Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 7/31/2002 11:22:27 AM EDT
Hey

I just found out that the 1994 assault weapons ban will sunset in Aug. 2004. This will put an end to the ban unless it gets voted back in. Is this true? Does anyone know what the best way to keep it from being voted back in is? What are the NRA's plans?
Link Posted: 9/2/2002 6:43:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
Yes, this is true. Best way to prevent it from being re-enacted is to get a gun friendly congress in 2002--That's November of this year.
A good buttkickin' for the scumbags in the middle east and the return of a strong economy are the best things to ensure that. Not looking good. However, IF Bush refuses to sign a congressional bill it will die anyway as there is no way that congress will get a 2/3 majority to override a presidential veto. That pretty much sums it up, I think.

Get out and vote and make sure that other gun owners get out and vote.




Here's a civics lesson for you: If the Presidnt refuses to sign a bill that's been passed by both the House and the Senate, then it becomes law anyway. Many bills became law without a signature. This is not the same as a veto.
I think that a passed bill automatically becomes law ten days after it's submitted to the President if he doesn't sign or veto it.


That's all.

CJ
Link Posted: 9/2/2002 6:50:25 PM EDT
Yes, that's correct. Just didn't feel like writing a dissertation on the constitution. Glad to see we have so many knowledgeable people here though. Makes us gun owners look pretty good, I think.
Link Posted: 9/2/2002 7:02:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
However, IF Bush refuses to sign a congressional bill it will die anyway as there is no way that congress will get a 2/3 majority to override a presidential veto.



REALLY big "IF."

Bush is on record as supporting the AW and hicap bans.
Link Posted: 9/2/2002 8:18:27 PM EDT
Section 7 of Article 1 of the Constitution states:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Distilled into English, any bill passing both houses shall be sent to the president for consideration. Shall the president veto the bill it is returned to the Cingress with an explanation for veto at which time Congress may amend or override with a concurrent 2/3 vote. Should a bill arrive to the President prior to ten days before Congress adjourns he need not act and the bill is vetoed without the ability to override.
Link Posted: 9/2/2002 9:04:19 PM EDT
Bush is not pro-gun. He only tolerates them.

The ban will sunset, but I guarantee another (way more strict) bill will replace it shortly before or after it sunsets.

M60308nato...Things will be back to normal?

NOT!

Things will only be "back to normal" when machineguns can be legally purchased through the mail w/o need of an FFL. Anything less is an infringement on your rights as a US citizen.

Shit will never be normal again.
Link Posted: 9/2/2002 9:36:35 PM EDT
Here's my .02....The House learned rather quickly where voting for laws like that leads them.....
1) The House voted OVERWHELMINGLY (VETO PROOF) to REPEAL the AW ban during Clintons reign.
2) The only reason it didn't happen is the Senate couldn't get enough votes to make it veto proof which for CERTAIN Clinton would've done.
3) MANY "moderate"/semi-progun Democrats in the House voted along with the Republicans to repeal it.

IMO The key is the House of Representatives.If we don't lose a shitload of moderate Dems and progun Republicans in 2002,I'd lay good odds,a new AW ban will never see the light of day out of the House.
If we pick up more progun seats,in particular a Republican majority again,that would make a second hurdle for VPC and the rest of those nutcases.
If they both lost massive amounts of progun legislators in 2002 I believe BUSH lite would indeed sign a new AW ban.I don't have much faith in a liberal in disguise aka Bush.
The House is the key to fending off new bullshit and frankly I'm pretty optimistic it's going to stay "progun".
Link Posted: 9/3/2002 2:46:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/3/2002 2:54:40 PM EDT by krinkfreak]

Originally Posted By akconvert:
Hey

I just found out that the 1994 assault weapons ban will sunset in Aug. 2004. This will put an end to the ban unless it gets voted back in. Is this true? Does anyone know what the best way to keep it from being voted back in is? What are the NRA's plans?



I would say the best way to try and prevent any new AW Ban would be to write your congressman today, and at least once a month to let them know you are a registered voter and want your voice heard!!!!

Here's a link to find and contact your elected representative:

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html


For those of you who really want to get involved, here's a better link to NRA's webpage for Legislative Action.

http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?title=NRA%20Institute%20for%20Legislative%20Action&url=www.nraila.org


Link Posted: 9/3/2002 3:06:26 PM EDT
It is supposed to sunset during a presidential election year and just before the actual election happens. The jackass party will be using this as a weapon against bush all throughout the campaigns and in order to gain favor and votes from the moderate soccer mom voters, he will support the ban remaining in place. If congress renews it, he will use his executive powers and make it permenant.
His political career means more to him than our rights, plain and simple. His daddy went for it and in order to save his presidency, he will support it as well.
I hope I am proven wrong, but the timing of the sunset stacks the odds against it going away.
Link Posted: 9/3/2002 3:35:08 PM EDT
This will be the first time I have voted based on just one issue.

Usually I look at the whole picture, but not this time.

My problem is even if they say they are pro gun,
politicians are nothing but professional liars.
Link Posted: 9/3/2002 3:47:00 PM EDT
Bush has ZERO say if the bill doens't make it to his desk. And, ir probably won't unless we lose big time in 2002.

Tom DeLay (R-TX) decides what goes on the Calendar for a vote. If he does not put it on the Calendar, then it can never be voted on, and is effectively DOA. DeLay is I believe a GOA A or B...So, that means he is Pro-Gun.

Even if it was voted on, it would likely still be DOA. This same House voted overwhelmingly in 1996, etc...to repeal that same ban. We couldn't muster the support necessary in the Senate. Things look good for the House, but Bleak for the Senate...especially with Elizabeth (Who Needs an AK-47) Dole who is the wife of Bob (Let's Ban Toy Guns) Dole...

The original ban passed only by 1 vote and that was only achieved by (The Democratic Speaker) holding the voting open until one person changed his vote from Nay to Yea...Had the vote not been held open it would have not passed the House in 1994. Only weeks later, many of these same Congressmen (who gave us the 94 AW Ban) lost their seats...I bet if Klinton had come up for a vote in 1994 (instead of 96), he probably would have been voted out also. Instead he got to leach off of the 1995 upsurge in the economy. The economy would have been DOA had Klinton's Internet Tax been passed in 1995/96...But, nonetheless he instead of the Congress that killed his plans to tax the internet out of existence got all the credit...
Link Posted: 9/3/2002 4:53:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/3/2002 4:54:00 PM EDT by cmjohnson]

Originally Posted By 1-Patriot-of-many:

1) The House voted OVERWHELMINGLY (VETO PROOF) to REPEAL the AW ban during Clintons reign.
2) The only reason it didn't happen is the Senate couldn't get enough votes to make it veto proof which for CERTAIN Clinton would've done.
...



Negative, sir. The reason why the bill didn't get through the Senate is because it never made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committe, which was staffed with some of our favorite gun grabbers.

If it HAD gone to the Senate floor for a vote, it might have passed. Veto proof? Well, you'd be surprised at how the Senate can start to pull together around a veto. Some bills that passed the Senate by a majority and then got vetoed then got an override later, simply because even those who had originally voted against the bill joined in the "how dare you?!? solidarity that the Senate (and House) have shown from time to time.

Nothing scrapes up a few extra votes better than a veto. The congressmen make it a point of pride to override a veto even if individually, some of them didn't vote for the bill.

Hell, with Barbara Boxer being a cosponsor of the armed pilots bill, ANYTHING can happen these days! It's screwy!

CJ

Link Posted: 9/3/2002 6:27:13 PM EDT
I, for one, am optimistic. I think we have a good chance of getting the '94 crime bill buried.
Link Posted: 9/3/2002 6:38:02 PM EDT

His daddy went for it and in order to save his presidency.


....and it worked so well in getting Bush 41 a second term I am sure Bush 43 will just jump up and hug it for himself!
Link Posted: 9/3/2002 6:52:10 PM EDT
What did happen after the "94 ban was the liberals got their asses kicked and the republicans took over congress by a substantial margin. It took Clinton a couple of years just to regroup from that fiasco.
They called us "angry white males". No offense to anyone else who is on our side. That's the term the media used, though.

Best thing I saw at the gunshow this past weekend was all the women. No shit. Way more than I've ever seen. That's our best chance guys. Believe it or not.
The media is helping us with all the publicity about child abductions, serial rapists, etc. Fortunately, for once, those that make up the media are not overly bright.
Link Posted: 9/3/2002 7:12:34 PM EDT
Im not sure if this would have any effect or not,...but I saw something on the news last night about a bill that would require proof of the "junk science" that is used to come up with statistics that support the need for Govt. Regulations...
It is directed at the "skewered" statistics, and the "spin" that is put on statistics that are used to study the need for regulations on all sorts of issues, from environmental to public safety, ect. ect.
I am wondering if this will affect the rediculous claims made by groups like the VPC, and HCI...which certainly have contributed to some of the gun laws.
Any thoughts?
Link Posted: 9/3/2002 7:16:11 PM EDT
Does anyone see a ban on current AR's and the new ones having a redesigned magwell that will only accept 10 round mags?? It would make those $110 RRA stripped lowers a steal right now
Link Posted: 9/3/2002 7:52:53 PM EDT
Such a bill could never possibly pass because it would knock the feet out from under nearly every politician and special interest group. EVERYBODY spins information if they have any bias or special interest in a subject. It's just worse with politicians and groups that want to outlaw something that scares them.

CJ
Link Posted: 9/4/2002 12:59:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:

Originally Posted By 1-Patriot-of-many:

1) The House voted OVERWHELMINGLY (VETO PROOF) to REPEAL the AW ban during Clintons reign.
2) The only reason it didn't happen is the Senate couldn't get enough votes to make it veto proof which for CERTAIN Clinton would've done.
...



Negative, sir. The reason why the bill didn't get through the Senate is because it never made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committe, which was staffed with some of our favorite gun grabbers.

If it HAD gone to the Senate floor for a vote, it might have passed. Veto proof? Well, you'd be surprised at how the Senate can start to pull together around a veto. Some bills that passed the Senate by a majority and then got vetoed then got an override later, simply because even those who had originally voted against the bill joined in the "how dare you?!? solidarity that the Senate (and House) have shown from time to time.

Nothing scrapes up a few extra votes better than a veto. The congressmen make it a point of pride to override a veto even if individually, some of them didn't vote for the bill.

Hell, with Barbara Boxer being a cosponsor of the armed pilots bill, ANYTHING can happen these days! It's screwy!

CJ

Thanks for setting the record straight....In any case it died in the Senate.
As for Boxer,I'll assume she's up this year??
When 80-90% of the public is for arming the pilots maybe she realizes it'd be political suicide to vote against it....Hopefully Daschal will get the heave ho in my border state as well as Liar,Socialist/Communist Wellstone in mine....


Link Posted: 9/5/2002 9:47:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2002 9:49:22 AM EDT by littledean]

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
Section 7 of Article 1 of the Constitution states:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Distilled into English, any bill passing both houses shall be sent to the president for consideration. Shall the president veto the bill it is returned to the Cingress with an explanation for veto at which time Congress may amend or override with a concurrent 2/3 vote. Should a bill arrive to the President prior to ten days before Congress adjourns he need not act and the bill is vetoed without the ability to override.



That to which you refer is called a "pocket veto"
Link Posted: 9/5/2002 12:41:18 PM EDT

Actually Sept 13th 2004


Originally Posted By akconvert:
Hey

I just found out that the 1994 assault weapons ban will sunset in Aug. 2004. This will put an end to the ban unless it gets voted back in. Is this true? Does anyone know what the best way to keep it from being voted back in is? What are the NRA's plans?

Top Top