Will all post ban guns and mags then be considered Pre-ban? If it lapses you could install all the good stuff and grind off the post ban markings on mags as there would be no law against owning them. THEN if another bill is passed all new markings of a differant type to differenciate from previous post bans would have to be used right?
I guess my hopes are that it lapses for even just 5 min because we KNOW there will be another bill and at least in theory we would have a whole bunch of "new" pre-ban FALs, HKs, ARs, Galils, etc.
Is my thinking flawed? Any lawyers takes on this?

BrenLover

That would be extremely cool but don't hold yer breath . . .

Hell even I know there will be another bill to replace it, BUT if we can get enough suport to at least block it for a long enough period of time to let it lapse we might be better off then than now.
BrenLover

Don't give up so easily boys! If the GOP does well this November, there will likely be no bill that makes it out of committee for passage by either chamber.

No bill, no final vote, no need for an awkward veto by the President, or for a shameless and cowardly signature on the extension either!

Would I vote for President Bush if he signed an extension bill?

Regretfully, yes.

Eric The(Let'sJustNotLetItComeToThat!)Hun[>]:)]

Hey! Don't settel for a day to pre-ban your postbans, We are going to kill that bill in 04'!
Just make sure you go out and vote in November, If we maintain control of One house, let alone both houses the bill won't repass, and even if it does it's about a 50/50 shot of Bush signing it. The future looks bright for the first time in a long time!

Why are you guys such quiters?

What we need to do is go out and tell our representatives what we expect of them.  We need to do that NOW and keep reminding them.  They need to let it expire and keep any new bills from passing or we will not vote for them.  

Also start to work on the other unconstitutional problems.  1986, 1968, 1934 and anything else I left out.

Not just GOP candidiates, but PRO-GUN candidiates.  There are pro-gun democrats and anti-gun republicans.  Don't paint both with the same brush--it alienates our allies and gives them too much credit, respectfully.



There would not be an "awkward veto" nor would their be a "cowardly" signature.  George W. Bush SUPPORTS all of the following:

AW Ban
Brady Bill
Hicap Ban
Machinegun Ban
"Closing the gun show loophole."

There would be a signature, and the president would hail it as a good thing.



Then you're part of the problem.  Bush stabs us in the back, and I "throw my vote away" and vote for whoever the Libertarians put on the ballot.

As for the question asked by the original poster:  If you could slap a folding stock, flashhider, grenade launcher, or bayonet lug on that thing before the replacement bill was signed into law, I'd say your weapon would have the exact same status as a pre-ban that was sold as a receiver, and not a complete rifle--it'd be a grandfathered assault weapon, but you'd be guilty until proven innocent and have to prove it was in such a configuration before the date of enactment.

OTOH, I'm willing to bet ANY lapse will be handled by the wording of the bill itself (i.e. instead of "date of enactment" look for "9/94" as the cutoff for grandfathered weapons.)

OK, how do you take "date-verifiable" photos?  Do you have a notary public stamp, sign, and date them?z

Where did you find this information?  DO you have a link you could post?  I was under the impression that Bush supported the "current" laws but would not sign any new laws into affect?  Basically he would let the bill sunset.  Further When did he say that he want to close the "gun-show loop hole"?  I am not disgreeing with you, or trying to start an arguement.  I just need this information to help influence my decisions about the man.

The Azalin

If Bush supports the current laws then he supports the AW doesn't he? I have hope, just not much of it, therefore I look for "loopholes" and vote and spread the word.

BrenLover

As far as the Bush factor goes, Personaly I think that it will never make it to his desk, if it does, he'll be damned if he does, and damned if he dosn't.

A.) He veto's the bill, Get's support of gun owners, looses some socer moms.

B.) Signs the bill, looses gun owners gains the socer moms.

It comes down to which group has more voters.

The only thing I'd care about getting back from the AW ban would be the hi-cap mags . So I would just have to order a lot of the PD only mags from Shotgun news.

The following is a list of democrats with a GOA rating of B- or higher:

Robert Cramer, AL, B
Joe Baca, CA, A
David Phelps, IL, B-
Ken Lucas, KY, A-
James Barcia, MI, B-
John Dingell, MI, A-
Colin Peterson, MN, A-
Ronnie Shows, MS, B
Gene Taylor, MS, B-
Ike Skelton, MO, B
Mike McIntyre, NC, B
Ted Strickland, OH, B-
Bart Gordon, TN, B-
John Tanner, TN, B-
Max Sandlin, TX, A-
Jim Turner, TX, B
Ralph Hall, TX, B
Charles Stenholm, TX, A-
Gene Green, TX, B-
Rick Boucher, VA, B-
Nick Rahall, WV, B-

That's 21 pro-gun democrats.  The Brady law passed by TWO.  A vote against these democrats ENSURES our loss.

Now here's a list of Republicans with a GOA rating of D+ or worse:

Jim Kolbe, AZ, D
Doug Ose, CA, D
Elton Gallegly, CA, D-
Stephen Horn, CA, F
Mary Bono, CA, D
Rob Simmons, CT, D
Chris Shays, CT, F
Nancy Johnson, CT, F
Michael Castle, DE, F-
Bill Young, FL, D-
Dan Miller, FL, D-
Mark Foley, FL, D
Illeana Ros-Lehiten, FL, F
Lincoln Diaz-Balart, FL, F
Clay Shaw, FL, F
Mark Kirk, IL, F
Jerry Weller, IL, D-
Judy Biggert, IL, D
Dennis Hastert, IL, D- (that's right, folks, the Republican speaker is an anti!)
Ray Lahood, IL, D
James Leach, IA, F
Jim Nussle, IA, D
Greg Ganske, IA, F
Tom Latham, IA, D
Anne Northup, KY, D-
Wayne Gilchrist, MD, F
Constance Morella, MD, F-
Vernon Ehlers, MI, D
Fred Upton, MI, D-
Nick Smith, MI, D
Jim Ramstad, MN, F
Doug Bereuter, NE, F
Jim Saxton, NJ, D-
Chris Smith, NJ, D-
Marge Roukema, NJ, F-
Rodney Frelinghuysen, NJ, F
Peter King, NY, F
Vito Fosella, NY, D
Sue Kelly, NY, D-
Ben Gilman, NY, D-
Sherwood Boehlert, NY, F
Jack Quinn, NY, F
Rob Portman, OH, D
Michael Oxley, OH, D
Paul Gilmor, OH, D
David Hobson, OH, D-
Ralph Regula, OH, D-
Steven LaTourette, OH, D
Curt Weldon, PA, D
James Greenwood, PA, F
Phil English, PA, D
Tom Davis, VA, F
Paul Ryan, WI, D

That's FIFTY FOUR anti-gun votes in the house, courtesy of the republican party.

[b]Voting blindly on party affiliation only guarantees we will lose our rights.  Pay ATTENTION to your local races before you vote. [/b]

All of the information used to create this list can be found at [url]http://www.gunowners.org/107hrat.htm[/url] and [url]http://clerkweb.house.gov/107/olm107.php3[/url]

Hey, I'm just telling you what the BATF says--I didn't say I AGREED WITH IT!

Here's some information.  Since the last presidential election is almost a year and a half in the past, this stuff becomes difficult to find:







The above three quotes came from [url]http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush.htm[/url]

Additionally, we have the following:

[url]http://www.nationalissues.com/gun_control/candidate_views/[/url] as well as press briefings from Ari Fleischer:

[url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/20010515.html#McCainLiebermanBill-GunControl[/url]
[url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/20010206.html#GunControl2[/url]

And the funny thing is, whenever I show this stuff to people, they just blow it off...

Easy, there, ponyboy.  I'm gonna do my part, and if we can kick this thing out, great!  It's just that once bullshit things like the "assault weapons" ban get into place, they are like scraping shit off the bottom of your shoe.  Don't underestimate the same whiners and demokraps who got it passed in the first place, they are a formidable enemy.

Post from Zak -

Then yes, I am part of the problem, because while I yield to no one in the intensity of my support of the RKBA, that is only a part of the political equation.

And quite frankly, a very small part of the total equation.

There was a time in our country's history when there was no such thing as a 'black rifle' or 'assault rifle' or 'sport utility rifle' or whatever you want to call it.

Did the citizens of those bygone days consider themselves [u]disarmed[/u]?

Or did they believe that with the black powder, single shot, flintlock or percussion capped rifles they could still hold off an invading army or miscreants.

Don't you think that [u]today[/u] America's armed citizenry could repel a modern foreign army with just 'post-ban' weapons available to them? Or successfully take down any homegrown dictator that attempted to seize power?

But you do see how the loss of your ability to own a more modern weapon has been curtailed, a little or a lot, by the laws of 1994?

Well, imagine what happens if a Democrat Prez and a Demo-controlled Congress gets back into the saddle!

Can you say Brady II? Can you say goodbye to gunshows? Can you say goodbye to even post-ban weapons? Can you say hello to a reinvigorated ATF brandishing new and more strict firearm laws?

And then there are other issues that concern me [u]almost[/u] as greatly as the RKBA, such as the opposition to campaign reform laws, partial birth abotions, affirmative action, wide-open unrestricted immigration, higher taxes, more government social engineering, and a multitude of other such evils as may be currently swimming around in Ted Kennedy's puny brain.

Or in Hillary's.

The upshot of what you suggest, Zak, is not victory, it's not even a glorious defeat, but a crushing retreat of monumental proportions!

So, if others do as you suggest, then there may soon come a time when the distinction between pre-ban and post-ban will be something which will concern only firearm historians.

[u]Both[/u] will be permanently banned!

Go ask those in California about it, or New Jersey, or New York, and a dozen other states.

Eric The(It'sComingUnlessWeHoldOnAt[u]All[/u]Costs!)Hun[>]:)]

This would only work to show that something is current, no how old something is. I could take a picture of anything with an old paper from 10 years ago and it wouldn't prove anything.

Post from zak -

That's a very good civics statement, but all I want to know from Hon. John Dingell (MI-D), who received a 'A-' rating from GOA:

[b]If, after the 2002 Elections, you find the House is divided 219-216 in favor of the Democrats, will you vote for and support Danny Hastert (IL-R) as Speaker of the House, or Richard Gephardt (MO-D)?[/b]

I can assure you that the Hon. Mr. Dingell will vote for Demo Gephardt!

So Henry 'Nostrilitis' Waxman (CA-D) takes over the House Committee on the Judiciary and Government Reform!

My, Mr. Dingell, this is a fine pickle you've gotten the Republic in, now!

If these anti-gun idiots in the Republican Party cannot be voted out in the GOP primary, I can guran-damn-tee you that they will be running against an anti-gun Democrat!

If they're [u]not[/u], and they actually face a pro-gun Democrat, then you can make up your mind as you wish.

Eric The(It'sAllOnTheLineNow)Hun[>]:)]

As he is a democrat, I'd have to assume Mr. Dingell would vote for a democratic candidate for Speaker--that [b]is[/b] why they form political parties, or so I'm told.

On the other hand, how about you push your Republican friends to pressure their reps to support someone OTHER than Hastert for Speaker?  You know, someone that actually SUPPORTS our rights... Plenty of good republicans out there that fit the bill (Hostetler, anyone?)

By the way, are you suggesting that Michigan residents vote for an anti-gun republican, if one runs against Mr. Dingell?  How about a fence sitter?  How about one with an RKBA stance that mirrors the president's?



You know, it's stuff like this that causes potential allies in congress to desert us--demonizing them based on party affiliation, I'm sure quite a few have decided, "Fine, if they think I'm anti-gun, I might as well BE anti-gun--that issue hasn't hurt any in my district anyway."



You know, the funny thing is Al Gore was a pro-gun, pro-life democrat before he ran for national office--yeah, he seems to have done that ONLY to get elected in conservative (DEMOCRAT!) middle Tennessee, but he was a vote for values that you and I seem to share.  

More than a handful of the repbulicans I listed come from pretty conservative areas.  A democrat that accurately reflects the core values of his/her constituents would be quite an asset for our cause.



Thanks for your permission, Mr. Hun.  I don't know what I would do if I didn't have your okay to vote my conscience.  Of course, I have it pretty easy.  I have a pro-gun republican candidate to vote for.

This war (yes, war) over our rights is not a republican/democrat issue--it's a cultural issue.  We need people, whatever their party (personally, I prefer independants anyway) who reflect the values we hold dear--not some party hack with positions no one bothered to check into before they voted him into office.

Actually it doesn’t really matter who you vote for in a congressional election, in most cases.

Well it does in a way, but not the way you think. It’s how predicable you are that counts!

There are only about 30 districts in the entire country that could go either  way. Of course if you live in one of those districts who you vote for will matter a lot!

The other 400 or so districts have been so well drawn that the parties could nominate cartoon characters and win with 52 to 53 percent.

How so you ask?  Mapping software, polling, data mining, and the census have gotten so good that the pols know how you will vote before you do, and can lump enough “like minded” voters to create a “safe” district.

As a professional grade cynic I don’t see this as such a bad thing, as long as I’m on the winning side, and yes I understand the implications if I’m not. I am just so glad that David Bonior will soon be out of my life!

Now, none of this is an excuse not to vote. When they gerrymandered your district they knew how many gun rights supporters there were, and they are counting on you to vote.

So do so!

Mike

I think the way modern reapportionment works is one of the most disgraceful things about our political system--whoever is in power gets to redraw the lines to make sure they stay there.