Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 7/9/2003 8:31:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/10/2003 2:17:10 AM EDT by Mugzilla]
I am sick and tired of explaining this, so I'll do it this way, with a post.

The 1994 ban WILL sunset. It doesn't take an act of Congress, or a vote in the Senate, or even a signature from the President. The only thing that has to happen for it to expire is the calendar needs to roll to 14 Sept 2004.

PERIOD.

Now, if we reach that date AND NO NEW LEGISLATION IS ADDED ABOUT "ASSAULT WEAPONS", it will be as though the last 10 years of restrictions never took place.

LEO stamped mags and receivers? Guess what? There is no law saying you can't own them. It will be as though there was never a law saying you can't own them. Bayonette lugs? Weld 4 on if you want.

Serial number lists? Throw them away.

The term Preban and postban are IRRELEVANT after 14 Sept 2004.

Here is the simple way to think of it: Remember the movie back to the future? Michael J Fox began to disappear because his parents weren't going to hook up? Well, same thing. The 1994 bill is Mike J Fox in this example.


Now, the complicated part: What if they pass NEW legislation AFTER the expiration? Will you need to slap a collapsible stock on your RRA? Nope. It was a COMPLETE rifle prior to the ban. All you need to prove is that it was COMPLETE prior to the future ban.

(Note: This is only if they don't pass something REALLY sinister, like a total ban...)

Link Posted: 7/9/2003 8:42:21 AM EDT
Thanks for posting this Mug...I hope everyone reads!
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 9:24:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/9/2003 9:25:56 AM EDT by Quarterbore]
Originally Posted By Mugzilla: (Note: This is only if they don't pass something REALLY sinister, like a total ban...)
View Quote
This isn't over yet as I still see 16-months ahead of us! Remember that all it takes is for something to change (shootings) or for someone to attach this bill to something more important and we are sunk. Yes the original law will go away BUT there is many ways that can be worse then it is already! I sure hope this goes our way but there is lots of opportunity for a new law to come in and if it does the pre-bans that are available now may be the only AR-15s we will ever own with CAR stocks, bayo-lugs, flash hiders, silencers, grenade launchers, etc... This battle/war is not over yet and even if the bill is not replaced before Nov 2004 it could come back a week, month, or year later! God knows some of our liberal states have laws that make the crime bill seem tame!
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 10:10:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/10/2003 2:21:10 AM EDT by Mugzilla]
Originally Posted By Quarterbore:
Originally Posted By Mugzilla: (Note: This is only if they don't pass something REALLY sinister, like a total ban...)
View Quote
This isn't over yet as I still see 16-months ahead of us! Remember that all it takes is for something to change (shootings) or for someone to attach this bill to something more important and we are sunk. Yes the original law will go away BUT there is many ways that can be worse then it is already! I sure hope this goes our way but there is lots of opportunity for a new law to come in and if it does the pre-bans that are available now may be the only AR-15s we will ever own with CAR stocks, bayo-lugs, flash hiders, silencers, grenade launchers, etc... This battle/war is not over yet and even if the bill is not replaced before Nov 2004 it could come back a week, month, or year later! God knows some of our liberal states have laws that make the crime bill seem tame!
View Quote
Thank you for adding this needed info! The battles will keep coming in an uneven line. The "war" will never end. ALL of us must remain vigilant, calling our reps and senators, writing letters, etc. [blue]FACT[/blue] My point was that people keep saying, "Will the ban sunset?" I have answered that question. The answer is 100% yes. OUR MAIN FEAR is that a NEW one will be put in-place, which will prevent a lapse in the "name and features" ban. If the 1994 ban lapses for 4 seconds, and they then pass a new law, the new date (SHOULD) be the new cutoff for the preban and postban serial numbers. But, they do not WANT a grandfather clause. I would not put it past the antis to attempt to ban ALL "Assault weapons" produced after 1994 in a bill. Heck, this is the case in HR 2034. [blue] My OPINION [/blue] Do I think a new ban will pass? Nope. In 1996, the house vote 2 to 1 to repeal the ban. The House is even MORE gun-friendly today.
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 10:16:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/9/2003 10:17:43 AM EDT by Gunzilla]
It seems that you may have overlooked one small detail here... If, at anytime before the sunset date, legislature is passed to [b]ammend[/b] the '94 ban, simply striking from the original text the sunset clause.... then the AWB will live on -- put in the terms of your Back To The Future annology, the clause that provided the sunset will fade away... as if it never existed.
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 10:42:58 AM EDT
Nice post in laymens terms Mugz. Thanks.
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 10:49:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Gunzilla: It seems that you may have overlooked one small detail here... If, at anytime before the sunset date, legislature is passed to [b]ammend[/b] the '94 ban, simply striking from the original text the sunset clause.... then the AWB will live on -- put in the terms of your Back To The Future annology, the clause that provided the sunset will fade away... as if it never existed.
View Quote
Not true. The 94 Ban is an executive order - not a law. Because it was issued and signed by the executive branch has no bearing because the legislative branch cannot amend what is not in their domain. In order for the legislative branch to 'amend' the current ban, they have to propose and pass a bill through both Congress and the Senate, then it has to be signed into permenant law by the President. If this doesn't happen by 9/14/2004? Bye bye ban... Of course, Bush could always sign a new executive order.... in an election year... right before the election... and alienate one of his largest constituency groups.... not likely to happen.
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 11:00:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BenDover:
Originally Posted By Gunzilla: It seems that you may have overlooked one small detail here... If, at anytime before the sunset date, legislature is passed to [b]ammend[/b] the '94 ban, simply striking from the original text the sunset clause.... then the AWB will live on -- put in the terms of your Back To The Future annology, the clause that provided the sunset will fade away... as if it never existed.
View Quote
Not true. The 94 Ban is an executive order - not a law. Because it was issued and signed by the executive branch has no bearing because the legislative branch cannot amend what is not in their domain. In order for the legislative branch to 'amend' the current ban, they have to propose and pass a bill through both Congress and the Senate, then it has to be signed into permenant law by the President. If this doesn't happen by 9/14/2004? Bye bye ban... Of course, Bush could always sign a new executive order.... in an election year... right before the election... and alienate one of his largest constituency groups.... not likely to happen.
View Quote
Don't know where you got this, but it's bunk. It was an act of Congress signed by Mr. Clinton. The President doesn't have the power to do this by executive order. Perhaps you're thinking of the '89 import ban. Bush Sr. was able to get away with that by executive order because the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited importation of "nonsporting" firearms and left it up to the appropriate regulatory agencies to determine what makes a firearm sporting. Bush's executive order merely directed the ATF to adjust their definition of nonsporting.
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 11:03:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/9/2003 11:14:33 AM EDT by JohnTheTexican]
Originally Posted By Mugzilla: The 1994 ban WILL sunset. It doesn't take an act of Congress, or a vote in the Senate, or even a signature from the President. The only thing that has to happen for it to expire is the calendar needs to roll to 14 Sept 2004. PERIOD. Now, if we reach that date AND NO NEW LEGISLATION IS ADDED ABOUT "ASSAULT WEAPONS", it will be as though the last 10 years of restrictions never took place. LEO stamped mags and receivers? Guess what? There is no law saying you can't own them. It will be as though there was never a law saying you can't own them. Bayonette lugs? Weld 4 on if you want. Serial number lists? Throw them away. The term Preban and postban are IRRELEVANT after 14 Sept 2004. Here is the simple way to think of it: Remember the movie back to the future? Michael J Fax began to disappear because his parents weren't going to hook up? Well, same thing. The 1994 bill is Mike J Fox in this example.
View Quote
Right. For awhile, anyway. But there's no guarantee that if they pass new legislation they'll they grandfather anything in "assault weapon" configuration as of the effective date of the new ban. They might decide to limit grandfathered "assault weapons" to those grandfathered by the '94 ban. Or worse. That's a lot of assumptions. (There may be Fifth Amendment takings issues here, but it's not at all clear how things would finally shake out.)
Originally Posted By Mugzilla: Now, the complicated part: What if they pass NEW legislation AFTER the expiration? Will you need to slap a collapsible stock on your RRA? Nope. It was a COMPLETE rifle prior to the ban. All you need to prove is that it was COMPLETE prior to the future ban.
View Quote
Wrong. Assuming they write the new law like they wrote the old one, only complete rifles in an assault weapon configuration will be grandfathered. A complete rifle in post-ban configuration would not be grandfathered because it wouldn't be an "assault weapon" when the law went into effect.
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 11:11:26 AM EDT
HONESTLY i think "they" will make a more drastick ban after the sunset .... Or this is possible / they pass a new law 1 month before the sunset making them over lap or the 2nd one start the day of expire of the 94 ban just my thoughts ... I know that as much as it's talked about here "the 94 ban" it is probably more talked about in congress and the senate as we speak thats thier job..... ohwell im holding on to my blackie untill the ban to see if i may profit from this ... what would happen if they passed a new law that made the owning of AR15' and there like rifles restricted from civilian ownership.... what would we do with the ones we have ? your guys thoughts ........[argue]
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 11:20:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/9/2003 2:29:15 PM EDT by Gunzilla]
Actually, the AWB (as we know it) was introduced as an ammendment to current legislature... by none other than D.F. It was passed and signed into law as part of H.R.3355 (title XI), by none other than B.C.
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 11:57:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JohnTheTexican:
Originally Posted By Mugzilla: Now, the complicated part: What if they pass NEW legislation AFTER the expiration? Will you need to slap a collapsible stock on your RRA? Nope. It was a COMPLETE rifle prior to the ban. All you need to prove is that it was COMPLETE prior to the future ban.
View Quote
Wrong. Assuming they write the new law like they wrote the old one, only complete rifles in an assault weapon configuration will be grandfathered. A complete rifle in post-ban configuration would not be grandfathered because it wouldn't be an "assault weapon" when the law went into effect.
View Quote
Wrong. I am CORRECT if they write the law the same way. If I had a complete bushmaster lower with an a2 stock in 1993, and stuck it in the safe, and tried to sell it today, it would be legal, right? It was whole prior to the ban. I could prove that with a sales receipt, right? (Since the lower is the "gun"...) Or, did it have to be a WHOLE rifle prior to the ban? This is an unimportant thing to argue about. The antis won't amke the same mistakes as they did with the 1994 ban. When it was written, they whought they were eliminating ARs from existence. Little did they know they only eliminated cosmetic features.... Just look at the strategery taking place in HR 2034. It gets rid of pistol grips!
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 12:32:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/9/2003 12:33:29 PM EDT by JohnTheTexican]
Originally Posted By Mugzilla:
Originally Posted By JohnTheTexican:
Originally Posted By Mugzilla: Now, the complicated part: What if they pass NEW legislation AFTER the expiration? Will you need to slap a collapsible stock on your RRA? Nope. It was a COMPLETE rifle prior to the ban. All you need to prove is that it was COMPLETE prior to the future ban.
View Quote
Wrong. Assuming they write the new law like they wrote the old one, only complete rifles in an assault weapon configuration will be grandfathered. A complete rifle in post-ban configuration would not be grandfathered because it wouldn't be an "assault weapon" when the law went into effect.
View Quote
Wrong. I am CORRECT if they write the law the same way. If I had a complete bushmaster lower with an a2 stock in 1993, and stuck it in the safe, and tried to sell it today, it would be legal, right?
View Quote
Wrong. Only if it was in an assault weapon configuration before the ban. If it didn't have the requisite number of evil features, it wasn't an assault weapon on the effective date of the Act and it wasn't grandfathered under 18 USC 922(v)(3). (You [u]might[/u] have an argument that a lower could be a grandfathered assault weapon if it were one of the specifically named firearms in 18 USC 921(a)(30)(A), but your Bushmaster's not there.)
It was whole prior to the ban. I could prove that with a sales receipt, right? (Since the lower is the "gun"...) Or, did it have to be a WHOLE rifle prior to the ban?
View Quote
The lower is a firearm. It is not a semiautomatic assault weapon, and it had to be a semiautomatic assault weapon, which means it had to have the evil features (although again you [u]might[/u] be able to get away with it if it's marked as one of the specifically named models). Of course, if you had that lower in your safe before they enacted the ban, you certainly would have seen this coming and put an upper on it before the ban went into effect, right? [:)]
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 12:40:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/9/2003 12:40:43 PM EDT by Jetlag]
Originally Posted By Gunzilla: [red]It seems that you may have overlooked one small detail here... If, at anytime before the sunset date, legislature is passed to [b]ammend[/b] the '94 ban, simply striking from the original text the sunset clause.... then the AWB will live on -- put in the terms of your Back To The Future annology, the clause that provided the sunset will fade away... as if it never existed.[/red]
View Quote
I just wanted to quote this because [i]a)[/i] it's basically what I was going to say and [i]b)[/i] it's important to know, because the dems have been trying exactly that for the past 9 years.
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 12:46:45 PM EDT
Just so you can see what it would take to make the ban not go away, this is it:
A BILL To repeal the sunset date on the assault weapons ban. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2003'. SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SUNSET DATE. Section 110105 of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (18 U.S.C. 921 note) is amended to read as follows: `SEC. 110105 . EFFECTIVE DATE. `This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle shall take effect on September 13, 1994.'.
View Quote
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 1:30:17 PM EDT
But could a new ban be retroactive? [url]http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=192366&w=searchPop[/url]
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 2:25:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gunzilla: It seems that you may have overlooked one small detail here... If, at anytime before the sunset date, [b]legislature is passed [/b]to ammend the '94 ban, simply striking from the original text the sunset clause.... then the AWB will live on -- put in the terms of your Back To The Future annology, the clause that provided the sunset will fade away... as if it never existed.
View Quote
The operative phrase is to amend the AWB by striking the sunset clause would still require legislation to be passed in both the House and the Senate. I frankly don't see Tom DeLay and the Republican leadership in the House allowing this to even reach the House floor for a vote.
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 2:39:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Heavyarmor: The operative phrase is to amend the AWB by striking the sunset clause would still require legislation to be passed in both the House and the Senate. I frankly don't see Tom DeLay and the Republican leadership in the House allowing this to even reach the House floor for a vote.
View Quote
DING DING DING DING DING DING DING !!!!! We have a winner! If the senate passes reauthorization UNANIMOUSLY, and the prez say he'll sign it,... guess what? The HOUSE still has to pass it! As I said earlier, the house in 1996 voted to REPEAL the ban 2 to 1! It is MORE gunfriendly today than it was in 1996!!!! Sell your prebans now! On 14 sept 2004, they get a new name: OLD, used gun.* *(Discaimer: Unless, of course, some 14 year old goes wacko with a RRA or something like that.)
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 3:01:43 PM EDT
Sorry, anybody who thinks this is over is an idiot. Gunzilla right, Mugzilla wrong. I've worked as a political consultant for the past eight years, both in a state legislature and for a Governor. I can tell you first hand that 16 months might as well be 16 centuries in political terms. You never know where the dynamic will go. It really is as simple as striking one sentence and dashing our dreams. You know why NYS has its own assault weapons ban? The State Senate - overwhelmingly Republican - faced the prospect of losing their majority because 9 senators from Long Island would have lost their seats had they not supported the State's AWB legislation. Bruno not wanting to lose the majority, caved on the legislation and all of his members were re-elected. Don't think it can happen on the national level? Just check the margins by which we hold both houses.
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 3:13:51 PM EDT
We should'nt stop trying to fight it though.
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 3:22:45 PM EDT
Absolutely we should fight it. My point is anybody who thinks this is a "slam dunk its all over don't worry be happy moment" is a fool.
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 3:32:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/9/2003 3:33:53 PM EDT by Heavyarmor]
Sorry, anybody who thinks this is over is an idiot. Gunzilla right, Mugzilla wrong. I've worked as a political consultant for the past eight years, both in a state legislature and for a Governor. I can tell you first hand that 16 months might as well be 16 centuries in political terms. You never know where the dynamic will go. It really is as simple as striking one sentence and dashing our dreams.
View Quote
I agree with you that's it's not over until September 15, 2004, and I have continued to write my district congressional representatives and senators to maintain that pressure. I also agree with you that dynamics can change in the time span remaining. I don't however feel like an idiot for maintaining my belief in the House Republican leadership will stand behind this, provided everyone that supports ending the ban (the AR-15 firearms owner community) continue to make their voices heard.
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 5:17:58 PM EDT
Not trying to start a pissin' contest, but the original post is very irresponsable... I am sure the liberal antis like to see this sort of message -- hell, lay down your arms... everything is going to be cool! Don't think for a second that this is over. And anyone that thinks it can not happen, read up on how the AWB wormed its way in originally. Oh, yeah... three more words for all Om ni bus.
Link Posted: 7/10/2003 2:15:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/10/2003 2:18:38 AM EDT by Mugzilla]
Originally Posted By Gunzilla: Not trying to start a pissin' contest, but the original post is very irresponsable... I am sure the liberal antis like to see this sort of message ...
View Quote
Huh? It only is a description of SUNSET.
Don't think for a second that this is over.
View Quote
Never said it was. I am writing letters for myself and 6 other people, 4 of which are in different states.
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Sorry, anybody who thinks this is over is an idiot. Gunzilla right, Mugzilla wrong. I've worked as a political consultant for the past eight years, both in a state legislature and for a Governor. I can tell you first hand that 16 months might as well be 16 centuries in political terms. You never know where the dynamic will go. It really is as simple as striking one sentence and dashing our dreams.
View Quote
What I said earlier, this is a description of SUNSET. I am tired of the weekly posts asking if it IS going to sunset. I am remaining vigilant, and not letting my guard down, is everyone else? Now reading back through this thread, I just realized I said ALL of this in my second post! (The 4th from the top!)
Link Posted: 7/10/2003 2:52:18 AM EDT
Keep in mind the strategy the opposition uses in that they will go for the extremes so that the "compromises" gets them something. For example, the original 94 Crime Act called for a complete ban on manufacture, transfer, and ownership of "assault weapons" with their definition of AWs being much broader than what actually passed. With the Democrat leadership doing this, they provided room for their members from more pro-gun states to make it look like they worked to water down the bill to appease their electorate. I know that from Kentucky's perpective, Senator Wendell Ford sold us out and tried this technique (as a side note, he decided to "retire" after that). From a political viewpoint, we need to politely remind our senators and representatives that the House and Senate went through a electoral transition after that bill was passed. Here in Kentucky, my local congressional district elected its first Republican rep. since the Civil War following the "Crime Bill". It wasn't that the population all of a sudden went big-business Republican, it was just that everyone was very sick and tired of their Democratic representatives sticking their noses up Bill Clinton's ass. On a related note, I taped some of the AW hearings Charles Shumer held back in 94. On it, I have recorded where he refers to these guns and says that "anyone possessing one of these is a criminal or about to be one" [paraphrased]. This is the mindset we are dealing with so just be prepared!
Link Posted: 7/10/2003 3:03:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JohnTheTexican: The lower is a firearm. It is not a semiautomatic assault weapon, and it had to be a semiautomatic assault weapon, which means it had to have the evil features (although again you [u]might[/u] be able to get away with it if it's marked as one of the specifically named models). Of course, if you had that lower in your safe before they enacted the ban, you certainly would have seen this coming and put an upper on it before the ban went into effect, right? [:)]
View Quote
I got your back on this one. A semiautomatic rifle in itself isn't necessarily an assault weapon; and therefore isn't necessarily grandfathered as such. (i agree with you [:)] )
Link Posted: 7/10/2003 5:58:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By gordo99: Keep in mind the strategy the opposition uses in that they will go for the extremes so that the "compromises" gets them something.
View Quote
Hence, HR 2034. 2034 will be pidgeon-holed with a jackhammer. The antis in the house will "Compromise", and amazingly introduce a bill which is 100% identical to the senate bill. Once again, like I said at the beginning of this thread, this thread is ONLY to explain the word SUNSET.
Top Top