Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 8/23/2004 6:32:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2004 6:34:54 PM EST by M4-CQBR]
Some interesting info I found. . .

www.capitolwatch.org/Pulls/108_hr3831.php

On the eve of the upcoming presidential election, the 1994 Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer gun-control regulations is scheduled to expire on 13 September, 2004. There are at least six bills reauthorizing Feinstein-Schumer pending in the Senate and House. Congress will return from its summer recess on 7 September and will be in session only four work-days before the sunset date. Fellow Patriots, let us urge our elected representatives to oppose H.R. 3831 and S. 2498 and any other legislation seeking to extend the so-called "assault-weapons" ban.

Please act now -- join more than 85,000 fellow Patriots on the frontlines in defense of our Constitutional liberties who have already signed a petition against Feinstein-Schumer renewal.

Link to -- patriotpetitions.us/nogunban/


S.2498

S.2109

Link Posted: 8/23/2004 6:33:34 PM EST
it ain't over yet!
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 6:37:48 PM EST
I already signed it. I'm counting on the Republican Congressional leadership to deny any AWB extension on the floor for a vote.
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 6:40:26 PM EST
It's over...They're going to be too busy confirming another CIA Director
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 6:40:29 PM EST
Huh! Is this already out of committee? Where's Rickinvegas?
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 6:40:32 PM EST
Hit!

Link Posted: 8/23/2004 6:40:41 PM EST
signed. I suggest we get letters and emails and phone calls moving again too.
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 6:43:27 PM EST
It's in our best interest that this may be a close election. The Republicans will not alienate the gun buying public before the election. The average gun buyer doesn't care about your AR, they care about magazines.
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 6:44:59 PM EST
... September 7 thru 10 - their last chance, you know they will use every sneaky trick in the book

... I sure hope NRA and GOA are on top of this
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 6:51:59 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 6:53:57 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 7:14:21 PM EST
That will be the longest 4 days of our lives!!!!
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 7:15:35 PM EST
\/
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 7:21:11 PM EST
Signers: 90693
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 7:27:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By AZSherman1:
That will be the longest 4 days of our lives!!!!





+1
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 7:43:13 PM EST
+1

I signed all the petitions they had going while there.

S.O.
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 7:44:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Huh! Is this already out of committee? Where's Rickinvegas?


House website shows it's still in committee.
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 7:47:10 PM EST
And it goes from Committee to vote then to the Senate then back to the House then to the Prez, right?

Look at the sponsors though..Only 127 Dems and 9 Reps..I don't think that'll carry a majority..
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 7:48:38 PM EST
Longest 19 days of our lives.
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 7:58:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By RAMBOSKY:
Longest 19 days of our lives.



for me , yes....

but not cuz of the AWB sunset... I'm very sure of that.


Because I will be working the next 3 weeks STRAIGHT... and 12 hour days starting friday till next thursday because of the RNC
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 8:05:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By AZ-K9:

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Huh! Is this already out of committee? Where's Rickinvegas?


House website shows it's still in committee.



It's in the trash can in the committee office!

It's not even in the Judiciary committee. It's sitting in the Sub-committee chaired by Howard Coble (R-NC). This guy is a second amendment hawk. He would rather eat a bullet than see this voted on in his committee.

Seriously guys, this bill would have to pass the sub-committee before it even gets to the judiciary committee and then Hastert would have to schedule a vote. Aint gonna happen.

It's interesting that this particular bill is being mentioned. This was the one piece of legislation that might have had a chance at some point in time. It basically changed "10" to "20" in the 1994 bill as it related to the sunset. That's it.............2 numbers. No new restrictions. No new definitions. It just added 10 years to the sunset.

If this piece of crap can't even find it's way out of a sub-committee then you can all see what the likelihood is of another Federal ban in the future................zilch!
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 8:07:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By rickinvegas:

Originally Posted By AZ-K9:

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Huh! Is this already out of committee? Where's Rickinvegas?


House website shows it's still in committee.



It's in the trash can in the committee office!

It's not even in the Judiciary committee. It's sitting in the Sub-committee chaired by Howard Coble (R-NC). This guy is a second amendment hawk. He would rather eat a bullet than see this voted on in his committee.

Seriously guys, this bill would have to pass the sub-committee before it even gets to the judiciary committee and then Hastert would have to schedule a vote. Aint gonna happen.

It's interesting that this particular bill is being mentioned. This was the one piece of legislation that might have had a chance at some point in time. It basically changed "10" to "20" in the 1994 bill as it related to the sunset. That's it.............2 numbers. No new restrictions. No new definitions. It just added 10 years to the sunset.

If this piece of crap can't even find it's way out of a sub-committee then you can all see what the likelihood is of another Federal ban in the future................zilch!




DUDE! Awesome!
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 8:13:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By rickinvegas:
It's interesting that this particular bill is being mentioned. This was the one piece of legislation that might have had a chance at some point in time. It basically changed "10" to "20" in the 1994 bill as it related to the sunset. That's it.............2 numbers. No new restrictions. No new definitions. It just added 10 years to the sunset.


Not only that, but it only renews the "assault weapons" portion of the ban, not the full-capacity magazine restrictions. That is a HUGE compromise, intended to sacrifice the only part of the ban that really actually does anything in trying to remove enough opposition to get the more symbolic portion passed, so at least they can claim some kind of victory.

It won't work.

--Mike

Link Posted: 8/23/2004 8:21:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By mcaswell:

Originally Posted By rickinvegas:
It's interesting that this particular bill is being mentioned. This was the one piece of legislation that might have had a chance at some point in time. It basically changed "10" to "20" in the 1994 bill as it related to the sunset. That's it.............2 numbers. No new restrictions. No new definitions. It just added 10 years to the sunset.


Not only that, but it only renews the "assault weapons" portion of the ban, not the full-capacity magazine restrictions. That is a HUGE compromise, intended to sacrifice the only part of the ban that really actually does anything in trying to remove enough opposition to get the more symbolic portion passed, so at least they can claim some kind of victory.

It won't work.

--Mike



Let me take this opportunity to thank you for all your hard work.

What are your plans for your site following sunset? I would hope you might turn your efforts toward educating people about state and local threats around the country. As you know, this is where future battles will be fought.
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 8:36:52 PM EST
it will not work
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 9:13:53 PM EST
Bump
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 9:29:16 PM EST
Won't work. Even the vocal anti-gun dems are disappearing. We see them now from states that already have some form of gun control, NY, CA, MA, and maybe one or two others. The 94 AWB apparently cost something like 20 dems their jobs since then. I don't think more will mae that mistake.
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 2:40:37 AM EST
btt
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 3:52:43 AM EST
Bumped again. This shouldn't be on the second page.
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 3:55:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By JeffersonDarcy:

Originally Posted By RAMBOSKY:
Longest 19 days of our lives.



for me , yes....

but not cuz of the AWB sunset... I'm very sure of that.


Because I will be working the next 3 weeks STRAIGHT... and 12 hour days starting friday till next thursday because of the RNC



GOOD GAWD!! Three 12 hour days kicks my ass. Hang tough.
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 6:54:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By mcaswell:
Not only that, but it only renews the "assault weapons" portion of the ban, not the full-capacity magazine restrictions. That is a HUGE compromise, intended to sacrifice the only part of the ban that really actually does anything in trying to remove enough opposition to get the more symbolic portion passed, so at least they can claim some kind of victory.

It won't work.

--Mike



Mike, you are mistaken on this. The bill alters section 110105(2) which would extend the sunset for both the AW ban and magazine ban. Some people are under the mistaken belief it only extends the AWB because someone mistyped it as 110102 (which is the section that bans assault weapons) on a gun board and it got recirculated but the actual text of the bill extends 110105(2) which covers magazines and semi-autos.

Thanks for all the hard work by the way. You've definitely done your part and more to make sure this sunsets and I know I'm grateful for your effort.

www.mikecaswell.com/awcountdown.gif
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 12:13:18 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 12:18:52 PM EST
BTT, because we need to act now or wait another 10 years, and that is NOT an option.
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 1:15:54 PM EST
Signers = 92880 now that I've signed.
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 1:25:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Huh! Is this already out of committee? Where's Rickinvegas?



Still stuck on Sensenbrenner's desk...

BAN = DEAD
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 3:28:57 PM EST
BTT

Call and write your represenatives and tell them to make sure the Assault Weapons Ban dies. And if they say they will not support the Assault Weapons Ban thank them for defending the 2nd Amendment
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 3:36:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By ffsparky26:
BTT

Call and write your represenatives and tell them to make sure the Assault Weapons Ban dies. And if they say they will not support the Assault Weapons Ban thank them for defending the 2nd Amendment



Done deal.
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 4:44:32 PM EST
93277!
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 5:05:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/24/2004 5:07:33 PM EST by mcaswell]

Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:

Originally Posted By mcaswell:
Not only that, but it only renews the "assault weapons" portion of the ban, not the full-capacity magazine restrictions.


Mike, you are mistaken on this. The bill alters section 110105(2) which would extend the sunset for both the AW ban and magazine ban. Some people are under the mistaken belief it only extends the AWB because someone mistyped it as 110102 (which is the section that bans assault weapons) on a gun board and it got recirculated but the actual text of the bill extends 110105(2) which covers magazines and semi-autos.


I don't think so. Let's analyze, shall we?

First up, the relevant text of H.R.3831:

Section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (18 U.S.C. 921 note) is amended by inserting `, or in the case of the amendments made by section 110102, 20 years,' after `10 years'.


Section 110105 of the AWB reads as follows:

SEC. 110105. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle--

(1) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act;
and

(2) are repealed effective as of the date that is 10 years after
that date.



So, if the Castle bill were to pass, this section would read as follows:


SEC. 110105. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle--

(1) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act;
and

(2) are repealed effective as of the date that is 10 years, or in the case of the amendments made
by section 110102, 20 years after that date.



Now, moving on...

www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/bills/hr3355.txt <----text of the AWB (I won't paste the whole thing)


SEC. 110102. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF
CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.


(the "assault weapons" portion of the ban)


SEC. 110103. BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(the "large capacity magazines" portion of the ban)


So, the Castle bill simply extends Section 110102 for another 10 years. Section 110103 expires.




Thanks for all the hard work by the way. You've definitely done your part and more to make sure this sunsets and I know I'm grateful for your effort.


Thanks, I appreciate the kind words.

--Mike

Link Posted: 8/24/2004 5:24:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:
... September 7 thru 10 - their last chance, you know they will use every sneaky trick in the book

... I sure hope NRA and GOA are on top of this



Ditto, it isnt over untill its over.
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 5:47:47 PM EST
I really hate to think that they are willing to let this go... FOR A REASON. I shudder to think that they(and we all know in the back of our minds) are planning for something much worse. They know the '94 crime bill proved to be ineffective. The same mistake will not be made twice.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 4:51:32 AM EST
Good analysis Mike. I missed the section referring specifically to 110102 being the only chunk that receives a 20 year sunset.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 6:38:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By rn45:
I already signed it. I'm counting on the Republican Congressional leadership to deny any AWB extension on the floor for a vote.



yup yup
Top Top