Reactivation of the '95 Assault Weapons Ban

Nice text right there at the start...
.Stop Senseless Gun Violence: Renewing the Assault Weapons Ban and Closing the Gun Show Loophole. The Biden Crime Bill provides for a straight-forward reauthorization of the assault weapons ban that became law in 1994 and it closes the so-called gun show loophole by requiring all gun show sales submit to federal background checks, just like any store-based firearm sale.
.Update Current Law to Keep Up with Changing Technologies: The 2007 Biden Crime Bill also updates federal laws relating to child exploitation and violence against children, drug possession and trafficking, firearms, computer crimes and intellectual property and victims rights.
Click to expand...
Ignoring thier own evidence showing the thing did nothing to stop crime, aren't they?
What federal laws are you wanting to update, without telling us first?
Time to invest in some more highly expensive Ruger factory 20 round mags.
 
Messages Sent

To both Graham and DeMint.

While browsing DeMint's site I found this statement:

As a Congressman, I have taken an oath to uphold our great nation’s Constitution. The ability of decent, hard-working Americans to own a gun, whether for sport or protection, must not be compromised in any way. Only a government that does not trust its citizens would refuse them the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Well, think I know who I am voting for when he is up for re-election next. I urge other South Carolinians to do the same. Couldn't find a similar statement on Sen. Graham's site, but he doesn't have a lot of issue statements on his site to begin with.
 
All they really have to do is repeal the expiration date. A one line law stating, "Line [such and such] of the federal code is hereby repealed.", where that's the line that caused the ban to expire, would reinstate it, without any red flag mentions of firearms.

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if they did that in the lame duck session after the 2008 election, and if they did, it would surprise me even less if Bush, who campaigned saying he wanted the ban made permanent, signed it.

Only the Democratic fear of a backlash is standing in the way of this; If they decide to risk it, the thing will be passed before we every hear about it, and on the President's desk before we have time to mobilize.
 
No, that won't do, because then that would turn a lot of people into criminals for possessing firearms with all those goodys that the law prohibited.

Pardon my skepticism, and quite often, my ignorance, for I might be wrong on this. But it seems to me like this is a lot of 'the sky is falling' nonsense.

A whole new ban, maybe.
Resurecting the old one, no.
 
Doom and Gloom!

If the Supreme Court denies cert on Heller, any ban on guns would be problematic. The D.C. Circuits ruling on Parker would stand and bans by the Federal Government would fail upon most any challenge in that Circuit, which has jurisdiction on all Federal action.

If the Supreme Court grants cert, I'm 95% sure they will uphold Heller. That makes any Federal gun ban a non-starter.

We will know in two short weeks what is going to happen.
 
Harry Schell: And others;

When the government states " We want to help you "

A. Check your wallet!

B. Check and see what is missing!

If the Feds would just do what is mandated by the Constitution we would be fine. Maybe I would be making more then $10,000 a year! I feel the pain of the people that make $80,000 and need help on there Health Care!:barf::barf:
 
You're right Anti. That's why it is so IMPORTANT for us to win Heller! It is absolutely crucial considering we will probably end up with Hillary and Democrats holding onto Congress.

We all know Hillary, with a Democratically controlled Congress, would attempt to ban the private ownership of firearms by ANY means they feel necessary. The Democratic leadership simply does not want us to own firearms.

This is why the Heller case is so important IMHO.
 
No, that won't do, because then that would turn a lot of people into criminals for possessing firearms with all those goodys that the law prohibited.
Click to expand...

Laws do that, sometimes. Mind you, as the law is usually interpreted, they'd have to give people who bought things the ban banned, after it expired, a chance to dispose of them.
 
If they re-activate the AWB....

We need to de-activate Senators and Congressmen (Congresspersons?) who vote for it. The 94 elections were not a fluke, and they were not caused by the Republican Contract with America! They were a result of US gun owners finally waking up, and waking up pissed! THAT is what cost the Dems the control of Congress that they had enjoyed for 40 years, and they knew it!

The "mainstream "press wouldn't report it, but they knew it. And acknowledged amongst themselves. The sad thing is what the republicans didn't do once they had control.

In case they have forgotten what it cost them, perhaps we sould remind them. Don't bother "reminding" your representatives about how important the 2nd Amendment is, either they already know, or the don't really care. Remind them how much it cost them the last time they tried this crap! THAT they will care about!!!
 
I wonder how the outcome of that ruling would affect the import laws if it would at all. 922r and the new banning of parts kits from being imported are frivolities and must be done with.

But I figure even with the sunset of the AWB and we still have to abide by it, it wouldn't do anything at all. There must be some other political or economic reason they have it in place. The govt. probably just doesn't like making any kind of deals with former eastbloc or Middle Eastern countries getting demilled weapons sent over here. They simply don't fall into the standard gun control argument the govt. and the antis have because with the sunset of the AWB ban, we are allowed to own "evil looking military assault rifles", what difference does it make where functional parts are made?
 
Interesting if true

NEWS RELEASE
HILL REPORT: HILLARY BACKER WANTS RUSSERT SHOT; ‘2A IS NOT FOR SILENCING PRESS’ SAYS SAF
BELLEVUE, WA – A report in Thursday’s edition of The Hill suggests that Hillary Clinton supporters have little or no understanding of either the First or Second Amendments, after a Clinton backer reportedly said in a conference call that NBC’s Tim Russert “should be shot” for asking tough questions, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

Reporter Sam Youngman noted that the woman who made the suggestion quickly acknowledged that she “shouldn’t say that on a conference call.” This conference call was in reaction to Clinton’s bungled performance Tuesday evening in a Democrat candidates’ debate.

“Incredible,” observed SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “This unidentified supporter of candidate Clinton – whose extreme anti-gun record is well known – would misuse a firearm to silence a journalist, simply because he did his job and put a politician on the spot with her own words. What a remarkable comment to come from the mouth of someone who is most likely an ardent supporter of restrictive gun laws.

“The most telling thing about Youngman’s revelation,” he added, “is that the woman didn’t immediately withdraw the suggestion, she merely admitted that she shouldn’t be talking about murdering Mr. Russert in a public forum. Perhaps Mrs. Clinton’s attitudes about private firearms ownership are based on her knowledge of her own supporters, at least one of whom probably should never be allowed near a firearm, especially if she is anywhere near Tim Russert!

“Frankly,” Gottlieb said, “we are more disappointed than surprised at this remark, because it has long been a trademark of the so-called ‘progressive Left’ that it not only is intolerant of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, it has zero tolerance for opinions and news with which it disagrees. And these are the people supporting Hillary Clinton.

“Candidates for high public office, and especially the presidency, will occasionally stumble,” Gottlieb said. “Ultimately, they will stand or fall on their own words and beliefs, and whether their supporters like it or not, it is the duty of journalists like Tim Russert to bring out the best, and sometimes the worst, from a politician. That’s what the First Amendment is all about. He should get a medal for that, not a bullet.”

-END-




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family >
Copyright © 2007 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.

Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-7012
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
FAX: 425-451-3959
email: InformationRequest@saf.org

------------------------------------

One wonders as to the ladies position on GUN CONTROL
 
I hate to say this but the looney left is made up of people who, simply, aren't that intelligent IMHO.
 
“Incredible,” observed SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “This unidentified supporter of candidate Clinton – whose extreme anti-gun record is well known – would misuse a firearm to silence a journalist, simply because he did his job and put a politician on the spot with her own words. What a remarkable comment to come from the mouth of someone who is most likely an ardent supporter of restrictive gun laws.
Click to expand...

I know of other leftists who silenced dissenters and nosy journalists with a gun. Usually a Nagant revolver in the hand of an NKVD officer, in a back alley.

Scary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top