When is the ban due to expire? I've heard that it dies on January 1st 2004. They also said that it will die under Bush's presidencey and, with the conservative controlled legislature, it probably won't get extended.

I think the ban is supposed to sunset in September 2004

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

They have a ticker going!!!

Support these guys!!!

Edited cuz i cant spel

Specifically, Sept 14th, 2004.  

SDnR ;)

Go to this link, and tell me whether you think the bill will be allowed to sunset w/o a SERIOUS fight from the anti-gunners.  It's a distinct possibility that the ban will get worse, not go away.  If you don't have the weapon you want, get it now.  Better safe than sorry.
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,555387,00.html

Yeah?  Well, go to this link: [url]www.awbansunset.com/scoreboard.html[/url] and tell me whether you think enough people in Congress (especially the House) will care WHAT the anti's are saying. [:)]   Right now, the odds are stacked quite heavily in our favor.  It's certainly not a done deal, but if we do our part, I firmly believe the ban will go away.



Yes, despite my optimism, and the numerous factors that currently indicate a renewal will be very difficult for the antis to push through, there is always a chance that it might happen anyway.  Even though I feel very strongly that the ban will sunset without renewal, I still just recently bought a used (post-ban) Bushy M4 (my first AR).  I toyed with the idea of waiting for the ban to go away so I could have a rifle with evil features.  But, I decided to buy anyway... after all, I can always "upgrade" to a collapsible stock and flash supressor later.

--Mike

Don't get me wrong, I want the ban to sunset as much as anybody, and I'm already paying attention to how my "representatives" can be expected to vote on the issue.  I'm just concerned that the DC snipers have put a serious dent in the possibility of the ban being allowed to simply sunset.  As the site you link points out, the antis are likely to use the sniper incidents as fuel for the argument that allowing the ban to stay in place is the most "appropriate" pro-gun position.  The really strident organizations, such as VPC, will go all out for tougher restrictions.  If voting to continue a law that many manufacturers are perceived as getting around anyway, I see most politicians and the President viewing such a vote as a safe bet.

Further, considering the House Democrats' election of Pelosi as minority speaker, we can expect more liberal agenda items to be pursued as the Democrats look to distinguish themselves from the "Republicrat" image they think lost them the 2002 congressional elections.  Coming out against guns may seem like a wise political choice for them in the current climate.

Lastly, who knows what will happen between now and September of 2004?  All it will take is one Islamic/Whatever radical shooting up a mall/school/church/whatever, or a suicide bomber on U.S. soil (it's gonna happen sooner or later), or some other terrorist act, and the ban on ugly, evil-looking guns becomes a much easier sell to the sheep and their "representatives."

It's gonna be a fight, so it's better to be a grandfather (i.e., desired weapons already in hand) than a bystander.  My advice:  buy the rifle(s) you want, NOW.  Then buy more magazines you think you'd ever need.  (An AR is nothing but a club, without a magazine.)  Then buy three times the ammunition you normally shoot in a good year.  (Whatever the constitution says about guns, it's dead silent on ammunition.)  If I'm wrong and you just laid a sh*tpot of money out for nothing, I'm sorry.  [B)]  If I'm right, you owe me your liberty (or maybe just a beer).  [0:)]

See you at the range.

Rifleman308,

Unfortunately, I agree with much of what you said.  While I think there are enough solidly pro-gun votes in the House make it VERY difficult to pass a renewal, I'm not taking it to the bank.  Much can happen between now and then, including, as you mention, more high profile shooting incidents involving AWs.

I'm still undecided as to how much damage the DC "sniper" incidents caused us.  Yes, those animals killed quite a few people, and yes, they used an AR-15.  But almost anybody can be made to realize that the type of rifle used was not a factor (unless you are to illustrate that those victims who lived most likely would not have if they had been hit with a more powerful rifle).  On the other hand, a simple TV ad that shows imagery of military-style guns and the DC shootings crime scenes, with a voice-over saying something like "Republicans in Congress want to put high-powered military assault rifles, like the one the DC snipers used, back on our streets and into the hands of criminals... blah blah blah" would be a very effective scare tactic.

One thing to note, despite the tremendous negative publicity from those shootings, aside from predictable press releases from VPC and Brady Bunch, there has been very little said about the ban.  Think about that... wouldn't you expect to hear reflexive demands by opportunistic gun grabbing politicians calling for a renewal NOW (while the iron is presumably hot)?

So, in short, while we cannot afford to rest on this issue, the battle is clearly ours to lose.  Of course, when your football team is the New Orleans Saints, this doesn't mean much.  [;)]

--Mike

despite the current political lay-of-the-land, i have serious doubts that we will ever go back to the way we were before the assault weapons ban language became law. i say that because of the general direction the u.s.a. has been going, specifically, diminishing individual rights, protecting the smallest groups of folks to the detriment of the majority, lawsuits for every issue under the sun...add to that the war on terror and these occasional high profile crimes and i just cannot imagine the ban having a sunset, in fact i see the opposite: a total ban on civilian sales of all ar-15 type rifles and magazines.

thats where my money would be bet on.

get your rifles and equipment now, and enjoy what we have now.....

You mean you have serious doubts despite the several letters you are going to write your elected representatives on the matter right?

I understand someone who feels pessimism on the subject. The antis are certainly going to fight hard on this one; but please guys - don't just give up and roll over without fighting back.

At one time I thought that since the ban would sunset during an election year it would hurt our chances.  I could see the Democraps using this as one of their "scare the people into the voting booth" tactics.  

Nowadays it seems pretty much every politician with the exception of the Feinsteins & Schumers are running away from the gun issue because it hurts them politically.  What Democrap presidential canidate is going to alienate the entire south and much of the west by having any stance that could be considered anti-gun?  I am skeptical, but it will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

I've got a friend who is an officer (yes, a commissioned police officer) with Australia's version of the DEA. He never believed that Australia would ban ownership of firearms, until they showed up on his front porch and confiscated the 100 year old double-barrel shotgun that had been handed down to him from his grandfather. Now, when he goes out on a bust, he goes to the PD unarmed, goes to the armorer, checks out a weapon AND ammunition. After the bust, he checks the weapon back in to the armorer, checks in all the ammunition, fills out a ton of paperwork for each round that he DID NOT check back in, and goes home, unarmed.

Hmm.....September 2004, isn't that mighty close to November 2004 when the elections will be held?  As I observe the recent spinelessness of the Republican party, I wonder if we do have this in our favor.

I, for one, do not think there is a snowball's chance in hell that the law will be allowed to simply sunset.

Maybe you don't remember how the NRA caved on the machine gun ban?  They abandoned a sector of hard core shooters who love the sport and turned them sour on RTKBA issues.  When they did that, I tore up my membership card and mailed it back to them. Don't be so sure they will be there to defend owners of black guns when it comes down to it.

Buy what you want now, but remember, they may come to confiscate it later anyway.  We would do well to learn from Canada's and the UK's mistakes.    

Don't mean to completely highjack this thread, but have you ever given thought to what you would REALLY do if possession of your black rifle(s) was outlawed?  How many midnight burials would occur?  How many guys do you think would really go the "cold, dead hand" route?  There are hundreds of millions of guns in this country.  Certainly there are hundreds of thousands of ARs (and other evil rifles) in civilian hands.  That adds up to a lot of tough choices.

My credo (or at least one of them):  Being a law abiding citizen is a choice.  Choose wisely.

One can do wonders with a little PVC pipe, dessicant, and determination.

Seriously though, some might not have the guts to go "cold dead hands", but ask yourself if you could just stand there and watch them forcefully confiscate from someone who meant it?

I guess that would depend on whether or not the antis had achieved the prerequisite goal of gun registration.  In other words, if the government puts out an order that owners of banned guns must surrender them to the proper authorities, but they don't have any registration lists, I'd guess many people would do the burying/hiding thing.  Of course, even without registration they could always go searching for form 4473s to find guns recently purchased from dealers.

If there is a strict gun registration law in place, and assuming this rule has been followed obediently, things might get a bit trickier.  Sure, you could say "it was stolen" or "I lost it", but they might not believe you.  This situation begs for much deeper consideration.  If your guns are suddenly made illegal, and you are given a choice between giving them up and living a peaceful, happy (and oppressed) life with your family, or fighting it out to the death with the hypothetical federal gun-seizing agents (who are convinced you are hiding guns), what would you choose?

It's a classic catch-22.... if you fight, you are very likely to get yourself and your family killed.  If you don't fight, there might not be much left worth living for anyway.

Personally, I'm honestly not really sure what I would do.  It's like one of those horrific "if your kids were drowning and you could only save one of them" hypotheticals.


Yes... and things brings up another question.  If our government passes an unconstitutional law, are we obliged to follow it?  If we don't, are we then stripped of our "law abiding" status?

--Mike

ANTIS' [sex]  US gun owners


MAKE THEM ANTIS' TAKE IT IN THEIR PANTIES

Ban? What Ban?
No Ban in this castle!

Our founding fathers believed in "natural law"; that is, we as human beings are endowed by God with certain rights that cannot be taken away. There was great debate at the Constitutional Convention over whether the 2nd Amendment should be included in the Constitution at all. One group believed that it was necessary to guard this freedom explicitly; the opposition believed that its inclusion in the Bill of Rights would lead future Americans that it could be taken away by amending the Constitution. NEITHER group believed that any form of the government should, in any way, shape, or form, have the power to infringe on this right, and further, that any government  that did was illegitimate. So, the answer to your 1st question is no. The Constitution is still the highest law in the land, and the government is obligated to follow it.

The answer to your second question falls along the lines of "if your government overthrow attempt succeeds, it's a revolution; if it fails, it's a coup attempt." You'd be a lawbreaker until you were vindicated by a court decision that struck down the law you disobeyed as unconstitutional. Keep in mind that Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and many figures in the civil rights era were lawbreakers. Our founding fathers were lawbreakers. Being a lawbreaker in this context, IMHO, certainly does not make you a criminal.

As fan as the sunset goes, I agree with the opinion above that it's ours to lose. We have the House (which voted a few years back to repeal it), the Senate (by a thread), and a very big ace-in-the-hole in the White House. I don't think it would see the light of day in the House, personally, but there are some other things to consider. This law was signed by Clinton, it didn't get created without the provision to make it expire in 10 years, and all of this happened in a very anti-gun environment that led to one of the most catastrophic elections for Democrats ever, as they were ejected in record numbers in Nov '94. I don't think it would ever get removed from the books, but since there doesn't have to be any consensus, and lawmakers just have to let it go away, I think it will. Just my $.02 (more like $10 on this post!)

Well guys I live in Tennessee where our new majority leader comes from.He more likely than not will bring it to the Senate floor.His rating from the NRA is not as good as it should be.The only thing my might keep it from getting to the floor of the Senate is if he realizes it will be political suicide.This guy is setting up for a run for president in 2008 so if he thinks it will be in his interest to bring it to the floor he will.As for the Speaker of the house he is from Illinois need I say anymore.I am one who hopes it sunsets and I also supported Frisk but he was the lesser of 2 evils.Everybody on this sight needs to contact their senators and congressmen on this issue.Do not wait start now.

Hyde is from IL but not from my district. My congressman is LaHood, NRA A+. We're not all on Daley's payroll!

Having no crystal ball, I'm going to make sure I am in legal possession of that which I can afford/want for my shooting sports before the sunset.
We are a minority here like it or not. The majority of voters have demonstrated indifference to the whittling away of our rights by lazy shortcut seeking politicians.
Most seem to think that "that law seems reasonable- it doesnt affect me'.
To think that the sunset will 'set' and all will be as it was is not realistic.
If we do not support the NRA, and vote with scrutiny, we are responsible for whatever happens.