Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/17/2002 10:17:12 AM EDT
Everybody don't jump on me for asking this,
but when is the law (date) going to sunset ?
and what does this mean for us ? i.e the average
gun owner, and where can we find more info
about whats happening with this or where it is
going.I know this is alot of ?.. but I would
like to find out what will happen to us.

Pre-ban....Post-ban....ALL BAN ????????
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 10:30:11 AM EDT
Do you mean the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994?
Never heard of a SAW ban.

It expires ten years from the date it was signed into law, on September 13, 1994. So it will expire at midnight on September 13, 2004.

The high capacity magazine ban is part of this ban, and therefore it will expire, too.

What it means is that on September 14, 2004, and beyond, you will be able to buy an assault weapon as defined by the current law. It can be configured identically to a pre-ban weapon. It can have any and all of the 'evil features' which are: Pistol grip, folding or collapsible stock, flash hider, bayonet lug, and grenade launcher, on a magazine fed weapon. You will be able to retrofit these features to "post ban" guns. You will be able to buy new high capacity magazines.

It will be as if the ban never existed, from that point on. The only legacy of it will be post-ban configured rifles and some rifles and magazines that are marked 'for law enforcement or government use only', and you will even be able to purchase them because the only law that keeps you from doing that now is part of the ban that will expire.

However, it is not impossible that another ban could be put into place to replace it, and it may be worse than the one we suffer under now.

You can keep this from happening by paying attention to what your elected representatives are doing, saying, and thinking about the subject. Let them know how YOU feel, and tell them that the next time they're up for re-election, their performance on this issue determines how you vote. If they vote for a new ban, you vote for somebody else. Call their offices, write letters, and stir up others to do the same.

We can take back our freedom to configure our rifles in any way we want, and to purchase new high capacity magazines, but it won't happen without action on your part and my part, too.

CJ


CJ
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 10:31:09 AM EDT
Sept 14, 2004 is when the ban is supposed to sunset.
Now here are a few scenrios:
1. The ban sunsets and we get back the 30 rnd mags, ect..
2. The ban is renewed/ made permenant.
3. The ban sunsets, and is replaced by more strict laws, banning the OWNERSHIP of any type of magazine fed firearm, ect...
4. The ban sunsets and new laws are passed to strengthen the FOPA that Regan signed into law, and has been slowly dismanteled (including the repeal of the MG laws.)
The possibilities are endless.
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 10:58:26 AM EDT
I think he is using SAW as an acronym for Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon, not Squad Automatic Weapon. But the BAN will sunset it's built right into the law, the 10 million dollar question is weither it will be replaced. I don't see that happening, but others disagree with me. I'm willing to bet in the years fallowing the ban mags and rifles marked "law enforcement only" will become collectors rifles and command a premium price. I look forward to being able to buy a calico 100 round drum for 50 dollars again! (It's the mag ban that bugs me the most, that and 98' "clarifications")
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 12:10:24 PM EDT
That is what I meant with SAW
Semi Automatic Weapon,
Thanks for all of the info, I can see us getting
screwed by the politics and bent over on prices before that date.
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 12:21:57 PM EDT
When it gets close to sunset you can expect prices on any preban items to become quite volatile. Should be interesting.
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 12:39:05 PM EDT
Everybody else has had a million man or a million mom march on Wash. DC, why can't we
have a ten million gun owers march on the Capitol, would'nt that be a fly in the honey
for the HCI's
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 12:47:16 PM EDT
I amagine us californian's would still be screwed with all of our bullshit laws, right?
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 12:49:09 PM EDT
HOLY SHIT! I just realized that the ban will have no chance of sunseting. If anyone has forgotten, that's when the next election will be held. Do any of you think theres a snowball's chance in hell of an ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN sunsetting as Bush faces an election two months later?

Anyone know how it is renewed? Presidential order? Senate? House?
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 1:05:51 PM EDT
I wish I could share some of the optimism I am reading here. I am one of the thousands of new gun owners who saw the writing on the wall on 9/11/01. I ran right out and bought a Bushmaster and then enlisted in the National Guard (another story). In the last sixmonths I have joined the NRA (who I am still not sure will really fight for those of us who own and enjoy "unpopular and politically incorrect" weapons) and been on just about every second ammendment website there is. I have got to say, its damned depressing. I really believe they are going to clamp down unless there is a massive shift in the way people think in this country. I really hope that I am wrong. Sorry my first post here is a downer!
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 1:14:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pointtarget:
Everybody else has had a million man or a million mom march on Wash. DC, why can't we
have a ten million gun owers march on the Capitol, would'nt that be a fly in the honey
for the HCI's



I would like to see the ATF explain to the President about burning down DC...
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 1:18:10 PM EDT
IIRC, it has to be renewed by both the House and Senate, and then goes up to Bush. If either the House or Senate lets it die, it's done with.
And remember, The Republicans have a good chance to pick up seats in the 2002 elections, so MAKE SURE YOU GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!!!!
I'm gonna get my voter registration card as soon as I get to Virginia, and start researching the canidates.

Link Posted: 3/17/2002 1:22:55 PM EDT
No, the fact that it sunsets so near to an election, and a Presidential one at that, actually can work to our favor!

Politicians know that the average voter has a reasonably short memory. BUT, this politically hot ban will expire shortly before the election, and it would be political suicide to support a replacement bill when the evidence has clearly shown that the ban is both unpopular and essentially useless at its intended purpose, which was to reduce gun-related crime.

This is NOT 1994. The books "Unintended Consequences" and "More Guns, Less Crime" and that rag written by Bellesiles (the one that has been publicly debunked as a pack of lies in evry paper in the nation) are all now part of the public consciousness, among others. We've got a smoking hole in the ground where the World Trade Center is, and that hole can't be covered over no matter what's built on top of it, and that was caused without a single gun or bullet.

We also have a increasing surge of support for gun rights from many formerly neutral people, and others who were too lazy to do anything about it before are now awake, aware, and oriented, and they're making their voices heard.

Only eight states have no form of concealed carry allowed, and over thirty of them have 'shall issue' carry laws, and these are fairly recent changes. Many of them have come into effect since the ban took place.

The pro-gun cause hasn't been stronger with active members than it has in decades. The politicans know this, or if they don't, they soon will.

They won't dare try to pass a new bill before the election. And we have a sacred duty to ensure that only pro-gun politicans get elected to the new term, by voting on this one issue alone. Once our gun rights are re-established at their former strength and the 2nd Amendment is securely in force again, then we can set about applying political pressure to enforce the rest of the Constitution and BOR as they were intended.

We can win this. But it requires that you be active in the cause, and in particular that means that you need to wake up those who are sleeping, shock those who don't care, and convert those who are open to the truth. It's your job to do these things. Don't expect somebody else to do your job. I'm doing my share, whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.

CJ

Link Posted: 3/17/2002 2:42:12 PM EDT
CMJ, your rational thinking is noteworthy, but in your wildest dreams, do you think Bush would chance the majority of the US population's votes on something called "ASSAULT WEAPONS?"

I think the same way you do, I've done the research and come to the same conclusions. HOWEVER, the hysteria that comes from assault weapons is just that...hysteria. There is no rationalizing it, no arguing with it, ya just gotta accept it and move on.

Ok, so what does Bush have to lose by renewing it? Nothing. Gun owners keep their beloved rifles, gun grabbers gain their meaningless victory once again. Maybe rather than renewing it in its totallity, it'll be rewritten?

Who would protest a life sentence for the use of an assault weapon in a violent crime? How about all historical military rifles are allowed to keep the configuration which it was originally built around?

The magazine ban also had an interesting side effect...pistols got smaller, more conceilable and "more dangerous." Maybe if it sunsets, the rash of cop killings by "mini pistols" will come to an end. (that's a joke people)

Anyway, stop thinking so damn rationally, people like you and I are a minority in this population. Atleast once we take off the tin foil!
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 2:49:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2002 2:53:16 PM EDT by gunham]
Everybody is a member of some minority group. And by using this divide an conquer theory, you could write laws to make everyone a felon.
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 2:50:39 PM EDT
If public opinion stays the way it is now, no one will touch the gun control issue.

Only if the Dems gain a majority in both houses will a renew have any chance of passing in any form. And the Republicans would have to screw up really big. Not impossible, but not probable.

Sept. 14th 04' I go buy me a nasty, evil M4...
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 2:55:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gunham:
Everybody is a member of some minority group. And by using this divide an conquer theory, you could write laws to make everyone a felon.



They are!!!
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 3:03:54 PM EDT
I've got to say it: In the current political climate, a politican who votes to restrict our rights to self protection by voting for another gun ban is committing political suicide.

The President's decision to sign or not sign a bill doesn't even enter into the picture unless the bill makes it through both houses of Congress. I'm fairly certain that the House of Representatives would NOT pass another AW ban, and if I'm right, it doesn't matter if EVERY senator voted for a new ban and the President promised he'd sign it. Without passage in the House, OR passage in the Senate, the bill is DEAD.

It's an AND equation: The House must pass the bill AND the Senate must pass the bill AND the President must sign it, OR it's not law.

The House will NOT vote to restrict gun rights that are due to be restored to us unless they all are tired of being politicians, and most of them rather like their jobs, which require them to work for just part of the year and pay fairly well and come with a certain amount of fame and popularity.

The Senate is more likely to vote for such a new ban, but if the House doesn't, we win. And we will.

CJ
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 3:08:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Minman72:
CMJ, your rational thinking is noteworthy, but in your wildest dreams, do you think Bush would chance the majority of the US population's votes on something called "ASSAULT WEAPONS?"

I think the same way you do, I've done the research and come to the same conclusions. HOWEVER, the hysteria that comes from assault weapons is just that...hysteria. There is no rationalizing it, no arguing with it, ya just gotta accept it and move on.

Ok, so what does Bush have to lose by renewing it? Nothing. Gun owners keep their beloved rifles, gun grabbers gain their meaningless victory once again. Maybe rather than renewing it in its totallity, it'll be rewritten?




I hate to say it but I agree. Logic would say that the ban goes away, but since when has logic ever applied to politics.
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 3:41:09 PM EDT
I really think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective.

You see, the 1994 assault weapons ban (with high capacity magazine ban included) absolutely WILL expire at midnight going into September 14, 2004. That's beyond question. It's written right into the law.

The only issue is, will Congress have the balls to enact an entire new ban? They either can do that, or NOT enact one. They do NOT have even the OPTION of extending the current ban, but they can enact a similar ban if it has enough support in both houses.

It's a whole new game. The old ban absolutely WILL EXPIRE. Gone, done, HISTORY. Finished. Finis. Dead of old age. There will be no life support for it. It will die.

In the current political climate, would Congress be able to enact new restrictive gun legislation? That's PRECISELY what it would be, even if it were a milder version of the existing ban.

No. In this current political climate, enacting new gun laws is political suicide.

There won't be another assault weapons ban unless we drop the ball and don't bother to twist our congressmen's ears over it.

CJ
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 3:52:13 PM EDT
CMJ, sure right now while no one is paying any attention to it, it seems like it would be political suicide to try to renew the AW ban. But once the media starts drumming up the sheeple's attention that will change in a heartbeat. I can see the headlines and hear the soundbites now - In x amount of months anyone will be able to buy military assult weapons unless the government does something NOW; Something must be done, on Sept 14th every criminal will be lining up at the gunshows waiting to get their hands on an assult weapon; etc etc etc. Once the media call the sheeple to the slaughter we will be back to fighting an uphill battle like we always are.
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 3:57:36 PM EDT
Nothing will f**king change in kalifornia



Link Posted: 3/17/2002 4:15:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2002 4:19:12 PM EDT by cmjohnson]
Only if you let it be. Do you really think the liberals can drum up more loudmouths than we can? Hell, no, they can't, not if we focus our efforts on it! And that's all we really need, to make more noise than the other side. We can also rightly use the best and most patriotic arguments for our side, too:

Here are some concept ideas:



Some people don't want you to be able to protect yourself and are trying to ban guns AGAIN to do just that. It didn't work before, why would it work now? Criminals STILL don't obey the law no matter how hard the law tries to make them.

Ten year's worth of an assault weapons ban didn't reduce crime.

Concealed carry permits being issued in many states DID and DO reduce crime.

EVERY state that has issued concealed carry permits has experienced a DROP in crime and crime has STAYED down.

You have the right to defend yourself and your family.

The highly popular and fun to shoot "Assault weapons" are just like any other gun except for their appearance. Do you really think it's right to ban a gun because of the way it looks?

Criminals ignore laws. You and I obey them. If the law says 'turn in your guns', you and I might turn them in. But will the criminals turn theirs in, too? Think about it. Think about it late at night when you hear a noise at your bedroom window.

Does a bayonet lug or a collapsible stock make a gun more dangerous? How?

I could come up with simple, sound bite-sized comments and arguments in support of our cause for hours on end. Many of them would be as persuasive and effective as 'just do it' or 'obey your thirst' or 'think different' if they were properly presented.

Perhaps it would be wise for us to contact a world class ad agency (the ones responsible for these highly effective slogans and ads) and see if they could help our cause by presenting our point of view in the most positive way possible.

Examples:

Smith and Wesson:
Simple, reliable protection products.
Because your family is worth defending.

Colt: When your life depends on it.

H&K: In an unsafe and unreliable world, here's safety you can rely on.


See? It's not that hard to make a positive presentation.

I can envision TV spots that would highlight the benefits of firearms for personal protection and for recreational activity. And that's what we really NEED, actually.


CJ
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 4:45:52 PM EDT
Once again, I hope you guys are right. The time is now to start planning. Taking some people out to the range to shoot your AR wouldn't be a bad idea either. Have any of you guys been circulating the Ashcroft petition? You know prior to Sept. 11 and buying the Bushmaster, I really didn't think that gun owners were in such a life and death struggle. I gotta tell you, this site and others like the JPFO and Brassroots here in MI have really radicalized me. I will never vote for an anti-gun (read anti-constitution) candidate again, republican or democrat. I am glad to have found the kind of like minded group of people you guys are here. Hopefully we will not just sit around on our asses next year when it comes time to vote.
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 4:57:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:

I could come up with simple, sound bite-sized comments and arguments in support of our cause for hours on end. Many of them would be as persuasive and effective as 'just do it' or 'obey your thirst' or 'think different' if they were properly presented.

Perhaps it would be wise for us to contact a world class ad agency (the ones responsible for these highly effective slogans and ads) and see if they could help our cause by presenting our point of view in the most positive way possible.




We can all come up with good progun slogans, but good luck getting them on TV or print for free like the antis do. Why doesn't the NRA run ads like these ? I'd give them $100 a year if I saw progun ads on TV.
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 5:35:56 PM EDT
Maybe the GOA would do it. They've got a better overall position, that is, they won't take a bad compromise while the NRA certainly will.

But I've given up on the NRA anyway, almost. Its leadership is dedicated to sustaining their well-paid salaries, so whatever keeps the donations rolling in and membership up is what they do. So they don't take an extreme pro-gun position because if they won on that issue, and got a bunch of bad laws repealed, then the battle would have been won, at least for a while, and the donations would slow down, interfering with their gravy train.


I'd be happy to contribute a lot more money to the organization that puts good pro-gun ads in magazines, papers, and especially on the TV, particularly if they were effective.

CJ
Link Posted: 3/17/2002 6:15:34 PM EDT
Why can't congress pass a new law on assault weapons bans, between now and Sept 2004? They don't have to wait til the last minute.

We need to act now.
Link Posted: 3/18/2002 7:52:06 AM EDT
I have a some ideas mentioned in another hot post on colapsable stocks back in the build it yourself forum. They included of course writting your congress-folks as well as all of your friends who may be pro-gun, and getting them to do the same. I also think we need to try and band together with some other gunboard or any such groups in your locality. I also proposed writting news organizations, such as foxnews, and see if they can try to put this stuff in the public eye, as most folks, as I until a few months ago, have no clue about what the actual laws are; and most have no idea the 94 bill is gonna sunset.

just a few ideas, an yone care to expand on them?
Link Posted: 3/18/2002 8:47:49 AM EDT
'Gun Control' has become an unfashionable issue for trendy liberals. Especially after the 11th, I really don't see the political momentum to introduce, pass, and have signed a new ban. It is not the early 90s anymore, I think we can kiss this stupid law good bye, as long as we get out and vote in 02!

Now is the time we can go on the offensive, after 70 years of gun control now is the time we have the opertunity to gain lost ground. If 94' dies we have the set up to push for something like Ron Pauls "Second Amendment restoration act" to get rid of 89' and 98'.

Eventually if we get that far we might even be in a position to get rid of 86.

Get out and vote, and the future will be bright!
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 10:45:25 AM EDT
I've been reading through various anti gun websites and the articles they have on assault weapons say they the ban was about the guns, not 'cosmetic features'. They ploy the argument that the progun people say that the ban was just for the certian features.

So there they say it's about the guns themselves, not the evil features.

Now if you read through some pages, they're putting forth arguments to ban the sale of parts that can 'make an assault weapon'.

So apparently, the 'Cop killing pistol grip' and 'Columbine style barrel shroud' really do make a gun more deadly according to the anti gun nuts! hat
So unless a new law is really quick, the ATF will get into a problem on how to prove that a gun was made after the old ban sunsetted and the new law took effect.

Of course given the feds, they'll just keep the ban enforced even when it went away. I mean here in PA the staties openly said they're keeping an illegal database of pistol purchases...
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 11:13:10 AM EDT
The AW ban was a 10 year experiment to see if restricting guns reduces crime. Obviously, it does not. Not that any INTELLIGENT person would need to be told this!

The AW ban is also a picture-perfect example of the fact that Congress is not qualified to enact a ban on any item, and most particularly, they're not qualified to be the ones who specify the details of such a ban.

Their intent was to ban all military style semiautomatic weapons, but they approached it from a descriptive viewpoint and merely created an inconvenience rather than a true ban of those weapons, succeeding only in banning the described features, which can be edited out of the design of a rifle without substantially affecting its utility.

I think that if they had tried to ban all semiautomatic centerfire rifles with a detachable magazine, they would have failed utterly in that attempt, but that description is practically the only one that would effectively ban all modern military type rifles.

The ban will pass into history and it will not be replaced, or at least it won't be replaced for some years to come, if ever. But to ensure that this is how it goes, you must use your communications skills and put your elected representatives and senators on notice that you're pro-gun and will vote that way whenever they are up for election or re-election. Call their offices, write emails, and most especially, send letters via mail. Talk to them personally, IF you can, too.

CJ

Link Posted: 3/19/2002 12:02:10 PM EDT
Right on CMjohnson,
I am actually in the process of writting my senators and house rep, and next I'll write some news organizations and try to get them to give us some attention, hopefully it don't backfire, and they let ole rosie and pals run their mouths without looking at things from the logical perspective that guns arent bad, criminals are. Let's ask them for those convincing statistics on drive by bayonettings, and the hundreds of cases of grenade launchers beeing used in liqour- store robberies.

I'm gonna email CNN MSNBC and especially FOXNEWS, and several of the shows for each station, maybe if we all do the same, at least one will address the issue.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 12:10:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2002 12:12:03 PM EDT by Philadelphia_GunMan]
Bign, why would you want to alert the TV media that the law is gonna sunset ? Then they start ralleying the sheeple that we have to act fast and get a new ban in place before Sept '04. Its gonna be brought up eventually, no doubt. But the latter this issue get widespread public attention the better. It is to our advantage if the antis don't start anything till its to late.

Congressman, yes write them now. But the media ? Lets let that sleeping dog lye.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 12:35:12 PM EDT
Good point phillygunman, but I think that now more than ever, after september 11, people are gonna want to call bullshit on rosie and pals, but most people don't know about the assault weapons ban, so the more people we educate, the more likely we will be to educate people on the rediculousness of these laws, and more folks will be able to write there congressmen or whatever. I belive the anti-gunners are outnumbered by us by a decent margin, but the anti-gunners are the ones to gripe and whine about the subject, whilst most of us do nothing, that is what needs to stop. The librals are beeing heard because they run their mouths, we just aint doing enoguh to counter their whinning.

No shit the librals are gonna make a rally to renew or replace the AW ban, so I'm saying we need to beat them to the subject, and let the truth be known before they pull those fence sitters and folks that just aren't aware over their way.

I also want to try and get some of the other laws repealed about banning the re-import of our military weapons. Their are probably a million m1 carbine's out their, and thousands of Garands and 1911 pistols. It burns me up that peices of the countries history are being sold in 3rd world countries for probably 5 bucks a peice...but maybe we shold focus on 1 thing at a time here.

What say erbody else? Still think I'm wrong PHillygunman???
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 12:35:38 PM EDT
Here's some of the best advice I've ever been given, by my brother, who's a very successful saleman-turned-VP in a major electrical contractor supply company:

Every buying decision is ultimately an emotional decision. Logic, facts, figures, and numbers all take a back seat to this simple fact. To sell a product, you have to make your client WANT it. This is an emotional decision at the very core of it.

This applies equally to political maneuvering and the gun issue. All the facts and figures in the world that prove that guns don't cause crime will not sway people who've come to sympathize with someone over the gun-related death of a loved one.

You have to use this concept to your advantage. After you lay down the facts and evidence, you have to nail your case to an emotional appeal. The appeal for the safety of a person's family in the event of an intrusion is such an appeal.

For a woman, sell her the protection aspect against rapists and muggers. Wouldn't she feel a little safer knowing that she has a reliable and effective little handgun in her purse when she takes a walk? Especially at night or in a bad area, or walking from her workplace to her car late at night?

Use this concept to your advantage. Sell the emotional issue after presenting the facts.

Without the emotional connection, we can NOT win.

CJ

Link Posted: 3/19/2002 12:41:57 PM EDT
I look for a stronger ban of some type. I think voting an writting emails does help. I think that possession of them won't happen, take a look at Kalifornia. do you think for one minute that the antis would leave it alone nooooo way this will be brought up all over the news. I really hope I am wrong.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 12:49:41 PM EDT
I'm not going to comment on this thread--we've been over it at least half a doezen times, and I've only been a member of this board for two months.

I do have an interesting question though, and wonder if one of our local closet legal scholars might know the answer:

The Clinton inspired BATF semi-auto import ban of 1998 goes through alot of trouble to point at the 1994 SAAW (there you go, folks, an acronym you can use without offending the M249 lovers) ban as the basis for its existance. When the ban sunsets (and is hopefully not renewed) will this rediculous rule go with it?
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 12:58:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zak:

The Clinton inspired BATF semi-auto import ban of 1998 goes through alot of trouble to point at the 1994 SAAW (there you go, folks, an acronym you can use without offending the M249 lovers) ban as the basis for its existance. When the ban sunsets (and is hopefully not renewed) will this rediculous rule go with it?



If that is truely what they cite as their legal basis, then yes. Unless their lawyers find another existing law they can cite.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 1:19:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2002 1:20:05 PM EDT by Philadelphia_GunMan]
Bign, everyone who knows anything about guns knows that '94 ban didn't really do shit to limit military weapons. They took away some cosmetic features, thats it. To make a real "assult weapon" ban all they would of had to do is write a law that bans all semi auto longarms that use detachable mags. I believe, and I may be wrong here, that in order to compromise and still make it look like something was being done to ban military type weapons they came up with the "evil features" definition of assult weapons. That way they could say they banned military rifles to the antis and to us they could say well you still have the rifles we just took away some features.

Now the common sheeple think that ar-15's were banned years ago. Almost every non gun owner who I tell that I have military type rifles is shocked and thinks that they were banned a long time ago. So if we start "educating" them as you say, then that could backfire. They'll think - oh well the reason the ban didn't work is becuase it didn't ban the guns themselves , it only banned some features. So maybe this time instead of just renewing the ban we should make it a real AW ban by banning all semi auto rifles.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 1:39:37 PM EDT
Well, there will still be a market for pre-bans in states like NY, NJ & Ct (I think there are more) which passed legislation mirroring the federal legislation and unlike federal legislation, do not sunset.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 1:58:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
If that is truely what they cite as their legal basis, then yes. Unless their lawyers find another existing law they can cite.



It's a big part of it. They claim authority under GCA68 to exclude weapons not designed or "readily adaptable" to "sporting purposes." (In the same document, they claim that the "readily adaptable" language is meaningless, because most weapon are readily adaptable to sporting purposes, so they wouldn't have the power to do what they wanted. Don't you just love the BATF?)

They further base their claim of authority on the 1989 import ban designed by Bush the Elder.

They then point at the 1994 AW ban to show that congress' intent was to ban semi-automatic rifles that could accept large capacity magazines, and not merely cosmetic features, so the sporting purposes test needed to fit that framework.

Read the whole report for yourself at www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/assault/report.htm
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 1:59:25 PM EDT
if it were to sunset and not be replaced it'd be really bad knowing if stuff was legal or not. NY has a ban similar to the feds, but I don't think it sunsets. So for me to be able to buy new magazines I'd have to go out of state, and hope the new mags had no dates on them. Plus pre-ban configurations would be illegal on guns made after 94
I'm sure other states are like this too
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 2:04:20 PM EDT
If the ban is not replaced WHEN the current one sunsets (Keep remembering, it WILL sunset, no question about it...), then all the provisions
within it will no longer be law.

You will be able to configure any post-ban weapon as a pre-ban. You will be able to purchase and own magazines and rifles that are marked 'for law enforcement or government use only'. The whole ban's provisions will cease to be law, and violating any of those provisions at that time will NOT be a violation of any law that is in force.

CJ
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 2:17:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2002 2:17:49 PM EDT by Philadelphia_GunMan]
Think about what will happen if the law does sunset and is not replaced by something (I don't think this will happen). It'll be crazy.

How many thousands of people will be putting threaded barrels on their rifles ?
Kurt's Customs will have to hire an army.

People will be sitting there waiting for the stroke of midnight to put their evil features on.
I'll have a god damn party.
I wonder if companies will setup so they can start making hi cap mags at the stroke of midnight.
And mandatory overtime for weeks to pump out all those brandnew mags.
It'll be awesome if it happens!
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 2:23:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2002 2:25:43 PM EDT by cc48510]
In order to pass a new ban:

1) A bill must be written
2) The bill must be submitted
3) The bill must make it out of comittee
4) The bill must be placed on the calendar by Tom DeLay (R-TX)
5) The bill must pass the house
6) If 1 word is changed by the Senate, it must go to comitee
7) It must get out of comitee and a single version must be created
8) The single version must again pass the house
9) The bill must now get out of senate comitee
10) The bill must be passed by the senate
11) The president can either sign it or take no action for 10 days
12) Only if all of the above happen, will a new bill pass.

House GOA ratings



* White indicates No Rating
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 2:31:46 PM EDT
CJ, they tried that in 1991 and the bill failed miserably in a House divided 267-167 in favor of the Democrats. In 1994, the House was divided 258-176 in favor of the Democrats and the bill only passed by a single vote. The House is now 221-212 in favor of the Republicans. That is a gain of 45 seats for the Republicans and a loss of 46 seats for the Democrats. That is a net gain of 91 votes for the Republicans since 1994.



Originally Posted By cmjohnson:

I think that if they had tried to ban all semiautomatic centerfire rifles with a detachable magazine, they would have failed utterly in that attempt, but that description is practically the only one that would effectively ban all modern military type rifles.

Link Posted: 3/19/2002 3:01:39 PM EDT
Yeah, I know. It's sweet, isn't it?

That's why I think that there won't be a new ban to replace the old one. And although there is an election between now and the ban's sunset date, (With another election right afterwards), each of them provides an opportunity to kick the worst jackasses out and install new jackasses of a different flavor...as long as it's a pro-gun flavor, the rest doesn't matter much to me!


Oh, you missed a step:

If the House's passed version of the bill doesn't match the Senate's passed version,
it has to go to reconciliation by a joint committee. Only then is it ready for signing.

Nothing has educated me more or better about the way our political system works than actually getting involved over this one issue.

As has been said, laws and sausage are both things that are not enjoyable to watch being made. It's truth.


CJ
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 4:16:11 PM EDT
Am I missing something here, we as Lawful
citizens, probally most of us here are Vets,
are trying to make sense about the Government
most of us vets remember the KISS theroy,
but that does not apply to politics.
Remember they passed the stupid law in the
first place, you all are thinking that
they can't do it again. I'm still trying to
understand the first one ? what in the hell
does a bayonet lug have to do with crime?
As a Vet with ten years of military and
ten years of a peace officer, I have never
have heard of a crime done with a baynet
attached to an assualt type weapon, as a peace
officer, I can only to my job with the tools
that are given to me by politicians, but they
turn around and let the criminals go with
weaker laws for them, but make us suffer with
another impractical law.

I love my country, but fear my government
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 4:29:44 PM EDT
They weren't trying to ban bayonet lugs, flash hiders, pistol grips, folding stocks or grenade launchers.

They were trying to ban all military style guns, but that edition of Congress wasn't able to do that because they named what they considered to be the 'essential features' that describe an 'assault rifle', when in fact they only described accessories. They were STUPID, in other words. Or maybe some of them were smart...?

Interesting though coming...the more savvy (and pro-gun) congressmen may have seen the fault in the description concept and decided not to bring it up, because a ban on features you can live without is not as bad as a ban on the entire class of weapons. They may be responsible for us even being able to purchase post-ban compliant weapons, instead of none at all.

A comprehensive ban on military style weapons need have said nothing more and nothing less than "Centerfire semiautomatic rifles capable of being fed from a detachable magazine are hereby banned."

Getting a new ban put into effect will be more difficult than getting the original one put into place because Congress has fewer anti-gun members in it as of now than they did in 1994. Plus, Clinton is gone. (THANK GOD!!) Bush is more moderate in his gun stance, and most of his top staff shoot and/or hunt. And remember, the 1994 ban passed by ONE vote. A new ban will not pass in the current climate.

CJ
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 4:42:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
And remember, the 1994 ban passed by ONE vote. A new ban will not pass in the current climate.



Didn't Gore cast the deciding vote in the Senate?
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 5:03:00 PM EDT
We know the law will sunset, thats a fact.
will a new law be in its place ?, we will see.
we all know you can not back-date a law.
When the law sunsets, what does it mean for
the post ban weapons ? could we return them
to pre-ban ? the way I see it, we can.
When prohibition ended the bottle of booze
that you had a day before the law changed
was a felony. that same bottle became legal
the day the law was changed.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top