Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 4/4/2002 9:20:32 AM EDT
...it is further amended? I'd assume that the additional amendments would have to expire also, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense. Well, we all know what happens when we assume things, so... anybody know the answer?
Link Posted: 4/4/2002 10:50:16 AM EDT
Whatever the amendment says. Certainly an extension of the expiration date is one possibility.
Link Posted: 4/4/2002 1:04:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/4/2002 1:08:56 PM EDT
Troy's right. They'll name it the "Uncle Sam God Bless America Little Children and Cute Puppy Dog Advocacy Rights And Anti-Terror Bill". What limp-phallused politician would go on record voting against that?
Link Posted: 4/4/2002 1:36:44 PM EDT
How can you amend wording that isn't in the law ???? Unlike the original Brady law, the AW and Hi-Cap. Bans do not contain the sunset in the actual text. There is no way to repeal the sunset w/o an Address (I.E. 18 USC 44 Sec. 922(v)(?) meaning Title 18, Chapter 44, Section 922, Subsection v, paragraph ?)
(s) (1) Beginning on the date that is 90 days after the date of enactment of this subsection and ending on the day before the date that is 60 months after such date of enactment, it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer a handgun (other than the return of a handgun to the person from whom it was received) to an individual who is not licensed under section 923, unless -
View Quote
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 8:17:22 AM EDT
An interesting question would be the potential backlash on Bush from the pro-2nd community if he signs a bill with such rider included. My guess is that the backlash would be very strong. Bill Simon winning the Rep. primary in CA strongly over RINO Reardin (SP?) sent a message to the RNC and Bush who backed the RINO. Bill Smith is running on a pro-2nd and doesn't hide it. I predict that Bush would sign such a rider. He would only hesitate on the W but rip right through the Bush (borrowed phrase). The only chance I see for us is if Bill Simon beats Grey Davis. This may cause Bush to rethink but I doubt it. If Bush signs such a rider that extends the '94 ban, I will either unregister as a Republican (life-long) or run for the county republican committee and tried to change some things within.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 3:32:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/6/2002 6:27:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/6/2002 7:24:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 12:30:26 AM EDT
It is just like the "evil gunshow loophole" they make it out to be somthing it isnt. I know several republicans that voted for it, I couldnt believe it!!!!!
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 9:58:21 PM EDT
I believe that there are different things that can happen depending on how the sunset is writen. With an "in the code" sunset provision, such as Brady I, Plastic Gun Ban, etc...the sunset is written right into the text of the law with something like "Beginning 90 days...and ending 5 years..." This kind of provision is very easy to alter or eliminate as was done in 1998 to the Plastic Gun Ban, which extended it another 5 Years until 2003. But, with such a provision (in the text of the code itself) any amendments that are made to it would be subject to the same sunset as the original law. But, with a sunset provision in the bill as was done with the 1994 AW Ban, you cannot simply edit it out or extend it. The bill will sunset and the only way this can be changed is to pass a new law, which creates its own unique situation. You cannot pass a retroactive law. This most certainly applies to pre-ban clauses. If a new law was passed, it would have to have its own pre-ban clause starting on the date of enactment of the new law (2003/2004). If the congress was to use a date in the past, the law would be on shaky legal/constitutional ground and would likely be struck down by the courts. So, basically any current LEO-Restricteds will become Pre-Bans on 9/14/2004. Herein lies another problem. Assuming a new law is passed prior to that date, the only legal Pre-Bans other than Pre-94 will be the current supply of LEO-Restricted AWs. I doubt Colt or any other major manufacturer is going to make a shitload of LEO Rifles that they won't be able sell for a while. The other issue presented by this kind of a sunset provision, and the answer to your question is that I believe that any amendments to the 1994 AW Ban would not sunset. Say that they were to amend it by adding a new feature, then they'd have to except any current guns with that feature or pay for them. So, say that tomorrow Congress was to pass an amendment adding "Flare Launcer" and "Night Sights" to the list of evil features...what would happen is that on 9/14/1994 we'd end up with the modified definition of an AW. But, the ban would still sunset. The only way that a problem would be created is if the actual text of the ban (922(v) or (w)) was altered. This is highly unlikely. It is more likely that the definitions, if anything, would be amended. Since, the sentencing enhancments for using an AW in a crime don't sunset, there will always be a definition in the 921(a)(30) of a "Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon". If this definition is changed, it would exist until changed again as amended. What will basically happen on 9/14/1994 is that the total ban on AWs and Hi-Caps. will disappear. The Sentencing Enhancements for using an AW in a crime will still be around. I would guess that if the law does expire that Congress will likely amend the definition of an AW to mean any Semi-Automatic, Hi-Capacity Detachable Magazine Rifle. This won't create much of an issue since they won't be banning these guns, only enhancing the sentence of someone who uses one in a crime.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 9:58:57 PM EDT
Personally, I don't see why using a Post-Ban in a robbery would get me 5 years additional (if they prosecute as the Helder case shows they don't. 18 counts of using a DD during a violent crime would have gotten him 540 years, not to mention 240 years for not paying the $4800 in taxes on his DDs, and 180 years for not filing a 5320.20 before traveling interstate (likely get off that one on 5th amendment grounds since the bombs were unregistered),) while having a useless bayonet lug would get me 10 years additional (?) in addition to 10 years for having the Bayonet Lug. on the rifle at all.
Link Posted: 5/11/2002 5:10:49 AM EDT
We have just one thing in our favor, the crime bill of 1994 is due to sunset on George Bush's re-election year, I hope he remembers who put him in office. I beleive if he re-signs this bill or any other gun controll bill the voters will speak again and HE KNOWS THIS.
Link Posted: 5/11/2002 7:49:12 AM EDT
About what cc48510: If a new ban is implemented say with greater restriction, like a CA defined AW ban. Then any post ban would become an AW and it would not matter if it was pre-94. I mean how could they have pre-bans and then pre-pre bans? it doesn't work. so bingo everyone with a post-ban can do as they please.
Link Posted: 5/11/2002 8:49:37 AM EDT
Top Top