Rumors of lifting the 10 round and AW ban ?

2

2002gti

New member
any truth to them. theres been a lot of talk in the last few months about the 2 banns getting lifted...........please advise
 
The so-called assault weapon ban will automatically expire this September.

It's not a matter of the ban being lifted by an act of congress. It can only be reinstated by an act of congress.

The members of congress who align themselves against freedom already tried to renew the ban earlier this year. They failed. As it stands now, it looks like the law will pass away on September 14, 2004.

See http://www.awbansunset.com for more information.
 
thanks, so things are looking pretty good right now especially with bush in office? wou;d you know if the 2 banns will apply to california also or does cali have their own aw and capcaity limits?
 
2002gti,

Don't get your hopes up! It's only the Federal ban that will expire. The California bans will still remain.
 
thanks, so things are looking pretty good right now especially with bush in office?
Click to expand...

One of President Bush's campaign promises was to sign a renewal of the AWB if it came to his desk, so his presence in the White House has nothing to do with it not being renewed. It's more a function of a marginally pro-gun House.
 
Taipei, evidently you're not familiar with Bush's efforts to kill the AWB during deliberations over S. 1805.

Check into it and tell me what you think.
 
howabout you post a link thumper. i'd be the first to guess there's a lot of people who don't know what the heck you are talking about. Myself included. Add to that you can't just plug it into a search engine and get much of use.
 
Thumper-
Knox's assumption that Bush's request for a clean bill protecting manufacturers from liability signals a reversal from he '03 statement on the AWB is a reach. Reasonable conclusion....but reaching none-the-less.

From what I can tell Bush has been silent on the issue since early '03 when he stated that he'd sign an extension. I think the key political issue is how bad he wants an NRA endorsement vs how much he fears fence sitters jumping to Kerry, should he come out against the sunset.

The smart political move would be to use Hastert and the House to keep it from coming to a vote, from behind the scenes. If the bill sunsets, regardless of open involvement from GW, he probably gets the NRA support.

The smart ethical move is to tell us exactly how he feels about the 2nd in relation to guns that some think are evil. (Don't hold your breath for that one.)

http://www.evervigilant.net/shelton/shelton111303.html
http://www.hillnews.com/news/051204/nra.aspx

Rich
 
Thumper,

Asking for a clean lawsuit protection bill is not the same as "efforts to kill" the AWB.

One, just one, attributable quote from W stating that he is against the '94 AWB would be nice, but it seems that all the attributable quotes available are just political weasel-words like "in favor of enforcing existing laws" and "will sign it if it hits my desk" et cetera.

If he'll stand on principle on this one issue, I'll punch his chad with one hand while holding a deep-fried crow drumstick with the other...
 
Come on, Tam...you followed that vote as closely as I did. That memo was a slap in the face to the antis.

Is he ambiguous on the AWB? Yeah. But actions DO speak louder than words. A rider on the lawsuit immunity bill was the last chance for the AWB.

How many gun owners support the AWB? The percentage is disheartening, and that's our fault.

BTW, for someone to try to portray a President who supports lawsuit immunity specifically for the gun industry as anti gun is a little strange, right?
 
Thumper,

BTW, for someone to try to portray a President who supports lawsuit immunity specifically for the gun industry as anti gun is a little strange, right?
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to portray him as "anti-gun", but (as you point out with your 60% statistic) there are varying shades of "pro-gun", too.

Yeah, somebody who's pro-.38-snubby-in-the-pocket and .30-30-levergun-in-the-gunrack is better than someone who's pro-taking-all-my-dang-guns-away; no doubt, there. I want more, though, and I'm going to keep pushing for it. :o


PS: I see the gun industry lawsuit protection bill as a first step to badly needed wider tort reform. I dream of a day when someone can't sue McDonald's because they spilled coffee in their own lap or Anheuser-Busch because they drove their own Camaro into a tree while blotto...
 
Rumors of lifting the 10 round and AW ban?

It's more a function of a marginally pro-gun House.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt they're "pro-gun" as much as they are "pro-hanging-onto-to-their-jobs". I've been told that once you start feeding from the public feed bucket, it's difficult to back away.
 
A politician would stay ambiguous on an issue as long as it is to his advantage. What politicians are known for are the issues they choose to run on.
If a new AW ban reaches his desk he will sign it. But it also would mean that gun owners have failed to make their presence felt. He will sign it for votes.
Politics favors pragmatism over ethics.
 
Another important thing to remember is that even if the ban does sunset (and I believe it will), the antis will surely be back again. It would certainly be in our best interests to make sure that it can't make it to the President's desk regardless of who that President is.

We have a 14-19 vote lead in the House; but we are down by several votes in the Senate. We lost the amendment vote 52-47 in March.

Luckily for us though, four of the people who voted against us are retiring from pro-gun southern states (Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Florida) and one of the ringleaders, Sen. Tom Daschle is in a tight reelection race where gunowner turnout can easily sink him.

If we can get gunowners to vote their guns in these races, we can easily make the next two years AWB-proof regardless of who ends up in the White House.
 
I seriously doubt they're "pro-gun" as much as they are "pro-hanging-onto-to-their-jobs".
Click to expand...

I was speaking of the House as a whole and the difficulty of getting a gun control bill passed, not of the individual members' philosophies. That is why I referred to "a marginally pro-gun House" as opposed to the pro- or anti-gun stances of individual members.
 
Taipei, evidently you're not familiar with Bush's efforts to kill the AWB during deliberations over S. 1805.
Click to expand...

As others have stated, efforts to pass a clean version of a good bill do not equal efforts to prevent passage of a bad bill. If you have documented evidence that President Bush would not have signed a gun manufacturers' bill that was clean except for a renewal of the AWB, I'd like to see it. Based on his public comments, I believe he would have signed such a bill.
 
If the practical end is a sunset on the ban then I don't care about ethics or anything else the politicians say. SUNSET SEPTEMBER 14, 2004! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top