I have heard lots of talk about how the assault weapons ban will never go away and how they'll renew it yadda yadda yadda. It wont happen. Here's why.

It is not even on politicians radar screen's in DC. You never hear about it save for Mcain and his dead on arvial bill.

People on this board are right, it is a hot potato issue, but in our favor. The democRATs lost the election last year basicly because of the issue of the second amendment. If it hadn't been for the NRA taking away union votes the president would be Al Bore right now. There is no way that thwy would stick out there collective political necks over the AWB and riask a repeat of the election of 00'. At this point no politician in his right mind would propose gun control measures and risk getting labled anti-gun

We stand to gain in 02' according to the zogby pole, and kiplinger seems to think that we'll retain the house and take back the senate. Everyone Vote!!!! just to be sure and not leave it up to sheeple

That's the way I see it anyway, but hey I'm just a 16 year old who graduated high school this year so I am prolly totaly off base....flame away


[rail]

You sound pretty sharp to me. That's a decent analysis of the situation. You may even be right.

I noticed that the CT legislators were a little leary of passing the new AW ban here. They settled for a carbon copy of the federal ban (which we already had) with the addition of a .50 caliber AP round ban. With a house comprised of 2/3 democrats, that is a major win for our side. I think they are feeling the heat a bit these days, from gun owners, and the previously sleepy, but awakening sheeple.

No flames at all.

But don't count on the ban being allowed to sunset.  They're already banned, so it's a politically safe move to keep the status quo.

The vast majority of people don't like guns and can't fathom how they have anything to do with being free citizens.

I just want to be able to keep what I have, and one day, be old enough to buy my own handguns. Is that too much to ask for?

Sadly, I feel you are mistaken. It's very hard to change laws once they are on the books. Someone in congress is going to have to make it an issue and drum up support to overturn it. With all of the anti-gunners in congress it will be difficult to garner support for it, even though most have to know what a stupid law it is. Whoever supports it is going to have their support hanging over them if some idiots use "assault rifles" to commit a high profile crime. I believe the chances are quite low it will ever be changed.

I hope you are right, but I don't see GW expending the political capital to veto it if it comes up again.

Nobody has to overturn it. IT EXPIRES!!

It expires? I didn't know that! If it's not a regular federal law then what is it exactly?

Yes. The verion of the bill signed into law has a 10 year sunset provision. No action is needed for it to go away.

This is exactly right.  Were the situation a limitless-time period law, then chances are slim to none that it would EVER be overturned - b/c as someone said, it is now Status Quo.

However, because of the 2004 sunset, there will have to be a MAJOR evaluation by liberals in the Senate, about whether they feel like taking the heat for renewing the law.  Although, we will not know for sure whether the Senate in '02 will be Republican or Democrat-run (especially in light of people like McCain and Jeffords).  However, if it is indeed a right-wing Congress in 2002, it stands very well to reason that the ban could expire.  Don't just cross your fingers, though - WRITE TO YOUR STATE SENATORS about this.  Laws aren't just for the people, they're by the people (at least they used to be a long time ago, in a better America....I'd like to think some things don't change too much).

Jewbroni~

P.S. - Armed Scientist: yeah, you're a pretty smart kid, I'll give you that.  You made a few good points in your post.  2004 is an election year in respect for about everybody in the political sphere, and democrats are facing losing face for their presidential candidates AND their Senate people (if my Gov't class memory serves me right).  There is just too much at stake to renew something as "back and forth" as this.  But then again, the polls and the sheeple might change in 2004, and the "Ban" might sound like it's "helping the children" after all.  Let's hope statisticians do their part to prove otherwise.

They wrote it like they always do with those "temporary" taxes that never go away.  You know, like the telephone tax from the Spanish American war that was finally allowed to "expire" last year.

It's always easy to get the vote to keep the tax sunsets from coming due because the legislators fund everything but the Police and Fire so that if the tax sunsets, SHTF.

I really do think this will expire.

My compliments Armed Scientist. Not to take anything away from your obviously brilliant mind, but I bet you have some fine parents who care a lot for you.  I pray you are correct.  Truth is we never lost the right....the 2nd Ammendment cannot be suspended by some law. Politician is defined as one who is corrupt or about to become so!  

Have you ever heard of a bill like this sunseting?

Some good points. I don't believe age is all that important: i've seen smart 15 yo's and idiot 30 yo's. It depends on the person not the age.
Anyway, will it expire? Hmmm...Think about the situation that the original bill passed in. Democrats had control of the house AND the senate AND the presidency, and of course greater access by liberals. Perfect environment to pass this kind of feel good bill(which I believe was made partially by schumer). And, who lost the house and senate that year? Demos, who blamed it partially on that bill and the Brady bill.
Now what will the situation be in 2004? Well, we know there will be a Repub president. Is he likely to sign it? Not if there is a great outcry by gun owners. Most likely the NRA won't help out Bush if he would. And if he learns from his fathers mistake he'll veto it. But I am still weary of him. We need backup.
Well, what about Congress? I doubt we'll lose the house, especially after redistricting, which is mostly going to be control my Repub's. And since th house is really conservative(compared to the senate), with Army and Delay, etc, I doubt any such bill will get through, especially before an election. Alot of members, especially those from rural areas, will be worried about there constituents. Now the senate is a different matter. If it is controlled by dems, there is a greater chance of them passing a bill. If repubs, still there is a significant chance it will be passed. But there will be a lot of pressure since it is right before an election from both sides, it will be close.
So what is the final analysis? Highly unlikely. The 2002 elections will factor in quite a bit though. If the R's take back the senate, it is unlikely to be renewed. If the D's keep it, it might pass there. But the house is where it probably will get killed, unless Bush pushes for it(would would be political suicide). My final answer? It won't get passed. But if it does, there will be some major losses by republicans if their in control, or demos if they are.

Guys - writing letters isn't enough.  The people elected next year will be the ones deciding the fate of the semi-auto rifle and standard-capacity magazine bans.  [B]We need to get out and volunteer our time in 2002 for the candidates, whether Repub or Dem, who will not sign legislation to extend the ban or make it permanent.[/B]

Good point about 2004 being an election year.  The ban sunset date is September 13, 2004, less than two months before the Presidential election.  MHO - Bush does not want to be put in a position where he's forced to either sign or veto legislation on the ban.  I suspect he will lean very, very hard on Congressional leaders to ensure that it stays bottled up in committee.  That way both the Repubs and Dems can use it as an issue in their favor in the election.

BTW, the anti's made this an issue in northern VA during the Senate race last year.  They know they're in for a hard fight next year.

What Bubbles said.  Get all your pro-gun friends and yourself to the polls on Election Day next year.  If the Republicans keep the House of Representatives any renewal bill will die in committee.  When the AW Ban sunsets you will get a small amount of freedom back.  This is our opportunity.

For me, happiness will not be restored unless the '89 import ban repealed.  I'm not holding my breath.  For others it will be the '86 MG database freeze.

Another way to look at it is that all foreign weapons that are 922r (US parts) compliant could then be restored to their full glory as domestic restrictions would be lifted.

Personally, I believe that they will cook something up that is at a minimum as offensive as the sunseting bill.  It will be passed as well, because the media will have the sheeple believe that they are unsafe after the '94's sunset.

We could help by writting to all the Senators and Congresscritters expressing our wants and desires.

I hope various groups organize this for us. NRA, GOA,...

Consider the social climate. If there is a Colombine/Stockton Schoolyard kinda thing close enough to AughtFour, kiss the sunset goodbye. We will see over and over on TV how dangerous AWs are, even if they aren't used in a particular massacre.

I would more likely bet Bush's new Tax Laws will sunset in 2011-12 than the AW Ban, but I will hope it is the other way around.  It's a bet I'd like to lose.

Ever write a handwritten letter to the President himself?  You might be suprised what you get back.....

We are doomed. Look at the dissention in these ranks. Technically we are an organized club.

It's like a soap opera & herding cats all in one.

I need to go more into this one, but my disgust overwhelms. I'm sure this topic will be revisited, so I despair not.

Geez

The sunset will do little for me here in the PRK.  I just hope the ban lapses long enough for me to slap a bayo lug and birdcage on my Bushmaster.

Yup, that is why HCI is trying to influence state level legislation now.

Until you all can change the 4 branch of government called the media, everything will remain the same.

Good analysis, except for ONE thing - the "radar screen" right now is GUARANTEED to change by the time the sunset would occur. Now, if it were late 2003, with the current political atmospehere, I'd tend to agree with you.

And I think you are right about the cause of Gore'd loss - it was in no small part due to gun owners.




Given your ability to clearly and dispassionately express yourself, your age seems irrelevant to me.

From gunmonkey -

It certainly is a fine mess we've gotten ourselves into, when the free exercise of our inalienable rights are dependent upon the acts
(or nonacts) of a [b]madman![/b]

Eric The(Sad,ButTrue)Hun[>]:)]

I don't think so....

Consider what is going on in Kalifornia.  The DemocRATS changed the composition of the ASSembly Appropriations Committee in order to get a handgun licensing bill out of the committee.  Now it has passed the floor and will use the momentum to steamroll to the Governor's desk.  He will likely sign it because he is up to his a$$ in alligators because he hasn't managed to make the [lack of] power problem go away.

They are also rapidly pursuing a "smart gun" bill that requires fingerprint/PIN number access and mandates retrofitting used guns!!!

Kalifornia is extremely close to SHTF for gun rights.  It will definitely hit the fan for the next generation.

This may not give a true indication, but I believe it was 1986 when the restrictions on ammunition from GCA of 1968 (i.e. no mail orders without an FFL, and stores maintaining a log of the name, address, and dateof birth of individuals purchasing ammunition capable of being used in piostols) sunset.

I tend to agree with DK-Prof

You guys really think Bush cares about us gunowners? In 2004 BUsh will be more worried about his political life. I think that Bush will take his chance that gunowners will vote for him regardless.  Oh sure, a few may vote 3rd party but they sure are not going to vote Democrat and Bush knows that.  Bush will go after that moderate Democrat vote. I think that Bush is going to be taking a lot of heat about the energy problems and the recession I am sure we are due for which will erode on his chances for re-election.  The Democrats if nothing else will force him to act or it will become a big media problem and suicide for him in the 2004 elections.   I can just imagine the Demcoratic adds in 2004, "Bush lets AW ban die" with images of the Hollywood bank robbery or Columbine behind it.

20 people around my break table, 2-3 in a pro gun group, mabe 10 vote on a regular basis, 1-2 will go to the effort to call or write reps. Given the choice they would spend their money on something to eat or drink and to hell with whats going on in Wash. or the world.

"The vast majority of people don't like guns and can't fathom how they have anything to do with being free citizens."  

SWS, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. The vast majority of people I talk to think free people should have the right to own guns.

I'm guardedly optimistic.

IIRC, a repeal of the "AW Ban" passed the House in 1998. This is AFTER the R's lost seats in 1996. And the only way the ban could become law in the first place was WITH the sunset provision, and that was with the D's controlling the House, Senate, and the Executive.

As for election year '04 politics. If it doesn't come up for Bush to sign (if it makes it out of the Congress we're screwed because Bush will NOT take the political heat of a veto, you bet your ass he'll sign it) then Bush has an issue that he can expouse "for the children." He can even have an issue where he'll disagree with his party and win media praise ala McCain. So he can campaign on "reasonable gun control," while the House races will be affected very little because House races have more to do with local politics than national issues. We could very well be in a situation where we could have our cake and eat it too.

The key is to stop it in the Congress. We can't rest. We need to elect the R's, or any L's that have a chance against the D's,  in the House and Senate in '02, and then politically pressure them to kill any bill extending the ban.

If bush is not relected, The next president, liberal or conservative,wouldnot  be sworn in to office until 20 January 2005. I cannot Imagine Bush not vetoing the renewal bill because he would not want to risk loosing the re-election. the renewal bill would come up in October 2004, and if Bush vetoed the bill, he would still have the gun-owner's vote in the 2004 election.
-Chuck
you are a smart kid. I wanna buy handguns when they are legal for me in a year and 1/2 also!!
[uzi]

I hate any ban born out of ignorance.  It seems that those are the ones hat stay around the longest!