Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 11/8/2003 3:50:40 PM EDT
Ok, I hear this a lot about the AWB: "It IS going to sunset. A new law must be written to replace it."

How true is this? Why can it not be modified to strike out the sunset date much like they are trying to do with H.R. 3348?

I'm not saying it is a done deal, but it has gone through the House as written, and it is not a new law. It is simply amending the law as written. Can you tell me why they can't do the same thing with the AWB? Please don't include phrases like "political suicide", etc. I just want to discuss the legality of them modifying it like this. I don't wish to discuss projected political ramifications. We all know that many Republicans are for "sensible" gun control.

Either way, please don't stop writing your representatives, no matter which camp you are in on this issue. That is just my personal opinion.


Link Posted: 11/8/2003 3:52:19 PM EDT
Wow, JAFO started a topic.
Link Posted: 11/8/2003 3:52:49 PM EDT
They can pass anything they want with any wording they want
Link Posted: 11/8/2003 3:57:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ZRH:
Wow, JAFO started a topic.



Thanks for your input, although it isn't exactly the discussion I was after.
Link Posted: 11/8/2003 3:58:29 PM EDT
They CAN strike out the sunset date.

But this must be done by passing a law!

It's perfectly legit for them to pass a bill '18 USC Sec XX Para XX is ammended to delete (AWB sunset provision)'.

It still has to go through committee and pass both houses, then be signed by the Prez - just like any other law, though...

THERE IS NO WAY TO ADMINISTRATIVELY RENEW THE AWB UNDER CURRENT LAW. SO ANY RENEWAL OR REPLACEMENT MUST HAPPEN BY THE PASSAGE OF A NEW LAW (weather the new law is a complete new ban setup, or just a law that ammends the current one to make it permanent)!
Link Posted: 11/8/2003 4:11:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
They CAN strike out the sunset date.

But this must be done by passing a law!

It's perfectly legit for them to pass a bill '18 USC Sec XX Para XX is ammended to delete (AWB sunset provision)'.

It still has to go through committee and pass both houses, then be signed by the Prez - just like any other law, though...

THERE IS NO WAY TO ADMINISTRATIVELY RENEW THE AWB UNDER CURRENT LAW. SO ANY RENEWAL OR REPLACEMENT MUST HAPPEN BY THE PASSAGE OF A NEW LAW (weather the new law is a complete new ban setup, or just a law that ammends the current one to make it permanent)!



Exactly my point. There are many that say the old law WILL go away. I don't think that is necessarily true. The old law can be amended by a new law. If the new law gets pushed through before the sunset, that modifies or deletes the sunset, then the old law did NOT sunset. I think it's important that people realize this and keep sending letters to their representatives.

My fear is that too may people will convince some of us that the old law is history. This can not be decided until after the sunset date, which may or may not change. I am fairly certain that there will be a push to get the old law extended, renewed, or made permanent. There is no way to know for sure if it will happen or not, but I think it's best to know that it is possible and keep pushing our representatives to NOT allow it to happen.

Wether or not the current legislature will allow a new law to go through or not is a different discussion, but it appears to me that the old law CAN be amended.
Link Posted: 11/8/2003 4:13:35 PM EDT
I flip back and forth on the issue of what will happen, but I will start to buy the various types of semi-auto rifles that I would like to have, because I don't trust them.
Link Posted: 11/8/2003 4:47:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JAFO:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
They CAN strike out the sunset date.

But this must be done by passing a law!

It's perfectly legit for them to pass a bill '18 USC Sec XX Para XX is ammended to delete (AWB sunset provision)'.

It still has to go through committee and pass both houses, then be signed by the Prez - just like any other law, though...

THERE IS NO WAY TO ADMINISTRATIVELY RENEW THE AWB UNDER CURRENT LAW. SO ANY RENEWAL OR REPLACEMENT MUST HAPPEN BY THE PASSAGE OF A NEW LAW (weather the new law is a complete new ban setup, or just a law that ammends the current one to make it permanent)!



Exactly my point. There are many that say the old law WILL go away. I don't think that is necessarily true. The old law can be amended by a new law. If the new law gets pushed through before the sunset, that modifies or deletes the sunset, then the old law did NOT sunset. I think it's important that people realize this and keep sending letters to their representatives.

My fear is that too may people will convince some of us that the old law is history. This can not be decided until after the sunset date, which may or may not change. I am fairly certain that there will be a push to get the old law extended, renewed, or made permanent. There is no way to know for sure if it will happen or not, but I think it's best to know that it is possible and keep pushing our representatives to NOT allow it to happen.

Wether or not the current legislature will allow a new law to go through or not is a different discussion, but it appears to me that the old law CAN be amended.



Yeah, but that ammendment will get the same treatment as a whole new ban...

Either way, it's gonna be a big fight, and whoever has the most votes (right now, we do) will win...

GW will sign any re-authorization/ammendment, and might sign a new ban that's near-identical...

He has never promised to sign -- or showed any support for -- a stronger ban...
Link Posted: 11/8/2003 6:57:12 PM EDT
I just had a new thought on this whole damn thing.

Let's say for a minute that the ban is made permanent, in some way shape or form. Now, don't get me wrong here. I am in favor of the sunset just as much or more than anyone reading this post. But, just brainstorming here. Let's say that a permanent ban comes through, and actually passes in the House (which is possible if the Senate passes a ban, and a House-Senate Committee includes it in a big "must-pass" bill, which the pro-gun House simply must vote in foavor of, due to all the other stuff in the big "must-pass" bill).

What's to stop pushing for an amnesty period before the permanent ban? I bet if some pro-gunners were forced to vote for the ban in my "must-pass" scenario, they'd fall all over each other to support an amnesty period.

I'll repeat: the best case scenario here--and one I support wholeheartedly (and write to my CongressCritters about) is a complete sunset of the existing ban. The worst case is legislation worse than the current ban. If we end up with worst-case, why the hell not get something out of it? It would certainly be an opportunity to call the antis insatiable, uncaring about the law-abiding citizen, and deaf to all "sensible" language.

Thoughts?

Link Posted: 11/8/2003 7:15:19 PM EDT
Whatever goes through HAS To be passed by the full Congress, PERIOD.

While it's possible that the SENATE just MIGHT pass an extension in the senate version of a bill, it's EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that the House would allow any extensions to exist in the final version of any bill they might pass, and that would kill such an extension automatically.

Then the Senate's version of the bill would HAVE to lose that extension in reconciliation. There is NO WAY that there can be language in either version (House or Senate) of a bill and not in the other. After reconciliation, they are ONE BILL.


As no extension or renewal or replacement of the ban is going to be allowed to make it through the House, there will BE NO extension, renewel, or replacement of the ban.

Probably the toughest part of a Representative's job is to keep track of all the little shit that's often appended to important bills, and to know what it is exactly that these little add-ons are intended to do, and what they'd REALLY do if they passed.

CJ
Link Posted: 11/8/2003 7:31:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
Whatever goes through HAS To be passed by the full Congress, PERIOD.



I guess you missed at least one point in my post.


There is NO WAY that there can be language in either version (House or Senate) of a bill and not in the other. After reconciliation, they are ONE BILL.


The reconciled bill sure as hell can have stuff in it that was not passed in one house or the other. Happens all the time.


As no extension or renewal or replacement of the ban is going to be allowed to make it through the House, there will BE NO extension, renewel, or replacement of the ban.


Read my post again. There is certainly a way the the House could pass an extension of the Assault Weapons ban.

And note JAFO's opening post, for an example of the current House passing an extension of a gun ban.

Think they won't do it with the Assult Weapons ban? Think again!


Probably the toughest part of a Representative's job is to keep track of all the little shit that's often appended to important bills, and to know what it is exactly that these little add-ons are intended to do, and what they'd REALLY do if they passed.


Yes, it's really convenient they can hide behind ignorance. Shades of Black Monday here.

Link Posted: 11/19/2003 4:56:35 PM EDT
I am not a see sayer, but I really can imagine this same language very soon with a similar AWB bill.

Sensenbrenner Requests Help From Senator Schumer to Ensure Senate Passage of Ban on “Plastic Guns”


Chairman Sensenbrenner wrote Sen. Schumer, “Sen. Schumer, you and I have worked together before on common-sense legislation like the Brady Bill. Your help is needed to get the Senate to pass this bill [H.R. 3348] without any extraneous ‘poison pill’ attachments that could bog this important legislation down...


Don't subscribe to the "the AWB MUST sunset" camp and not do anything. Continue writing to your reps. Just my opinion. :)

Link Posted: 12/21/2003 4:05:30 AM EDT
H.R. 3348 is now public law. [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR03348:@@@X]H.R.3348 Title: To reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms.[/url]
12/3/2003: Presented to President. 12/9/2003: Signed by President. 12/9/2003: Became Public Law No: 108-174.
View Quote
Just thought I'd update the status on that bill.
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 5:10:39 AM EDT
Guys, We've plowed this ground so damn many times in the last couple of months...sheesh! OK...ONE MORE TIME! First of all, you paranoids, please remove your tinfoil hats and listen UP! Sit back comfortably for a couple of minutes and take a bit of advice from a conservative, gun-toting, inside-the-beltway Republican activist. PLEASE try to understand the dynamics of this issue in an election year. That is critical if you are to ultimately understand why the AWB is not going to be renewed and why NO OTHER ANTI-FIREARMS BILL WILL EVER MAKE IT TO THE PRESIDENT'S DESK FOR HIS SIGNATURE! There are actually several factors at play here. Firstly only a small, but vocal group of antis, led by the likes of Senator Chuckie Shumer are trying to get the ban renewed. These pols are all pretty safe or are not up for re-election in '04. The others who are up for re-election really don't have much of a stomach for a fight on this issue. Having seen the recent ass-kicking of their anti-pals in the last three election cycles, elections that swept the Republicans into power for the first time in decades, the Democrats are VERY sensitized to the gun issue. They don't wish to pick a fight with us or the NRA by trying to renew the ban. If you doubt me, spend a bit of time over on some of their sites like the DU and read some of their threads on this issue. While deep in their souls, most Democrats want to ban all guns...they damn well know that trying it...at least now, is a sure path to political suicide. Next, y'all gotta remember that the Republican Party now controls both houses of congress. For those of you who have forgotten your high school civics, that means that they (we) control the various committees, and it is in the committees where the real business of congress takes place. For ANY bill to make it to the floor of either the House or Senate for a vote, it must first pass out of committee. Since virtually ALL of the committee chairs are hard-core, dead-loyal Republicans, it boggles the mind that any of the chairs might permit any anti-gun bill to make it out. ANY such foolish bills are "doomed in committee". While some [disloyal] Republican party members would turn on us in a second, by and large they are pretty much pro-RKBA and are not about to vote to renew. More importantly, as long as the Republicans do control the House and Senate, no anti-gun bill will survive. Just because Chuckie or Hillary, or Nita, or Nancy authors and introduces a bill...doesn't make it law! Finally, as long as the Republicans do control congress, they are not about screw Bush by sending ANY type of anti-gun legislation over to the White House for his signature. Everybody knows how sensitive this issue is. The Democrats would LOVE to send a piece of legislation like this to Bush and paint him into a corner...force him to make a choice so they can beat him up...whichever way he goes. Likewise, the Republicans can see the political minefield a renewal would send Bush and since they are in power...it ain't gonna happen! Bottom line in our civics lession? [b]No anti-gun legislation of ANY type...NONE...ZERO is going to be processed by this congress before the 2004 election...NONE!!![/b] I'm not making judgements about Bush's gun-ideology...nor what he might or might not do if he were faced with an AWB renewal. That has been beat up here for months too. He has said some things about guns that I don't agree with...but that doesn't mean he'll ever get the chance to back up his words. What I am saying is that as long as the Republicans continue to control the congress, we will NOT see an AWB renewal. That tar-baby isn't going to ever see the light of day. The AWB is headed for a sunset.
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 5:37:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2003 5:38:34 AM EDT by DoubleFeed]
Agree with LWilde. If there wild shifts in focus on the Darkside are any indication of the rest of the Party, the Democrats are getting very desperate. They are talking about tossing out some of their core issues, like abortion and guns. Parties that are talking like that obviously are in a post-mature stage, ie, rotting. It was observed last week that both parties are attempting to woo voters from the other party. Both parties are stealing the other party's issues. For the AWB, the Republicans will be in favor of it, and the Democrats will fight against it or do nothing to assist a renewal. This coming year is shaping up to be extremely surrealistic.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 2:09:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LWilde: Guys, That is critical if you are to ultimately understand why the AWB is not going to be renewed and why NO OTHER ANTI-FIREARMS BILL WILL EVER MAKE IT TO THE PRESIDENT'S DESK FOR HIS SIGNATURE! Bottom line in our civics lession? [b]No anti-gun legislation of ANY type...NONE...ZERO is going to be processed by this congress before the 2004 election...NONE!!![/b]
View Quote
So have you read this thread at all? Was H.R. 3348 not an "anti-gun legislation of ANY type"? The problem is that a lot of Republicans in congress see the "assault weapons ban" as sensible gun legislation. You can say you know it won't be made permanent, but I will say that there is no way for you to know this. You can say "don't do anything because it will just go away." I am simply saying write to your congress people and let them know why the AWB is NOT sensible gun legistation. That's all. I hope you're right, but writing to our reps couldn't hurt anything at all. Not writing to them has a greater possibility of doing harm. :)
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 5:27:14 AM EDT
So they re-enacted the ban on a gun that doesn't even exist. It's just "feel good" legislation that doesn't affect ANYBODY. And it's not likely that many people are going to try to vote their local congresscritter out of office over a ban with no teeth over a gun that doesn't even exist. The NRA supported that legislation, BTW. Not that I personally agree with ANY legislation that bans or restricts ANY kind of firearm, but that IS the truth. Now, the AW ban...that's a major issue with a very significant voting bloc. Politicians will keep that in mind. CJ
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 6:25:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2003 6:33:18 AM EDT by LWilde]
Originally Posted By JAFO:
Originally Posted By LWilde: Guys, That is critical if you are to ultimately understand why the AWB is not going to be renewed and why NO OTHER ANTI-FIREARMS BILL WILL EVER MAKE IT TO THE PRESIDENT'S DESK FOR HIS SIGNATURE! Bottom line in our civics lession? [b]No anti-gun legislation of ANY type...NONE...ZERO is going to be processed by this congress before the 2004 election...NONE!!![/b]
View Quote
So have you read this thread at all? Was H.R. 3348 not an "anti-gun legislation of ANY type"? The problem is that a lot of Republicans in congress see the "assault weapons ban" as sensible gun legislation. You can say you know it won't be made permanent, but I will say that there is no way for you to know this. You can say "don't do anything because it will just go away." I am simply saying write to your congress people and let them know why the AWB is NOT sensible gun legistation. That's all. I hope you're right, but writing to our reps couldn't hurt anything at all. Not writing to them has a greater possibility of doing harm. :)
View Quote
Yes, I've read the bill. This is not related to the AWB. You are splitting hairs on this argument. "Undetectable" firearms are not in play here. This is an issue related to national security and not our rights to own evil black rifles. This law does absolutely nothing to impinge on our RKBA: The AWB does unfairly restrict my rights. I fail to see the connection...unless you have the hots for an "invisible" gun. Having said that, WADR, I never said don't write your congresscritters. On the contrary, it is NEVER a waste of time to communicate with your elected reps. I pester mine all the time. Face to face is even better, but most of you don't have that luxury. Noo...you are entirely correct: It does no harm, in fact it is very good for our side to contact them. BTW, by law, they have to write back if you write them so by all means do so. My point in being so damn overbearing and pedantic in my last thread was to try to put to bed the canard that the AWB is somehow going to be resurrected in '04. As I stated before, it ain't happening...no way. It IS going to sunset and there won't be a replacement. Now, what if by some miracle the Dems return to power in Washington? Then I think you can count on seeing a renewal of the AWB. Democrats HATE guns...at least most do. The numbers of Dems who are our pals...are few and far between.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 2:17:04 PM EDT
LWilde, you certainly sound like a politician. I questioned what you said. I pointed out a discrepancy. That's all. Now, if you go back to the first post in this thread, you will see that this is about the possibility of the same thing happening with the AWB as what happened with HR 3348. Not the probability as projected by lobbyists. Either way, none of us want it to happen. It IS possible though, no matter what the politicians here tell us.
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 6:29:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JAFO: LWilde, you certainly sound like a politician. I questioned what you said. I pointed out a discrepancy. That's all. Now, if you go back to the first post in this thread, you will see that this is about the possibility of the same thing happening with the AWB as what happened with HR 3348. Not the probability as projected by lobbyists. Either way, none of us want it to happen. It IS possible though, no matter what the politicians here tell us.
View Quote
LWilde doesn't come across as a politician to me; he sounds more like a staffer. I agree with his analysis, BTW. Everything I've read says that most Demo's are going to leave this issue alone, much less the Repubs. Too many people lost their jobs, permanently, the last time an AWB was passed. Furthermore, the only reason it passed last time was due to Demo's owning Congress plus an extremely antigun president. None of those factors exist today. The only common denominator is the usual gang of idiots, Schumer, Boxer, Feinswine, etc. None of the above is intended to imply that we shouldn't call and write our reps, however. I've made one cycle this year and plan to go into once a month mode in Jan. My .02. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Merlin
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 7:00:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JAFO: There are many that say the old law WILL go away. I don't think that is necessarily true.
View Quote
The law as it was written HAS to expire, it says so in the law (the sunset date). At that time the law will no longer be in effect.
The old law can be amended by a new law. If the new law gets pushed through before the sunset, that modifies or deletes the sunset, then the old law did NOT sunset.
View Quote
As others have said, yes they can amend or change the law, but it has to pass through both houses and the President has to sign it and then the new law will become the new AWB law of the land. The old law (the one with the expiration date) will still expire.
I think it's important that people realize this and keep sending letters to their representatives.
View Quote
Exactly. Write to those jerks and let them know how you stand on this very important piece of legislation.
My fear is that too may people will convince some of us that the old law is history. This can not be decided until after the sunset date
View Quote
If a new law isn't passed and signed by the time the AWB of 1994 expires then there will be no AWB law.
I am fairly certain that there will be a push to get the old law extended, renewed, or made permanent.
View Quote
There are a few people that have made banning guns a life's work. They will stop at nothing to try to get another ban in place before the 1994 ban expires.
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 7:59:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/24/2003 8:08:35 AM EDT by liberty86]
Originally Posted By LWilde: Guys, We've plowed this ground so damn many times in the last couple of months...sheesh! OK...ONE MORE TIME! First of all, you paranoids, please remove your tinfoil hats and listen UP! Sit back comfortably for a couple of minutes and take a bit of advice from a conservative, gun-toting, inside-the-beltway Republican activist. PLEASE try to understand the dynamics of this issue in an election year. That is critical if you are to ultimately understand why the AWB is not going to be renewed and why NO OTHER ANTI-FIREARMS BILL WILL EVER MAKE IT TO THE PRESIDENT'S DESK FOR HIS SIGNATURE! There are actually several factors at play here. Firstly only a small, but vocal group of antis, led by the likes of Senator Chuckie Shumer are trying to get the ban renewed. These pols are all pretty safe or are not up for re-election in '04. The others who are up for re-election really don't have much of a stomach for a fight on this issue. Having seen the recent ass-kicking of their anti-pals in the last three election cycles, elections that swept the Republicans into power for the first time in decades, the Democrats are VERY sensitized to the gun issue. They don't wish to pick a fight with us or the NRA by trying to renew the ban. If you doubt me, spend a bit of time over on some of their sites like the DU and read some of their threads on this issue. While deep in their souls, most Democrats want to ban all guns...they damn well know that trying it...at least now, is a sure path to political suicide. Next, y'all gotta remember that the Republican Party now controls both houses of congress. For those of you who have forgotten your high school civics, that means that they (we) control the various committees, and it is in the committees where the real business of congress takes place. For ANY bill to make it to the floor of either the House or Senate for a vote, it must first pass out of committee. Since virtually ALL of the committee chairs are hard-core, dead-loyal Republicans, it boggles the mind that any of the chairs might permit any anti-gun bill to make it out. ANY such foolish bills are "doomed in committee".
View Quote
Bullshit, an amendment can be tacked on to a "must pass" bill, on the floor, of either House.
While some [disloyal] Republican party members would turn on us in a second, by and large they are pretty much pro-RKBA and are not about to vote to renew. More importantly, as long as the Republicans do control the House and Senate, no anti-gun bill will survive. Just because Chuckie or Hillary, or Nita, or Nancy authors and introduces a bill...doesn't make it law! Finally, as long as the Republicans do control congress, they are not about screw Bush by sending ANY type of anti-gun legislation over to the White House for his signature. Everybody knows how sensitive this issue is. The Democrats would LOVE to send a piece of legislation like this to Bush and paint him into a corner...force him to make a choice so they can beat him up...whichever way he goes. Likewise, the Republicans can see the political minefield a renewal would send Bush and since they are in power...[red]it ain't gonna happen[/red]!
View Quote
....Until some Islamists buy guns at a gun show, and hit a shopping mall or two....You'll be lucky, if the repubs let ya keep revolvers, and Bolt guns!! (sniper rifles!)
Bottom line in our civics lession? [b]No anti-gun legislation of ANY type...NONE...ZERO is going to be processed by this congress before the 2004 election...NONE!!![/b] I'm not making judgements about Bush's gun-ideology...nor what he might or might not do if he were faced with an AWB renewal. That has been beat up here for months too. He has said some things about guns that I don't agree with...but that doesn't mean he'll ever get the chance to back up his words. What I am saying is that as long as the Republicans continue to control the congress, we will NOT see an AWB renewal. That tar-baby isn't going to ever see the light of day. The AWB is headed for a sunset.
View Quote
Ya, right..... [rolleyes] I'm willing to bet you Fifty dollars, (US $50), that we will see a renewal, or similar legislation, before the next election.
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 4:35:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/24/2003 4:40:40 PM EDT by JAFO]
Originally Posted By klutz347: The law as it was written HAS to expire, it says so in the law (the sunset date). At that time the law will no longer be in effect.
View Quote
That was the point of this post. Look at the referenced undetectable firearms bill. It did not replace the old law. The old law went nowhere. The new law just strikes the sunset date that is written into that law. This is a possibility with the AWB. It may not be probable, but it is possible. I really didn't intend this thread to be argumentative about the probability, but just to point out the possibility.
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 5:49:01 PM EDT
That brings up an interesting technical question: If a law with an expiration date (call it December 31, 2005, just for the heck of it) is permitted to expire, it's gone as of January 1, 2006. If by some strange chance, a few months later a bill were to be passed that includes the striking of that expired law's expiration date, making it permanent, effectively, would this mean anything, as the law has already expired and hasn't existed for several months? My gut feeling is that the deletion of the extension would not bring that law back into effect as in this case the law in question has technically disappeared and is technically stricken from the lawbooks, and how can a law extend the expiration date of another law that isn't in effect anymore? I don't think it CAN. I know that if I were a judge, I couldn't accept that proposition as it has no merit before the written letter of the laws THEN IN FORCE. You can't extend a law's expiration date, or delete it, after the law has already expired, as the relevant law is no longer on the books. This new law regarding non-existent undetectable guns is therefore null and void as the previous law had already expired. If I'm wrong about this, someone please enlighten me with specifics. CJ
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 5:59:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LWilde: OK...ONE MORE TIME! Bottom line in our civics lession? [b]No anti-gun legislation of ANY type...NONE...ZERO is going to be processed by this congress before the 2004 election...NONE!!![/b] The AWB is headed for a sunset.
View Quote
Until the mass shootings start occurring in '04, that is.
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 7:01:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/24/2003 7:06:59 PM EDT by LWilde]
Originally Posted By liberty86: Bullshit, an amendment can be tacked on to a "must pass" bill, on the floor, of either House.
View Quote
....Until some Islamists buy guns at a gun show, and hit a shopping mall or two....You'll be lucky, if the repubs let ya keep revolvers, and Bolt guns!! (sniper rifles!) Ya, right..... [rolleyes] I'm willing to bet you Fifty dollars, (US $50), that we will see a renewal, or similar legislation, before the next election.
View Quote
Liberty! I wondered when you would join in the fray! Glad to hear from you on this. Listen up shipmate, you need to make yourself an eggnog with an extra shot and lighten up on the paranoia just a bit. I know...that would be totally out of character for you, but give it a try. It will do wonders for your BP. [;D] Seriously, I understand your position...but it just isn't going to happen. Not that I'm not going to keep a good weather eye on those pols in DC...but I'm really not worried in the least. Now...if the Dems return to power? All bets are off. Oh...and JAFO...FWIW, I'm NOT a politician. Actually, I'm just a doddering old retired naval officer on the faculty of a major university from dead in the middle of the cotton and mint julep belt. (My [local] office happens to be in Quantico, VA though, which is just south of the DC Beltway.) I just happen to stay pretty closely plugged in with our elected officials, which ALL of us should do. During my last conversation with our congresswoman, she re-iterated that the AWB is dead on arrival. I assured her that she would continue to have my vote...if she maintained her current conservative stance on the issues, especially concerning our RKBA. Liberty...don't let that stop you though...they're-a-comming! [B]MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!![/B]
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 7:42:42 PM EDT
My prediciton on the AWB is that the Senate will pass a new, more restrictive bill but the House will let their version die in committee. The Repubs [b]know[/b] what happens when they abandon the highly cohesive gun owner voting block: they lose. The House will let the bill die in committee. If and when this happens, no shit, I will dance in the street in celebration (as I prepare to have my post-ban barrels threaded for a nifty new flash-hider). Fingers and legs crossed.... CMOS
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 8:40:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 8:47:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CMOS: The Repubs [b]know[/b] what happens when they abandon the highly cohesive gun owner voting block: they lose.
View Quote
I agree with you in principle, but if the Repubs screw us on a new AWB, who are we going to vote for in the future? Democrats? Green party? This is the problem with a two party system - they can collude against us without fear, and they know it. I can see a "bi-partisan, common sense" assault weapons ban in our future with neither political party really losing any meaningful capital over it.
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 9:50:02 PM EDT
Come September of next year, I envision myself celebrating the AWB sunset. Of course, there will be challenges in the future but for at least that moment, we will have some freedom restored.
Top Top