congress will fight tooth and nail, because sneaking things into conference bills, and then lying about it, is one of the "perks" of their positions.
By the way, this isn't just a RKBA issue, either; They can screw ANY group this way, and have.
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
[This message has been edited by Brett Bellmore (edited March 05, 2000).]
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Jeff's right. Unless there is a total GOP
sweep with control of both houses also,
renewing the bill will be a sure thing.
Let me ask you - crime is going down since
the bill was passed?
Why do you need assault rifles and high capacity clips? Look at all the misues of such weapons at Columbine, etc. etc.
Takes guts and a coherent reason to face that rhetoric down? Who's going to do it that has a chance of getting in?
sweep with control of both houses also,
renewing the bill will be a sure thing.
Let me ask you - crime is going down since
the bill was passed?
Why do you need assault rifles and high capacity clips? Look at all the misues of such weapons at Columbine, etc. etc.
Takes guts and a coherent reason to face that rhetoric down? Who's going to do it that has a chance of getting in?