I'm a bit puzzled here. I keep reading posts that suggest that when the Assault weapon ban expires in '04, that will be the end of it.

Do you really think that that will be allowed to happen?

Won't it be political suicide for the Republicans to try and get rid of this? After all, it will be an election year.

Don't you think there will be a huge outcry that would make it impossible for anyone wishing to be re-elected to want to get rid of the ban for good?

What politician is going to come out and say that it's now OK to have bayonets and high capacity mags on weapons?

I mean, look at the 'smart' gun laws that were just passed.

I think that the ban will be lifted is wishful thinking.

Steve

It barely passed the first time.  Chances are pretty good that it will be allowed to pass into history.

I'm just not that optimistic.  I couldn't believe the law passed in 1994 when it did, -- but it did.  I just don't see the liberals giving up ground on this.  We haven't even begun to see what kind of crying and whining they will do to keep it in place.  Throughout our history, this freedom has only been eroded.  We just aren't making ground in our country or in the world.  Remember the 9th Circuit Court's ruling on the 2nd amendment.  

I may just be overly pessimistic.  

Obviously, I don't believe we should give up the fight --- ever.

like others, i also do not believe the ban will be lifted. i believe it will be renewed. as i have said in other threads the goods ol' u.s.a. is moving away, rapidly, from individual freedoms in an effort to appease the minority to the detriment of the majority. political correctness is running rampant. guns laws will become more strict. not less. crimes like hinkley, columbine, and d.c. sniper arent helping. the "assualt weapon ban" hasnt in the past, nor will it in the future, deter or reduce violent crimes, murders, etc. but, it fits with political correctness so it will survive.

Absolutely... I think there is a VERY good chance that this will happen.


This all depends on your perspective.  In the 1994 congressional elections held soon after the passage of the "crime bill", the Democrats got pulverized.  Bill Clinton himself said that 20-21 of the seats lost by his party in the House were directly due to the vote on the "assault weapons" ban.

In addition, when a repeal of the ban came up for a vote in the House in 1996 (and passed comfortably), Democrat leaders gave members "permission" to vote in favor of the repeal, feeling they had no choice because of potential backlash similar to what happened in '94.


Of course there will be an outcry... but will anyone be listening?  If the public sentiment on gun control is a pendulum, right now (compared to the early 1990s) it has swung quite drastically in our direction.  That's not to say there aren't still people out there who want more restrictions, and that the debate won't eventually swing back their way, but right now, only the most liberal gun-hating politicians are willing to champion this issue.


Fortunately, most of the hard evidence in this area favors US, not the antis.  While the DOJ study released in 1999 does mention a decrease in BATF traces for "assault weapons" (possibly indicating a reduction in crimes committed with these types of firearms), this is exactly as would be expected, given the fact that pre-bans were all of a sudden made much more valuable and were taken out of circulation by collectors.

Because there are plenty of other guns out there that are just as effective for criminal use, and because, as the study conducted under the Clinton administration mentions NUMEROUS times, [b]"assault weapons" are very rarely used in crime anyway.[/b]  For more on this, see [url]www.awbansunset.com/effects.html[/url].


That was passed on a state level in New Jersey, one of the most anti-gun states in the union.  No surprise there.


Cheer up, Steve!  Things are looking very good for us.  But everyone needs to get involved.

Visit [url]www.awbansunset.com[/url]!

--Mike

Will it be renewed?

Well, it was political suicide in 94, wasn't it? Here is my take on what will happen: Frist (Sen majority leader) will schedule for discussion 54 things ranging from Medicare/Medicaid reform, prescription drug plans, war on terrorism, federal disaster aid...

...Of course, leaving out ANY mention of gun control...

Around AUGUST 04, Feinstein and Chukkie Schumer will begin to $hit frisbees, since it will be a pending sunset! What will happen? Many glorious, "Save our children, ban them all!!" Speeches.

...Which will furiously invigorate the NRA/GOA, leading to another sweeping GOP victory in Nov 04!!!

I realize neither aprty has "been on our side" on this one, BUT NEITHER PARTY WILL TOUCH THIS ONE WITH A 27.5 FOOT LONG POLE! (Except, of course, the especially communist ones...)

Now, where does this leave us? Tennessee members, start your cell phones!! (Forget emails...) Call FRIST, and tell him where you stand. Tell him this plan. Find out if he is on our side, or if he is another doctor carrying the AMA's political message of "Guns r bad!"



So, in summary, nobody in DC is on our side, but nobody wants to be against us, either...

Steve1, didn't I see you voting for Chuckie Schumer a few years back?

Contact the Jackal he will take care of Shummer and Feinstein.


Now seriously I dubt the ban will be allowed to die.

>>Steve1, didn't I see you voting for Chuckie Schumer a few years back?<<

Must have me confused with someone else on that one.

Now, I'm sure you do remember that I worked for Hillary's campaign!!

Steve

Well, I don't think the ban has done anything to reduce crime and has only hassled law abiding people but, I do think it will be big issue in '04.

I think lots has happened since the ban (school shootings, sniper, terrorists in hte US, etc.) so I'm not sure if people have moved our way that much...

Steve

Any body know where i can find out who support the ban, so i dont vote for them and who i should call to find certain politicians stance on the ban, I live in montana and so far weve got really lax gun laws but i want to see the ban lifted so everybody can add all the evil features to their guns, although ill feel bad for the guy who just went out and paid $2000 for a preban, just to find out 2 years later he could have got the same thing for $900. if nothing else i hope it recesses for a day or two so that way there will be alot more prebans on the market,  any ways thats just my 1/2 cent worth

Check out [url]www.awbansunset.com/scoreboard.html[/url].

BTW, the Montana delgation looks to be pretty solidly anti-renewal.

--Mike

Liberal congressmen, senators, and press will push for extension for the children. May well pass and Bush will sign being the passionate conservative he is and believing we should all get along. Besides, it helps his one world agenda. Remember, the dems will use it as a campaign issue.

Given that so many states and cities have their own AW bans, how many states are really going to benifit from the sunset of the ban?

Only about 4-5 states have bans of their own.

NY, NJ, HI, MA, CA and that's about it.

I also know of VERY few local bans, mostly large cities.

Most states are going to benefit from it.

OH? IL? (Probably local)

no

[b]ONE REQUEST[/b]

Every one of you that expressed skepticism that the ban will not be renewed, please WRITE YOUR REPRESENATIVES in Congress.

Skepticism is fine, it is a necessary survival skill in the modern world; but don't let it be an excuse to sit on your ass and not do anything (If you are doing something but still skeptical, then obviously the above comment isn't directed at you).

It was an act of luck it passed the first time. A Dem Congress, a Dem President, and a rash of shootings. This session, more important things will be on the agenda.

BTW, the 10 year tax on luxury cars expired this past New Years Day. Did you hear any Democrat's whining to re-new it?

What about Bush? Isn't he pro-gun? And I'm pretty sure Brady isn't under his desk doing you know what like she probably was with Clinton........ Yes, write your reps and senators, let them know! When does everyone vote? (On the AWB)?

Why not "seriously"? So long as the Jackal  understands that a firearm is not the proper tool for the job?

First, did y'all know that Frau FeinSchtein has a concealed-carry permit? TRUE!!!

Anyway, I think the demos have about figured out that the gun control B-S cost them the White House in 2000. The ban is scheduled to sunset in September 2004, just a couple of weeks before the 2004 elections. Is this enough to make me feel good? HELL-NO!!! Please spend even 1/10th the time you spend on this website writing to your senators and congressmen. If your politicians suck, let them know that you personally will "Fire" their sorry asses if they don't get on the stick and do their jobs. Remember, "of the people, by the people, and for the people..." Also, tell them to take their twisted interpretation of OUR 2nd Amendment and stick it where the sun don't shine. Any fool can tell you that our constitution was written in the 1770's and the National Guard wasn't even formed until 1903, over 120 years later.(militia??? I thought ANY able bodied adult male citizen was in "the militia")

FOR THE CHILDREN??? Hell, I took my kid to the range last weekend. He's 6 years old and shoots better than a lot of adults I know. That's "for the children"!!!

we will find out in 2004 now won't we! I think it will be renewed in 2004 the Media will be there to tell everybody about it. Media is very ANTI-GUN.

C'mon - [u]Nancy[/u] [u]Pelosi[/u] was elected to head up the democratic party. Do you think their liberal roots are showing? Looks like get back to basics time for the liberal wing. The ban will be under the magnifying glass, & the truth (that it doesn't affect crime) be damned. Propaganda is the operative word. Count on it.

As for, "writing my representative to express my concerns," the reps in my area are all unabashed liberals. I think only 2 of the 5 reps in the entire state of WA are gun-friendly. For that matter, both WA State senators are lefties. Expressing myself to them isn't going to [i]change[/i] their minds. If anything, it might motivate them to squeal more plaintively on TV & to their butt buddies on the hill about how they all need to, "band together to do something/anything," & other such BS. [puke]

Forget it. Patty Murray needs less information. The more she gets, the more she'll corrupt/twist/screw it up. Better to keep it off the itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny radar screen of her lil' itty-bitty mind. Her constituents are the legions of her fellow NW suburbanite mommies living in perpetual fear for their children & driving around in their too-big SUV's. A guy who owns some evil, you-don't-need-that black guns is "out of step" w/ her "vision for the future". [puke]

Of course, Maria Cantwell looks like Pelosi's protege: rich, ditzy, & out to "change her world for the better". [puke]

The only thing on the side of gun owners in this state are its constitution, some stick-in-the-mud republicans, & their constituents. I like living on the west side, but this state's problem [b]is[/b] the west side. Ironic, isn't it?

I too, am somewhat confused about the sunset of the ban. Although I have to agree that the likelyhood of it continuing is slim thanks to the republicans that are now in office. (thats a good thing) [:D]

But are we to sit on our laurels and do nothing like most of us did in '94? (bad thing)[:(]

To be honest I don't even recall it as something I remember back then. Although working practically 24/7 and a new baby about the same time, I am sure I was brain dead...

But, back to the point of this post. [b] I will write my representatives ![/b]

The information I would like is: does both the house and senate vote on it? And how about a "form letter" from someone over at [b]www.awbansunset.com ?[/b]

Some of us at times tend to get a little over zealous. Maybe something done "professionaly" we could copy and send out would help to get many more letters out to the respective representatives.

Another thought I have had: (what if??) Imagine that there are people maybe even someone here on the board that has several maybe more prebans that he/she has been "collecting" and in the site of this sunsetting could lose a good deal of cash? Would they [b]really[/b] want the ban to sunset????

But regardless of what replies I get, I am still writing to anyone who represents me in D.C.

Write TOO !

Lifted?

I doubt it will happen in an election year with the house and Senate so close to being a Democrat held Majority.

I cross my fingers and pray though.
S-28

[blue]I (unfortunately) have to agree.[/blue]

Correct.  A renewal would have to be voted on and passed in the House and Senate in order for it to reach the president's desk.  It should also be noted that many bills don't even make it to the floor for an actual vote.  They get referred to some committee, where they stay indefinitely.  My feeling is that (going out on a limb here) this is what will happen with the ban, especially in the House... Republicans will prefer that the issue not even see the light of day, and Democrats, given their recent bad election experiences with pushing gun control, will not want to insist that it come up.




Yes, we are working on this, and should have some sample letters available very soon.



Sadly, this is probably true (for at least some pre-ban owners, but certainly not all).  I remember a few months ago seeing some very spirited posts from a handful of pre-ban owners who genuinely DID NOT want the ban to sunset, specifically because their rifles would lose significant value.  But these posts were countered by plenty of other pre-ban owners who pointed out the extreme selfishness and foolishness of this position.

--Mike

A few things to keep in mind... Democrats lost control of Congress in the election immediately following the enacting of the ban.  Clinton himself said the vote on the ban cost Democrats 20-21 seats in the House (enough to give Republicans the majority).  It should be noted that this was during a hysterical anti-AW time.

A few years later, in 1996, Democrat leadership gave their House members "permission" to vote in favor of a repeal, because they were well aware of the beating they took in '94 on the ban.

And, many politican observers point out that the gun control issue cost Gore the presidency in 2000.

Given all this, your above statement is probably not indicative of the reality of the situation.  In actuality, my own feeling is that we are in the BEST possible position right now.  Think about it:

Republicans would rather not have this issue come up, because they would feel torn between their dedicated base of gun-owning voters and trying to win over moderates and soccer moms.  A handful of Democrats will be pushing hard for a renewal, particularly those from extremely anti-gun areas of the country.  But will the party as a whole want to push this issue?  Given their desperation in regaining control, they will surely not want to risk getting trounced again on the ban.  That sets up a situation where neither party really wants this thing to come up for a vote, and Democrats certainly won't want to nationalize it as a major part of their platform for the 2004 elections.  Perfect.  Instead, they'll pound Bush on the economy, Iraq, North Korea, the environment, "big business", etc.

Of course, if by that point the economy has recovered and is humming along nicely, Iraq has been defeated, etc., and Bush has a 75% approval, they very well end up selecting "assault weapons" as one of their key issues, in a gesture of "what the hell, what have we got to lose at this point?"



That's good... but be sure to write your congressmen too!  :-)

--Mike

Yes, we are working on this, and should have some sample letters available very soon.


Sadly, this is probably true (for at least some pre-ban owners, but certainly not all).  I remember a few months ago seeing some very spirited posts from a handful of pre-ban owners who genuinely DID NOT want the ban to sunset, specifically because their rifles would lose significant value.  But these posts were countered by plenty of other pre-ban owners who pointed out the extreme selfishness and foolishness of this position.

--Mike[/quote]

Mike,
Today I went to a gun show and spoke to several people who had prebans and to those that had only posts. I asked them each the same question: "What is your thoughts on the sunset?" and not too surprisingly those that had the pre's said "It won't happen" and those that had the post's said that "I think it has a good chance of sunsetting".....It reinforces my thought that those with them (pre's) really don't want it to and those without want it to. But it makes sense, money makes it [b]ALL[/b] happen. I just hope that their selfishness doesn't overwhelm the "opinion" of the representatives....again those with the most money to gain are going to "lobby" and those that don't have it at stake are going to sit on their as*.

Lets get that letter out soon so we all can enjoy what this black rifle is really supposed to be, not neutered like the dem's made it to be..

KM


BTW. I bought my first AR15 in '81.

Posted by McCaswell:
"Correct. A renewal would have to be voted on and passed in the House and Senate in order for it to reach the president's desk. It should also be noted that many bills don't even make it to the floor for an actual vote. They get referred to some committee, where they stay indefinitely. My feeling is that (going out on a limb here) this is what will happen with the ban, especially in the House... Republicans will prefer that the issue not even see the light of day, and Democrats, given their recent bad election experiences with pushing gun control, will not want to insist that it come up."

For these reasons I'm with McCaswell on this.
AWB Renewal has to be passed Committee, then passed by the House, THEN passed by the Senate, AND signed by the President????
I really think not.


I'll still write by lovely Feinswine anyway[;)]

Have you ever seen the Government give back any rights it has taken away or given back any power it has seized? I don't think so.

Hello all,

I may appear new here but I am not.  I was the original BAMBAM and spent a lot of time here on the board as early as way back in 99, (maybe 98).  I don't remember.  Well two jobs and two children later, and after the board change, I lost my original login, my second and third as well.

BTW, I applaud Mike and all they are doing over at awbsunset.com. That is a great effort.

Anyway my opinion.  And I hope I am right on this one.
--In regards to the actual sunset.  Yes it can happen.  Yes it is a long shot.  But so was the initial struggle for independence that founded this country.

I suggest giving up one range day per month and spend it handwriting, form letter writing, faxing, emailing your representatives and the leaders of both parties.  

As for those who have invested much in pre-ban weaponry that will lose value; be glad you had the distinction, guts, bravery and tenacity to own something so founded in patriotism; but so vilified by those who have always swayed with strong totalitarian leaders.  And be pleased that you could enjoy shooting those weapons while others could not afford them.  You have realized and enjoyed their true full value.

But once the ban is over; then it will be time again for all free men to participate in a broader definition of freedom at a hopefully lower and lower cost.  It would be my wish that weapons of all kinds would become increasingly less expensive over time, so many more freedom loving people could own them.  And that mass ownership could continue to do what the 2nd amendment was set out to do.  For ever discourage our government from taking our freedoms.

IMHO always,
--LS1

    Here's how it will likely play out - The AWB will sunset next year, unless it's renewed. Sen. Schumer, and Hillary Clinton, and friends will be desperate to try to renew it, and or strengthen it.
    They will promise anything to the GOP, and use every trick they know to get it out of committee.
    They will not want to publicize it too much, other than to appease their own liberals.
    What we, as gunners need to do, is make sure that our GOP 'friends' in Washington don't sell us out, in order to gain a lot of political issues.
    We need to let them know that we are watching. One thing about George W., is that he's not a coward, and if it's in his best interest to appease us, he will.
    But we cannot take his support for granted.... the Judiciary committee might come to him, and say they'll pass all his nominations for the next 6 months for a new crime bill, and if he doesn't know we're watching, it could go through.
    If the GOP is smart, they'll substitute a new, and 'strengthened' replacement bill, only without magazine restrictions, and no AWB.

As a preban owner myself, I can't imagine that preban owners are that short-sighted and selfish. Unless you just happen to have all the guns you want, you'll make up any loss on your prebans by the better prices you'll get on postbans.

Let's see $8000 for the few pre-ban SR-25Ks in existence or $1,100 for a new AR-10 with collapsible stock? You could make up the difference in the money you lost pretty quick with that delta.

Prohibition.  National speed limit.  Luxury car tax.  I'm no gov fan, trust me, but change can happen.

To me one of the most critical factors stemming from whether or not the ban is allowed to expire is:  Will the expiration of the ban hurt the value of pre-ban firearms?

I think there are several dealers who would just as soon not see the ban lifted, having invested heavily in hi-cap mags and pre-ban rifles.

But in looking at pre-ban rifles that are available, I don't see how letting the ban expire will really hurt the value of very many of them.  You know, it's the tendancy of gun people to think that things built long ago are better than those built now.  This, coupled withthe fact that so many "preban" firearms were banned not by the 1994 ban, but by the 1989 ban, leads me to believe there are still fine investments out there regardless of whether or not the ban expires.

Of course, the imported assault rifles cut off by the 1989 ban will still be restricted even if the 1994 ban expires.  Chicom AKs and the SKS were once largely considered junk, or at least, low quality, back when they could be had for little money.  Not that I'm saying they were junk, but many people had that impression.  Now, many people believe the Chicom AKs were the best ever available, and few deride the "value" of the Chicom SKS.  See how good the water taste when you can't have any at all? The desireability of such rifles will probably not be affected at all if the 1994 ban expires.  There will still be people who claim the Chicoms are the best, and they will hold their value for that reason.

Another example, the Springfield Armory, Inc. M1A.  The earlier (spelled pre-ban) M1As were put together using mainly US Government surplus parts.  The ones but together now are assembled with many parts of (what some would consider) inferior quality.  This is setting a senario very much similar to the "pre 1964 Winchester" craze.  That is, there will be a lot of people saying the early ones were put together with higher quality parts, and are worth more because of that.  Regardless of whether or not this is REALLY true, those who have invested in such firearms will insist it's true, and not be willing to sell their weapons for a loss.  

For that matter, how many "preban" manufacturers are completely out of business due to the ban?  Look at Calico.  That is an example of one firearm that will never return, even if the ban is lifted.  It will retain collector's value even if the ban expires.  And even if some company comes along and decides to copy them (make new ones) there will be those who insist the earlier ones are better.  The price will not go down.

In buying firearms with the sunset approaching, I'm taking these things into consideration.  Don't be surprised at all if the price of many "preban" firearms doesn't go down one lick even if the ban is allowed to expire.  I tend to believe the price of many of them will hold firm, or even rise.