How soon could an Assault Weapons Ban start?
- Thread starter ChadP
- Start date
Just keep waiting on your Stag if that's what you want. Don't settle for something else for simple fear. Even when legislation is a serious threat, it will take a long time to get through the Congressional wickets. It might pass, but it sure won't sail through like other less controversial bills. No way it'll go from intro to signed in 24 hours.
Swampghost
New member
My son is selling and making a small fortune while everybody is in panic mode. Good for him!
Anybody else notice that the Pres. is shifting closer to center every day? We are in an economic tailspin. Have wars going on two fronts. Gun control MAY show up as an earmark on some bill. If so it WILL be on your NRA legislative alert.
If you aren't a member of the NRA, join ASAP. I'm guessing that the crap will hit the fan in a few years, swelling the ranks now could prevent future proposals.
I'm not getting paid for this as it looks like an ad for the NRA. Part of my family moved here in 1690. As Will Rodgers said, the other half was there to greet them. I just beleive in this country. IMHO, the NRA is all that stands between gun owners and people that eat steak-on-a-stick from street vendors. I've been to Washington, DC. more than once.
Anybody else notice that the Pres. is shifting closer to center every day? We are in an economic tailspin. Have wars going on two fronts. Gun control MAY show up as an earmark on some bill. If so it WILL be on your NRA legislative alert.
If you aren't a member of the NRA, join ASAP. I'm guessing that the crap will hit the fan in a few years, swelling the ranks now could prevent future proposals.
I'm not getting paid for this as it looks like an ad for the NRA. Part of my family moved here in 1690. As Will Rodgers said, the other half was there to greet them. I just beleive in this country. IMHO, the NRA is all that stands between gun owners and people that eat steak-on-a-stick from street vendors. I've been to Washington, DC. more than once.
Chad, legislation if passed as an emergency, could take effect as soon as it was signed. Some legislation includes a start time. The short answer is that it depends upon how any particular bill is written.
lon371, I'm not aware of any pending legislation that calls for a ban. Care to enlighten the rest of us?
lon371, I'm not aware of any pending legislation that calls for a ban. Care to enlighten the rest of us?
The speaker of the house is opposed to an AWB. She is well aware that voting on an AWB will split her party in the House.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news...-opposing-weapons-ban-revival-2009-02-26.html
Last edited:
Mike Irwin
Staff
"It was brought up again on Febuary 25 so get ready."
The AG can't bring up new legislation. He's not a member of Congress.
It was only brought up in the sense that the attorney general was talking out of turn. He was swiftly repudiated by the Speaker of the House and apparently also by the leader of the Senate, neither of whom apparently see any political benefit of taking on the gun lobby at this time.
The rumor that I get from some friends who have ties to Justice is that Rahm Emanuel also delivered a "WHAT THE EFF WERE YOU DOING!??!" message to the AG on behalf of the President.
The AG can't bring up new legislation. He's not a member of Congress.
It was only brought up in the sense that the attorney general was talking out of turn. He was swiftly repudiated by the Speaker of the House and apparently also by the leader of the Senate, neither of whom apparently see any political benefit of taking on the gun lobby at this time.
The rumor that I get from some friends who have ties to Justice is that Rahm Emanuel also delivered a "WHAT THE EFF WERE YOU DOING!??!" message to the AG on behalf of the President.
Legislation fast, EO instantly.
Mind you, it favors gun manufacturers to inspire some degree of worry in their customers. To know your entire production capacity will be immediately purchased, not tying your money up in inventories or receivables, is very valuable.
That said, an EVP from one of the bigger military manufacturers was pushing to raise awareness that a presidential import ban could bring a screeching halt to their products available on the commercial market.
Mind you, it favors gun manufacturers to inspire some degree of worry in their customers. To know your entire production capacity will be immediately purchased, not tying your money up in inventories or receivables, is very valuable.
That said, an EVP from one of the bigger military manufacturers was pushing to raise awareness that a presidential import ban could bring a screeching halt to their products available on the commercial market.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Since the paperwork is already there, it could get through quicker than we think."
Uh... Not really.
The law expired. It doesn't matter if the "paperwork" is there - the law expired.
Sure, someone from Congress could use it as a starting point for writing a new law, but it's not just as simply as saying "Hey, let's bring XXX, which expired a couple of years ago, back to life. All in favor?" and by a voice vote it becomes law again.
Also, there's already been an attempt to reinitiate the ban, word for word. So far it's languishing in committee with a grand total of 4 sponsors.
Anything that is proposed has to go through the full legislative process. How long that process takes is COMPLETELY open to debate. This is a completely different congress than the one that passed it in 1994; the times are different, the realities are different, and the AWB helped cost the Democrats a LOT of seats in Congress in the 1994 midterms and is counted as a huge factor in costing the Dems. the White House in 2000. They may be many things, but they're not dumb. They fully know that the potential exists for the exact same thing to happen today.
Pelosi's reaction to Holder's pronouncement is a pretty good indication that the Dems know that the next couple of years are VERY tenuous for them.
If their economic stimulus plan doesn't start turning things around, and things get even worse AND they ram through an AWB?
They're smart enough to recognize that the mid terms would probably be even worse for them than they were in 1994.
Uh... Not really.
The law expired. It doesn't matter if the "paperwork" is there - the law expired.
Sure, someone from Congress could use it as a starting point for writing a new law, but it's not just as simply as saying "Hey, let's bring XXX, which expired a couple of years ago, back to life. All in favor?" and by a voice vote it becomes law again.
Also, there's already been an attempt to reinitiate the ban, word for word. So far it's languishing in committee with a grand total of 4 sponsors.
Anything that is proposed has to go through the full legislative process. How long that process takes is COMPLETELY open to debate. This is a completely different congress than the one that passed it in 1994; the times are different, the realities are different, and the AWB helped cost the Democrats a LOT of seats in Congress in the 1994 midterms and is counted as a huge factor in costing the Dems. the White House in 2000. They may be many things, but they're not dumb. They fully know that the potential exists for the exact same thing to happen today.
Pelosi's reaction to Holder's pronouncement is a pretty good indication that the Dems know that the next couple of years are VERY tenuous for them.
If their economic stimulus plan doesn't start turning things around, and things get even worse AND they ram through an AWB?
They're smart enough to recognize that the mid terms would probably be even worse for them than they were in 1994.
vranasaurus
New member
Pelosi doesn't have the votes in the House and Reid, who does not support the AWB, will not push it in the Senate.
For Pelosi to get the votes in the house she would have to strong arm a great deal of her pary members from conservative districts to vote for the legislation which would certainly cost them in the next election. These congressmen know that voting for this would more than likely cost them so I don't know what exactly Pelosi could do to force them to vote their way out of office.
Should Pelosi push for it she knows it will not make it through the Senate so it would be a stupid political move. The republicans have been attempting to use the gun issue, among others, to help them gain back the majority. The safest way for the democrats to prevent them from using the gun issue is to not allow gun legislation to come up for a vote and in the House the majority can make that happen.
We all know what Pelosi's views on guns are and the only thing preventing her from trying to further her views is her desire to remain Speaker.
For Pelosi to get the votes in the house she would have to strong arm a great deal of her pary members from conservative districts to vote for the legislation which would certainly cost them in the next election. These congressmen know that voting for this would more than likely cost them so I don't know what exactly Pelosi could do to force them to vote their way out of office.
Should Pelosi push for it she knows it will not make it through the Senate so it would be a stupid political move. The republicans have been attempting to use the gun issue, among others, to help them gain back the majority. The safest way for the democrats to prevent them from using the gun issue is to not allow gun legislation to come up for a vote and in the House the majority can make that happen.
We all know what Pelosi's views on guns are and the only thing preventing her from trying to further her views is her desire to remain Speaker.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Historically, the party that wins the Presidential election loses seats in the House of Representatives during the next midterm election. Since our founding, there have been only a few exceptions (1902, 1934, 1998, and 2002).
So the Democrats already have a very tough battle ahead as it is. I don't think they are looking to make it tougher at the moment. Pelosi's reaction to Holder's statement and the fact that the Senate Majority Leader opposes the ban are going to make it very difficult to pass any legislation right now.
We will definitely see such a bill introduced; but I do not expect it to gain traction until at least after the 2002 mid-terms. The Democrats demonstrated that they would rather try for the brass ring than immediate gun control when they stifled several AWB attempts after taking control in 2006. They have some significant opportunities now to establish long-running control over all three branches of government. I think they will not risk that opportunity in the next two years. Not to mention that the logical place to kick off a gun control fight would not be the AWB; but background checks for private sales.
So the Democrats already have a very tough battle ahead as it is. I don't think they are looking to make it tougher at the moment. Pelosi's reaction to Holder's statement and the fact that the Senate Majority Leader opposes the ban are going to make it very difficult to pass any legislation right now.
We will definitely see such a bill introduced; but I do not expect it to gain traction until at least after the 2002 mid-terms. The Democrats demonstrated that they would rather try for the brass ring than immediate gun control when they stifled several AWB attempts after taking control in 2006. They have some significant opportunities now to establish long-running control over all three branches of government. I think they will not risk that opportunity in the next two years. Not to mention that the logical place to kick off a gun control fight would not be the AWB; but background checks for private sales.
MeekAndMild
New member
I've been hearing rumblings and tonight saw a blurb on "60 Minutes" so I suspect it will be really soon. Mexico's government is blaming their civil war with their drug cartels on our AWB expiration. The Mexican empty suit interviewd by the TV empty suit said something to the tune of "the second amendment was never meant to allow this".
Now if Mexico had had their own second amendment so their own citizens could have been legally armed they wouldn't have had the problem in the first place. As it is Mexico should be the poster child for the old NRA slogan "If guns are banned only criminals will have guns".
Now if Mexico had had their own second amendment so their own citizens could have been legally armed they wouldn't have had the problem in the first place. As it is Mexico should be the poster child for the old NRA slogan "If guns are banned only criminals will have guns".