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: 5/7/2003 5:06:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/7/2003 6:16:00 PM EDT by Quarterbore]
See www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26832-2003May7.html

Looks like they want to introduce a new bill THIS THURSDAY in both the House and Senate....

This is going to be a VERY interesting time and we must all get involved and monitor what is happening or things could get MUCH worse... just imagine....

NO AR-15s, No Hi-Caps, No new guns that accept Hi-Caps, No more parts kits, No 50 BMGs, No import Mags, No Buying or selling of pre-ban stuff.....

I don't wish to sound like chicken little.... no, I am playing Paul Revere saying

"The Liberals are comming, The Liberals are comming, Make your oppinions known to those on the hill!"

Following is the bad news....




Gun-Control Supporters Split Over Plan

By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Wednesday, May 7, 2003; 6:34 PM

WASHINGTON - People who want to keep assault weapons off the streets are divided over the best way to extend the ban on those guns, which is set to expire two months before the 2004 elections.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday will introduce an extension of the assault weapons ban that she helped enact in 1994. The Bush administration has announced its support for continuing the prohibition on military-style assault weapons.

The issue promises to become mixed up with election-year politics, just as the original ban - passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Clinton - helped fuel the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.

Many gun-control advocates who are normally allied with Feinstein are backing a more sweeping measure that Democrats in the House also will introduce Thursday.

The bill by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is modeled on California law, which supporters of gun control point to as much more effective than the federal law on assault weapons in combating gun makers' efforts to evade the ban.

The difference is in the definition of an assault weapon. The current law and Feinstein's bill cast a narrower net than does the House Democrats' proposal.

Gun-rights groups said they will try to defeat both bills. "Empirical evidence shows this gun ban has had zero effect on reducing crime," said Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association.

© 2003 The Associated Press

Link Posted: 5/7/2003 6:05:43 PM EDT
Your link requires registration. How about a quick copy/paste job? I'll call my senators tomorrow. Hopefully, this puppy gets pidgeon-holed fast!
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 6:12:38 PM EDT
Mugzilla.. here's the story: Gun-Control Supporters Split Over Plan By MARK SHERMAN The Associated Press Wednesday, May 7, 2003; 6:34 PM WASHINGTON - People who want to keep assault weapons off the streets are divided over the best way to extend the ban on those guns, which is set to expire two months before the 2004 elections. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday will introduce an extension of the assault weapons ban that she helped enact in 1994. The Bush administration has announced its support for continuing the prohibition on military-style assault weapons. The issue promises to become mixed up with election-year politics, just as the original ban - passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Clinton - helped fuel the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. Many gun-control advocates who are normally allied with Feinstein are backing a more sweeping measure that Democrats in the House also will introduce Thursday. The bill by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is modeled on California law, which supporters of gun control point to as much more effective than the federal law on assault weapons in combating gun makers' efforts to evade the ban. The difference is in the definition of an assault weapon. The current law and Feinstein's bill cast a narrower net than does the House Democrats' proposal. Gun-rights groups said they will try to defeat both bills. "Empirical evidence shows this gun ban has had zero effect on reducing crime," said Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 6:17:53 PM EDT
Yeah right! This thing won't make it past Hastert's shredder.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 6:22:37 PM EDT
... This is an interesting yet well thought out tactic by the antigunners. Scurry the bill in before it becomes a political pivot point in the 2004 elections. ... Conservatives on a post Iraq victory high and for the most part oblivious to the AWB sunset provisions. ... Only people that care are us ugly black rifle owners. ... Get busy on the phones guys & dolls!
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 6:24:02 PM EDT
......wonder how many congressmen own "AW's"..........
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 6:32:56 PM EDT
And I read on these boards a lot of people saying they are not going to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban !!! They must be living in another world ??? Like Iraq ? [:D]
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 7:03:38 PM EDT
I can't ....put down the words to descibe how much I [b][size=5]HATE[/size=5][/b] that, that ....humaniod thing - FEINSTEIN!!!!
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 7:06:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fell-off-the-truck: And I read on these boards a lot of people saying they are not going to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban !!! They must be living in another world ??? Like Iraq ? [:D]
View Quote
These are just proposed bills. You should see the shit the anti's introduce every session. This is just the normal run of the mill stuff for them. Just do your part to make sure it doesn't happen.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 7:13:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fell-off-the-truck: And I read on these boards a lot of people saying they are not going to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban !!! They must be living in another world ??? Like Iraq ? [:D]
View Quote
Dude, just watch how FAST this thing goes NOWHERE! A year from now there will still be nothing anywhere near a committee let alone a vote. Don't get me wrong, there are those of us that have reasonable reasons to believe that an extension may happen but please......If any of you think this is likely, at least know the law and process of Congress. Don't just chime in on the boards and say your "yeah, they are gonna screw us, you'll see" comments. Tell us WHY and HOW you think that will happen.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 7:48:16 PM EDT
Exactly, a renewal or a new ban has to pass both the house and senate and then get signed by Dubya. Diane Feinstein as much as she'd like to think she does, she doesn't decide what becomes law on her own, she gets one vote. I'm not taking this lightly and go ahead and chastise me if I'm wrong but I guarntee, guarntee 150% that the bill will sunset. I guarntee it. A ban will never pass the house. You'll be be able to have a bayonet once again soon enough. Guarnteed
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:25:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rickinvegas: ...just watch how FAST this thing goes NOWHERE! A year from now there will still be nothing anywhere near a committee let alone a vote. Don't get me wrong, there are those of us that have reasonable reasons to believe that an extension may happen but please......If any of you think this is likely, at least know the law and process of Congress. Don't just chime in on the boards and say your "yeah, they are gonna screw us, you'll see" comments. Tell us WHY and HOW you think that will happen.
View Quote
For one, Dennis Hastert (sp?) isn't the gun owner's ally, so he'll make sure it gets to the floor (& don't expect the executive to save our sorry a$$es on this one either). For another, even though [i]mom[/i] might possibly stomach your revolver, she still considers black guns to be "over-the-top". The 2nd is either perceived as a "hunting rights" law, or an old-fashioned law in need of repeal. That it's a constitutional Amendment makes no difference, as current bans already demonstrate. It's not about the law - it's about popular opinion. The S.C. could weigh in, but like every other right, you don't really have it unless/until you fill enough deep pocket$ to plant it at their doorstep. Otherwise, it'll sit in limbo until somebody rich enough can make it happen. In the end, as history has taught, it's about money & power, w/ a bit of politics thrown in to distort this truth. *********** I'd like to think that writing my Senator would have some sort of positive effect, but Patty Murray is so far gone as a rational mind is concerned that I'd probably catalyze something stupid/worse. Keep in mind, she gave a speech at Vancouver H.S. proclaiming that the reason OBL was so popular in Afghanistan was because he built roads & schools & other infrastructure there. Never mind this wasn't the truth. Then, predictably, when challenged about her assertions, she cried "censorship". My 2nd Amendment rights are being "censored" because idoits (are allowed to) run rampant in this country - does anybody give a damn?
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:33:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Master_Blaster: For one, Dennis Hastert (sp?) isn't the gun owner's ally, so he'll make sure it gets to the floor
View Quote
I never said I was going to rely on Hastert's love for the gun lobby.......I am going to rely on the belief that he wants to keep his freaking job!! The Republicans only have a 25 seat majority in the House. The Dems lost almost 60 seats in 94! If Hastert lets this get by him the house is GONE period, end of story. He knows it, and GW knows it too. That is what I am counting on.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:53:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Master_Blaster: For one, Dennis Hastert (sp?) isn't the gun owner's ally, so he'll make sure it gets to the floor.
View Quote
Not so fast. First of all, I am automatically suspicous of any politician from Illinois. And, he's rated C- by GOA (though they are known to be very stingy and particular with handing out favorable grades). That said, consider that, as far as I can tell, he's voted on our side on pretty much every gun issue that has come up, [b]including voting against the ban in 1994 and for the repeal in 1996.[/b] In other words, I don't think it's accurate to portray him as not being on our side (regardless of his GOA grade). Also, the bill needs to survive a very pro-gun House Judiciary Committee before it can even be considered for a vote by the full House. --Mike
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:56:44 PM EDT
They introduce stuff like this every year. Im beginning to wonder if even they think it works. Its more like a little notch in their stick so they can say "I proposed tougher gun laws but those evil NRA tpyes shot it down".
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 9:16:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ZRH: They introduce stuff like this every year. Im beginning to wonder if even they think it works. Its more like a little notch in their stick so they can say "I proposed tougher gun laws but those evil NRA tpyes shot it down".
View Quote
I love the "10,000% tax on ammunition" that comes up every now and then. Hehe. --Mike
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 10:23:11 PM EDT
It's all a bunch of tree huggin hippie CRAP! Prosise
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 10:53:43 PM EDT
rickinvegas & mcaswell, I hope reality proves you both right & I can eat my words. Be sure to pass me the salt 1st.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 4:23:18 AM EDT
The definition of "assault weapon" is different for both bills. Read the article. This is a huge plus for us. They are not in agreement. CRC
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 5:06:03 AM EDT
A lot of people here think they are just going to forget about the Assault Weapons Ban come Sept 2004 !! NOT!! I know no one wants to hear it (including me) but that ban will stay in affect at least and if not get worst !! [:(]
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 5:36:46 AM EDT
Well, I know I have bought quite a few "import" parts lately (AK Mags, AK Parts Kits, Imbel FAL kits, etc) and I was thinking of selling off a few of my overpriced Glock Mags (G-17, G-20 and G-21) but seeing that things may be starting this soon I think I am going to hold off! I've said it before, I NEVER thought this thing would pass back in 1994... and I worry that those in Washington will think that we accepted the law so why not just renew it.... fixing a few "loopholes" as the media likes to refer to things that are outside of the law! I would like to see the whole thing go away BUT I am most woried about the LOOPHOLES that the anti's are looking at! I am sure they LOVE the CA laws and I hate the thought of what could happen! I just wonder how long a bill like this will remain in circulation so that we can make specific comments about what is being presented? Oh well, back to work but I am trying to keep an eye on the hill to see if anything gets proposed so we can all take a peek of what these SOBs are up to!
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 5:58:48 AM EDT
I've mailed my congressman and senators, have you all?
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:01:39 AM EDT
Here is another article from the NY Times... I found this over at AK-47.net....
Irking N.R.A., Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons By ERIC LICHTBLAU WASHINGTON, May 7 — President Bush and the National Rifle Association, long regarded as staunch allies, find themselves unlikely adversaries over one of the most significant pieces of gun-control legislation in the last decade, a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons. At issue is a measure to be introduced by Senate Democrats on Thursday to continue the ban. Groundbreaking 1994 legislation outlawing the sale and possession of such firearms will expire next year unless Congress extends it, and many gun-rights groups have made it their top priority to fight it. Even some advocates of gun control say the prohibition has been largely ineffective because of its loopholes. Despite those concerns, the White House says Mr. Bush supports the extension of the current law — a position that has put him in opposition to the N.R.A. and left many gun owners angry and dumbfounded. "This is a president who has been so good on the Second Amendment that it's just unbelievable to gun owners that he would really sign the ban," said Grover G. Norquist, a leading conservative and an N.R.A. board member who opposes the weapons ban. "I don't think it's sunk in for a lot of people yet." Advocates on both sides of the issue say the White House appears to have made a bold political calculation: that the risk of alienating a core constituency is outweighed by appearing independent of the gun lobby, sticking to a campaign promise and supporting a measure that has broad popular appeal. The president has claimed the middle road — supporting an extension of the current ban but not endorsing the stronger measures that gun-control supporters say would outlaw many "copycat" assault weapons. That position has forced Democrats in the Senate to reject plans for a more ambitious weapons ban. Mr. Bush's position "cuts against the N.R.A.'s position," said Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation, "and it will put the president — for one of the first times since he signed the campaign finance reform bill — at odds with his own political base." "He's built up enough positive political capital in other areas that it won't be fatal," Mr. Franc added, but the issue could hurt Mr. Bush in Middle America, considered critical to his re-election chances in 2004. The assault-weapons issue puts the president in a precarious political spot. When Mr. Bush was campaigning for president in 2000, a top N.R.A. official boasted that the group's relationship with Mr. Bush was so "unbelievably friendly" that the N.R.A. could practically claim a seat at the White House. The N.R.A. has been a major donor to Mr. Bush, and the gun lobby and the Bush administration have been in lock step on most major gun issues, including the current push to limit lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft has been a particularly close ally of the gun lobby, pushing an expanded view of gun rights under the Second Amendment and initiating law enforcement changes sought by the N.R.A. But White House officials said the assault-weapons ban was one case in which the president and the N.R.A. did not see eye to eye. "There are times when we agree and there are times when we disagree," said Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman. "The president makes decisions based on what he believes is the right policy for Americans." Mr. McClellan added that the ban was put in place as a way of deterring crime and that Mr. Bush "felt it was reasonable." The White House position has heartened gun-control advocates. Matt Bennett, a spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety, which supports an extension of the weapons ban, said, "I think Bush realizes that, number one, this is the right thing to do, number two, he promised to do this in the 2000 campaign, and number three, he knows that it's good politics and this is an extremely popular measure." The N.R.A. has maintained a polite civility toward the White House, even though it insists the ban is a violation of the Second Amendment that deprives hunters and sportsmen of many high-powered rifles. Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A's chief lobbyist, said in an interview that while the defeat of the assault-weapons ban would be one of the N.R.A's top priorities, the group's focus would be on convincing members of Congress to vote against it so that it never reaches Mr. Bush's desk. "Do we agree with the administration's position on this? No, we don't, but the real fight is going to be not at that level, but in Congress," he said. A bill will be introduced in the Senate on Thursday by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, that would extend the ban for 10 years in much the same form it exists today. House Democrats expect to introduce a toughened version of the bill next week. That version, rejected by Senate Democrats as too politically risky, would significantly expand the class of banned weapons. Mr. Schumer said he believed Mr. Bush's support could be critical in what he predicted would be a hard-fought campaign to renew the assault-weapons measure, which bans 19 types of firearms and others that meet certain criteria. "We hope the president will not just say he supports the ban but will work to get it passed," Mr. Schumer said in an interview. "This will be a good measure of the compassion in his compassionate conservatism." Senate Democrats ultimately decided that a stronger version of the ban would not pass muster with the White House and thus stood little chance of gaining passage, officials said. As a result, the Senate proposal will not specifically ban the Bushmaster rifle type that was used in last year's Washington-area sniper attacks. The House version would, because it includes a broader definition of an assault rifle, officials said. "I would like to strengthen the bill" beyond what will be introduced in the Senate on Thursday, Senator Feinstein said today. "But I don't want to lose the bill, and important to that is the president's support." Mr. Schumer said that even with the White House's public support, "I am worried that the anti-gun-control forces in the administration will conspire to kill this measure in the dead of night without a vote." He noted that Mr. Ashcroft gave a noncommittal response two months ago when he was asked before the Senate several times whether he would support the reauthorization of the assault-weapons ban. Mr. Ashcroft said Justice Department studies had found that the ban's impact on gun violence was "uncertain," and he said more study was needed. The question of the gun ban's impact over the last nine years will be a crucial point of debate. A report due to be released soon by the Violence Policy Center — a liberal Washington group that supports an expansion of the ban — examined the killings of 211 law enforcement officers from 1998 to 2001 and found that one in five were done with assault weapons, often copycat models that did not fall under the 1994 ban. "Unfortunately, the firearms industry has been very successful at evading the ban," Kristen Rand, the group's legislative director, said. "Assault weapons remain a huge public safety problem."
View Quote
Continued...
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:02:23 AM EDT
... continued...
Gun-rights groups insist that the assault-weapons ban has had little or no impact in fighting crime, and they maintain that their opponents are wrong to depict high-powered rifles as the weapon of choice for gangs and rampage killers. "None of these weapons are used for crimes, and the Democrats know that," Mr. Norquist said. For many gun owners, the issue is visceral, and Mr. Bush's stance has made the debate more emotional. "There are a lot of gun owners who worked hard to put President Bush in office, and there are a lot of gun owners who feel betrayed by him," said Angel Shamaya, an Arizona gun owner who runs a Web site called "keepandbeararms.com."
View Quote
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/08/politics/08GUNS.html[/url]
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:23:27 AM EDT
Yea, I'm sure they will just forget all about reinstating that Assault Weapons Ban !!!! NOT !!! with Bush In Office !!!!
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:56:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fell-off-the-truck: A lot of people here think they are just going to forget about the Assault Weapons Ban come Sept 2004 !! NOT!! I know no one wants to hear it (including me) but that ban will stay in affect at least and if not get worst !! [:(]
View Quote
I don't know why you came to that conclusion but nobody with any common sense thought that "they are just going to forget about the Assault Weapons Ban" Everyone knew that the anti's would propose new legislation. It's real dissapointing that the minute an anti proposes some new gun control, a certain percentage of us just throw up our hands and say "That's it, we lose! We never win!" COME ON PEOPLE WERE AMERICANS NOT FRENCH! When someone attacks us (or our rights) we stand up and fight. While I won't be selling my pr-ban Colt because I understand that anything can happen in politics, With the current congress our chances are excellent to get rid of the AWB. All of this pessimistic (sp?) attitude can be traced to two false assumptions: [b]#1. Being pro gun is a bad political move so politicians will support a new AWB to save there butts. [/b] NOT TRUE! Since 1993 the anti-gun party has consitantly lost (with the exception of Clinton's re-election) and the pro-gun party has consistantly won. Bill Clinton himself admitted that the AWB cost him the senate in 1994. The republicans voted for a repeal of the AWB in 1996 and still have been winning elections. Where is [b]ANY[/b] evidence that being pro-gun is a bad political move! [b]#1. We only lose rights, never regain them [/b] NOT TRUE! To be sure there have been some defeats (sorry California). There have also been many victorys As an example lets look at carry permits. Below is a graphic example of how many states became "Shall Issue" states in the past 10 years. If thats not strengthening the 2cnd Ammendment I don't know what is! [img]http://jfrush.homeip.net/pics/rtc.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 8:31:35 AM EDT
Great graphic - it is also worth pointing out (especially to our current President) that Clinton only won when he was opposed by people weak on Second Amendment issues (Bush I signed the 1989 export ban, Bob Dole snuck the original ban to the Senate floor when Republicans were willing to filibuster it and then reneged on his promise to introduce the House's 1996 repeal to the Senate floor for a vote)
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 8:44:33 AM EDT
time to buy some new ARs...
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 9:10:48 AM EDT
Yeah, looks like it's time to invest in a few stripped lowers. [:(]
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 9:25:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2003 9:31:19 AM EDT by RenegadeX]
Originally Posted By jfrush: It's real dissapointing that the minute an anti proposes some new gun control, a certain percentage of us just throw up our hands and say "That's it, we lose! We never win!" COME ON PEOPLE WERE AMERICANS NOT FRENCH! When someone attacks us (or our rights) we stand up and fight.
View Quote
I know. It is amazing we have any guns at all given the number of gun owners who do nothing and give in whenever a gun grabber goes "boo". Gun Control is DOA this session, In fact, it is a great session for PRO-GUN legislation to be tried - See the Gun Maker Lawsuit immunity bill as the first of many, not to mention all of the PRO-GUN legislation moving through the States. Of course, if Gun owners choose to do nothing, and squander their opportunity....
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 9:28:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fell-off-the-truck: A lot of people here think they are just going to forget about the Assault Weapons Ban come Sept 2004 !! NOT!! I know no one wants to hear it (including me) but that ban will stay in affect at least and if not get worst !! [:(]
View Quote
I don't want to sound like I am flaming you but you really don't know what your talking about. The AW B will sunset in 2004. It is a fact, it is written into the law that it will sunset. The only way the ban will stay in effect is if congress passes a new law. There is no way in hell they will pass a new AWB law, it's political suicide for most politicians except the few in the very liberal CA or NY etc...
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 9:32:46 AM EDT
I've written a letter(not email) to every congressman and senator in my state. Have you?
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 10:31:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2003 10:32:12 AM EDT by jfrush]
Another point to consider. Bush says he will support re-authorization of the [b]CURRENT[/b] AWB. This is his way of leaving himself an out. The Democrats are not proposing re-authorizing the current AWB they are proposing a more restrictive AWB.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 10:34:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2003 10:34:36 AM EDT by jfrush]
Originally Posted By KW951: Yeah, looks like it's time to invest in a few stripped lowers. [:(]
View Quote
A perfect example of the point I was making. The fight hasn't even begun yet and you are admitting defeat.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 10:45:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jfrush: Another point to consider. Bush says he will support re-authorization of the [b]CURRENT[/b] AWB. This is his way of leaving himself an out. The Democrats are not proposing re-authorizing the current AWB they are proposing a more restrictive AWB.
View Quote
WRONG!!!!! Read the article. Fineswine is proposing another 10 year extension of her 1994 legislation. It will not be stronger except maybe by banning imported magazines and drums. The HOUSE bill by Carolyn McCarthy is going to be stronger and is the one supported by the VPC, et al. CRC
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 11:00:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CRC: WRONG!!!!!
View Quote
So you tell me I'm wrong, and then you tell me...
Read the article. Fineswine is proposing another 10 year extension of her 1994 legislation. It will not be stronger except maybe by banning imported magazines and drums.
View Quote
So it is [b]NOT[/b] the current AWB. If bush wanted to change his stance, This difference is enough for him to claim that it is not the current AWB therefore he never said he would support it. I know this is nitpicking but these are politicians we are talking about. Remember it all depends on what your definition of the word [b]is[/b] is [:D]
The HOUSE bill by Carolyn McCarthy is going to be stronger and is the one supported by the VPC, et al. CRC
View Quote
Ok so I fail to see where I was wrong.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 11:05:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2003 11:07:00 AM EDT by CRC]
You seem to say ALL Democrats are proposing a stronger AWB when Fineswine is proposing the bill the Prez wants. Bush is on record of having supported import bans in the past. CRC
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 11:07:24 AM EDT
You guys with a hope of making a positive difference or swingin your reps need to get hot. Well I'm gonna contact mine, my Congressman is OK already but my Senators are lost causes. I can try all day and not make a dent. You guys can make the difference. Drop a REAL note to or drop by the local office in person, let them know how you feel.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 11:24:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CRC: You seem to say ALL Democrats are proposing a stronger AWB when Fineswine is proposing the bill the Prez wants. Bush is on record of having supported import bans in the past. CRC
View Quote
OK Point taken. But if I'm right, and the president will only consider the current AWB and not a more restrictive one. Then that is at least a [b]SMALL[/b] consolation. Hopefully this is all a moot point as this just came out in a white house press breifing today. (this is from another thread)
Originally Posted By Potter_Sherman_T: Another reporter reminded Ari that just yesterday, Carl Rove (senior adviser to Dubya) said that the AWB would "never make it out of congress"... ahhh, the politics of politics... leaving the Pres. to play to both side... i.e. he can say he'll renew, but if it never gets to his desk... he's off the hook with both sides...
View Quote
This supports a theory I've believed for a while. The only reason Bush says he supports a renewal is that he has it on good authority that it will never reach his desk. We will be to happy about the AWB bill sunsetting to hold a grudge, and the anti's can't use the AWB against him in an election.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 11:30:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jfrush:
Originally Posted By CRC: You seem to say ALL Democrats are proposing a stronger AWB when Fineswine is proposing the bill the Prez wants. Bush is on record of having supported import bans in the past. CRC
View Quote
OK Point taken. But if I'm right, and the president will only consider the current AWB and not a more restrictive one. Then that is at least a [b]SMALL[/b] consolation. Hopefully this is all a moot point as this just came out in a white house press breifing today. (this is from another thread)
Originally Posted By Potter_Sherman_T: Another reporter reminded Ari that just yesterday, Carl Rove (senior adviser to Dubya) said that the AWB would "never make it out of congress"... ahhh, the politics of politics... leaving the Pres. to play to both side... i.e. he can say he'll renew, but if it never gets to his desk... he's off the hook with both sides...
View Quote
This supports a theory I've believed for a while. The only reason Bush says he supports a renewal is that he has it on good authority that it will never reach his desk. We will be to happy about the AWB bill sunsetting to hold a grudge, and the anti's can't use the AWB against him in an election.
View Quote
It's all politics. Fineswine is desperate to have a ban renewed and Bush is trying to take the AWB issue out of the 2004 campaign. CRC
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 11:50:03 AM EDT
Guys, This is what you really have to worry about. The AWB II may not be able to pass on its own. But they may attach it as a rider on another bill. That was how the 1986 ban on new class 3 registrations went through. It was attached to a bill that was too important to veto and they couldn't get it removed. Until we get a supreme court ruling that these laws are a violation of the constitution, we'll always be in danger.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 1:12:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dorsai: Guys, This is what you really have to worry about. The AWB II may not be able to pass on its own. But they may attach it as a rider on another bill. That was how the 1986 ban on new class 3 registrations went through. It was attached to a bill that was too important to veto and they couldn't get it removed. Until we get a supreme court ruling that these laws are a violation of the constitution, we'll always be in danger.
View Quote
Exactly. And that'll take a hell of a fight from NRA, GOA and all the rest of us. Even then we may not get it. Personally, I think the case in NYC where the guy shot an intruder and was prosecuted for illegal possession of a firearm is our best possible case. I want to see SCROTUS tell us we have no right to defend ourselves, our families, our homes. I don't think they will. They have to know the backlash will be horrendous.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 1:26:57 PM EDT
I had a feeling they would try and tack on imports....
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 1:32:47 PM EDT
Agreed I also find it funny that every time the anti's propose some sort of legislation everyone flips out and begins to think we're gonna get screwed. There is absolutely no way on God's green earth are they going to just forget about the ban, no way. There is also no way and I mean no way that a worse ban will happen and like I have said before and I'll eat crow if I'm wrong, but come September 2004 you can say bye-bye to the aw ban. Don't get me wrong we MUST fight for it tooth and nail. I mean come one hippies fight harder so Georgia Pacific doesn't cut down a tree because of some stupid owl or some other BS than often gun owners do. We have a RIGHT to bear arms a RIGHT! A drivers license is a privledge. Write and call your Senators and House Reps dilligently, yes I do constantly. But I guarantee 100% the ban will go away. It has no chance of passing the House, none. Bush has not said himself he would sign it and either has Ari Fleischer. Come on guys, I don't want to preach to the choir but this is politics and political genuis at it's finest. Don't cast your vote for some Liberal ass because Bush said he'd sign it. Did you know Bush got 25% of the gay vote? That's astonishing for a Republican. The man is a political genuis and has the finest administration in years and he has Feinstein in his pocket by blowing sunshine up her ass. Soon Diane can go smoke some of her state's "medical marijuana" to treat her dillusional "do-gooder" syndrome. California has for years been dubbed "The Land Of Fruits And Nuts." The rest of America will never ever take them seriously. I just feel real sorry for the majority of California which is rural and beautiful and get's screwed by it's Communist cities. I will call or write any politician in CA for our fellow patriots on the left coast, say the word. Where is McCarthy when you need him eh? Bush is playing both sides of the field guys, it's clear. Republican controlled congress, you bet the boss has made it damn clear that this bill NEVER reaches his desk and as I have said, it will go away. Fellow Illinois freedom fighters....we're kicking ass out here so far as you know fighting off the Commies in Chicago but PLEASE join the ISRA and check their website daily. King Daley the Second and his loyal court of Communist puppets cannot be trusted. I can't wait until Illinois is Republican again. Stepping down from the soapbox
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 1:38:25 PM EDT
The only problem with Bush coming out like this is that some congressman and senators may side with him that would have sided with us. After all, with Bush's popularity, it is not politically smart to go against him. Did you all see Ari Fliesher's briefing today? Many questions about the AWB were asked. He dodged most, but restated that the president supported it. Reporters asked why Bush supported it and if the ban "worked" to reduce crime. Ari said, "studies are being conducted". Then they asked if Bush would ACTIVELY try and gain support for a new AWB in congress. Ari did'nt really say yes or no. I'm worried....
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 1:46:47 PM EDT
Guys, This is what you really have to worry about. The AWB II may not be able to pass on its own. But they may attach it as a rider on another bill.
View Quote
Here is a great resource for any politically active gunowner. It lets you target the people who can really get things done in Congress when you write: [url=thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.toc.html]How Our Laws Are Made[/url] A rider is the term for an amendment unrelated to the topic of the bill. By the House rules, bills may only have amendments proposed in committees and any amendment covering the assault weapons ban would have to go through both the subcommittee on crime and the Judiciary committee. Both committees are chaired by GOA A-rated Congressmen with a great deal of power to zap such amendments unilaterally. Senate rules are different and amendments may be brought up on the floor of the Senate; but this is not really important for us in this case since the legislation still has to pass the House.
That was how the 1986 ban on new class 3 registrations went through. It was attached to a bill that was too important to veto and they couldn't get it removed.
View Quote
That was because in 1986 the Democrats controlled the House (by an 80 votes no less) and the committee chair appointments. The machinegun ban wasn't attached to an unrelated bill though, it was attached to the pro-gun [url=http://www.hardylaw.net/FOPA.html]Firearm Owners Protection Act[/url] (This link is a great read because it goes in-depth into procedure and the in-fighting that gets bills passed) which gave gun owners a bunch of protections that they still don't fully appreciate. Also, the amendment to ban machineguns only passed because it was thrown in the last few minutes of debate and passed on a questionable vote. Normally, a Senate/House conference committee would be assigned to work out differences in the House and Senate versions of the bill (no machinegun ban) but the Democratic controlled House would have had authority over that committee. Rather than risk it, the Republicans took the exact language of the House bill straight to the floor for a voice vote.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 1:59:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2003 2:05:52 PM EDT by ZRH]
Do any of remember civics class? You guys are really flipping out over something that happened practically EVERY year when clinton was president. Instead of crying wolf and hiding why not try to educate people. Really people.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 3:44:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ZRH: Do any of remember civics class? You guys are really flipping out over something that happened practically EVERY year when clinton was president. Instead of crying wolf and hiding why not try to educate people. Really people.
View Quote
AWB Bills were NEVER introduced under Clinton. In 1996 the Repubs repealed the bill in the House and that ended any attempts to change the AWB except once during Columbine. CRC
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:46:09 PM EDT
The only problem that might creep up is if the NRA decides to make a deal with the Anti's. Something along the lines of the NRA willing to allow another 10 year extension if some fence sitting Senators support the bills that would protect gun makers. This is the only way that I see the new ban having a chance in the Senate.
Top Top