I know Democratic president Clinton gets a lot of hatred from AR15.com for his 1994 assault weapons ban. It seems to me that a BIG fact is seriously over looked. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Republican Mr.Bush senior sign the "first" 1989 assault weapons ban? That doesn't sound very "pro gun rights" to me. Isn't Bush junior on record as saying he supports the Clinton ban of 1994? I've noticed hes not campaigning to get it repealed. Trust me I do not support either ban or either president for that matter. I'm just curious.  What exactly has the Republican party done for gun owners? We have given a lot of money to them. What have we gotten in return? So far I've read "maybe" the 1994 ban will expire. Didn't Mr. Bush junior campaign on a platform of pro gun rights? I still waiting for this pro gun rights platform to bear fruit. I for one have not seen a pay off for supporting him. Maybe its time to start figuring out that we got screwed again. I think he is just another two faced  politician. Tell them what they want to hear just to get elected, then do absolutely nothing. Then STILL campaign on a "pro gun platform".


Edited for the "1998" typo in the text. It was a typo! It hard to believe some of you made such a big deal about it in your replies. Considering the title of the post is "1989 Assault weapons ban". Was it really that hard to figure out?

So your other choice was to vote for Gore?  You think you have been screwed by Bush?  I think he is simply playing political cards.  Gun control is not the only thing he has on his plate, but it doesn't mean he is ignoring gun owners.

As far as what has he done for us, time will tell, but I don't think anyone would say that Gore would have been better.  Hell, if he had been elected our ammo would be outlawed because it would pollute the earth!!

you mean to say that GWB can handle more than one thought at a time?
He almost died from a pretzel. Keep that in mind.

Bush 1 did issue an Executive Order creating the first AW import ban of 1989, made into law the next year.  Bush 2 supports the AWB of 1994, but he is not actively promoting it, because he wants to play politics realizing that the House (and most probably the Senate, too) will not vote to continue any AWB. While this is not exactly supportive of gun owners, it is how he expects to win over some suburban women voters and independants.  If you look at the numbers, he is actually pretty weak in the polls for re-election.  I do expect him to be re-elected, but it will probably be close.

Over all, his record is pretty good for gun-owners, and the climate for now is against any new gun control.  Unfortunately, it is only a matter of time before another anti-gun President comes along, and the precedent for bad law has already been set.

I don't care what platform he campaigned on; we have a chance to squash the 1994 AWB because it has an expiration date on it.  Dwell on the past if you like but my time is better spent letting my Representatives, Senators and even GW know that I will not support extending the current ban or the introduction of new legislation.

WHAT 1998 ban??? You're talking about 2 different pieces of legislation and don't have the dates of either correct.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted:
Mr.Bush senior sign the "first" 1998 assault weapons ban? So far I've read "maybe" the 1998 ban will expire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




WHAT 1998 ban???


I think he was referring to the Bush 1 1989 EO and subsequent AW ban.

Well heck, since we're gonna dig up the past; I'm still pissed about the 1934 NFA tax of SBRs.  It seems like only yesterday [;)]

Yea the 1989 import ban accomplished one thing. It drove up the prices of H&K rifles and Steyr Augs. It was incredible how fast those prices escalated from $500-600 to well over $1500 in a couple of years. Yep the government always helps the economy.
RR

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

YOU ROCK MAN!!!


(if you can read this you're not the president)

Don't forget that it was Reagan who signed the '86 machinegun ban.

My requirement for a Republican vote in 2004 is that the '86, '89, and '94 bans ALL have to go away. Compromise is not an option. I want it all, and I want it now.

Then you sir, are a fool.

No republican presidential candidate is actively going to campaign on repeal of gun laws.  It would be political suicide.  Its got nothing to do, however, with what they personally want or what they will do in office.  It has everything to do with the politics of getting elected.  Voters who want to hear something about more gun control far outnumber voters like us that will vote on that single issue, therefore even the repubs have to play to the center.  GWB played it about as close to center as any recent republican and it was still a very close election.  Do you honestly see any republican running further to the fringes and being successful?  What they say during the election and what they actually DO in office are two different things.  And just because you don't see them actively support repeal, doesn't mean they aren't on our side. They can help keep anti-gun bills from ever getting out of committee.  Remember, with a republican house and senate, they get to chair all the committees and dictate to a large extent the bills that reach the floor for a vote.

So what are your alternatives?  Vote democrat?  It'll only speed the pace at which we lose our rights.  Vote 3rd party?  Might as well vote democrat.  While the republicans have not been the best on gun rights, they have put up a fight where necessary.  Do you remember 1994?  I do.  The passage of the 1994 AWB was one of the biggest (and closest) fights I've seen in Congress in recent memory.  Couldn't have happened without republican support - it would have been a slam dunk without their support.  Not that it matters opnce it passed, but without republican support against the bill, the democrats would have gotten much more oppressive gun control measures in the bill.  It was the republican opposition to the bill which got it watered down to what it is today.  And lets consider the legal impact of the next election.  There are several US Supreme Court Justices ready to retire; I'm actually surprised they didn't already do it under GWB.  If a democrat gets elected, they will get get several SC nominations, thus tipping the legal scales of this country for decades to come.  With a republican in charge, we at least have a better chance of getting some more strict constructionists on the court.  We can beat the anti-gun bend of this country but to a large degree, its going to depend on the future of the Supreme Court.  

The democrats always whine about "do it for the children".  Well how about this; think of your kids and the damage a very liberal and activist US Supreme Court could do to this nation over the next few decades.  You may not like how they have to play politics on the gun issue, but I'd trust GWB's choices for the Supreme Court over those of Gore, Lieberman, Joe Biden, Feinstein, or almost any other democrat.  And remember those justices will be around far longer than the next president, shaping many issues for decades to come through the legal precedents they will set.  Need a better reason?  Do it for the children.

There was no "1989 ban", per se.  The changed that stopped the imports of rifles in certain configurations was merely a reinterpretation of "sporting purposes" from the 1968 GCA.  It is questionable whether or not Bush Sr. issued a formal executive order to the ATF causing them to make this reinterpretation, informally told them to do so, or merely just let it happen.   The "sporting purposes" thing has been reinterpreted several times since - to the point today where you  can't import a rifle that accepts a mag > 10 rounds with a thumbhole stock (considered a "sporting" pistol grip, but a PG all the same now).

The only new legislation signed by Bush Sr. was 922(r) in Nov 1990, which said that you can't reconfigure an imported rifle to a configuration that is not importable.   Otherwise, you could import, say, a MAK-90 with the thumbhole stock and bare muzzle and simply (and legally) replace the thumbhole with a real PG setup, thread the muzzle, etc once it was in-country.

As for the "1986 ban".  The bill was titled the "Firearm Owner's Protection Act".  It was intended to get rid of some of the more nasty bits of the 1968 GCA, among which was you needed an FFL to buy ammo across state lines.  Also added some other protections, like allowing you to travel with a firearm from point A to point B w/o worrying about state/local laws in between, as long as it was legal at the start point and destination, made face-to-face interstate purchases of long guns with an FFL holder legal.   It also had many protections added for dealers.

The "MG ban" was something the democrats added in at the 11th hour.  Of course, it was sufficiently vague enough (just like "sporting purposes") that it could be interpreted different ways.  The interpretation of the ATF, was, of course, to prohibit the manufacture of new MG's for civilian use.   So... the congressional republicans as well as Reagan were basically damned if they did, damned if they didn't.

So, in summary, the "1989 ban" can't be repealed because it doesn't really exist.  The legislation that needs to be changed is really the 1968 GCA.

Rocko