Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/27/2002 9:32:35 PM EDT
I'm personally interested in what everyone here thinks about the Crime Bill expiring in 2004. I assume the President has to sign off on it if Congress or whoever decides to "renew" it.

Do you think it will be vetoed?

Do you think Congress will try to renew it?

Does it automatically expire or can the ban be extended pending approval/disapproval?

Do you expect magazine and current "preban" rifle prices to drop, considerably?

I probably should have posted this in the Legal section but am really looking forward to feedback since this forum is so widely read.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 9:44:28 PM EDT
My humble opinion is that the AW bill will not be replaced by a new one in 2004 from Washington. But that the individual states will implement laws before the sunset of the AW bill in 2004 which will be worse than what we have now.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 9:46:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Seth_Livzz:
I'm personally interested in what everyone here thinks about the Crime Bill expiring in 2004. I assume the President has to sign off on it if Congress or whoever decides to "renew" it.




Do you think it will be vetoed?

Does Bush want to commit political suicide? No... so the answer is, it would not be vetoed.


Do you think Congress will try to renew it?

Does the sun rise and set each day? Yes, heck yes. Even if it was a Republican controled govt, there would be enough pressure (based on lies) for them to pass it.


Does it automatically expire or can the ban be extended pending approval/disapproval?

To my understanding, everyone says it will automatically expire unless renewed. Can it be extanded.... sure it could.


Do you expect magazine and current "preban" rifle prices to drop, considerably?

Well, if it gets passed in 2004, no, will go up.


I probably should have posted this in the Legal section but am really looking forward to feedback since this forum is so widely read.

Probably should have......


If the Crime bill expires w/ out being renewed or replaced by something more strict, I will be surprised. It's up to the people to make sure they elect people that will do what they want them to do.....(in theory).
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 9:47:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FRIZ:
My humble opinion is that the AW bill will not be replaced by a new one in 2004 from Washington. But that the individual states will implement laws before the sunset of the AW bill in 2004 which will be worse than what we have now.



A strong possiblility too. The states may adopt something similar.....

Link Posted: 3/27/2002 9:50:06 PM EDT
I'm pretty ignorant to this upcoming AW bill in 2004. Do you or anyone else have a link for some info concerning the new bill other than this site?

I'm assuming the individual states will be "pressured" federally into enacting their own laws by denying them funding in some way or another. More or less a penalty for not being a free state.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 9:52:53 PM EDT
Sorry Kaliburz, i guess i should have stated "If the crime bill expires and is null and void do you predict prices to go down?"

Mistake on my part.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 9:20:31 PM EDT
if a new bill is sent to the president he could decide not to do anything with it and let it die. the bill does not become a law ,and he does not veto it. but if both sides of congess agree to make it a law then it might become a law even without the president signing it, hopfully that won't happen.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 9:29:05 PM EDT
Im my opinoin I think Bush will stand strong for us gun folk as long as his aproval rating stays high.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 9:36:13 PM EDT
Bush will not veto it if it comes to him.

The only way to make it sunset is to keep it from a vote. That means working now to have the people in place to be sure it does not come up for a vote.

See www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=103555

WE will have to stack the deck on this one or the others will. If we don't get it done they will. You can take that to the bank.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 9:39:34 PM EDT
I don't see why this has to come up once a month!
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 9:45:07 PM EDT
The ban WILL sunset. It is the way yht law is written. The question is whether or not it will be replaced, and in the current political climate I don't think it will.

If you don't understand this then don't worry because AR15Fan will explain it in much harsher terms.

Kyle
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 9:49:21 PM EDT
I think this topic comes up all the time because this is probably one of the most important issues for us AR15 owners. Personally I think it would be a good idea to have ticker on home page to count down to the expiration of the ban.

As each month goes by and the end of ban gets closer this topic will probably become one of the hottest topics.

Link Posted: 4/10/2002 10:05:30 PM EDT
Here is my opinion:

Assuming we mantain control of the House, any new bill will be DOA.

Should we gain control of the Senate (doubtfull, but anything is possible), that would be an added bonus.

As for Bush...Until recently I felt like Bush would do the right thing. Now, it seems he has the same lack of cojones that screwed his father in 1992 (In RE: CFR, Israel, Enron, etc...)

Bush will veto it assuming that there is no major shooting, assassination, etc...If such an event occurs, all bets on his veto are off. Remember how he blocked CFR until Enron occured, then silently signed it ?

But, I do not expect any new bill to make it past the house. There is a very clear process that works in our favor. While Hastert (Speaker) is not Pro-Gun, Tom DeLay (Majority Whip) is Pro-Gun. Tom DeLay decides what goes on the House Calendar. I.E. what gets voted on. He can kill a bill by blocking it from ever getting to the floor of the house.

A little overview of what is necessary to pass a new ban:

1) Ban must be proposed. This is a given. Feinswein, et al. will surely try to pass a new bill.

2) If the bill is proposed in the Senate (as will likely occur), it must go to the appropriate comitee.

3) Once out of comitee, it must be debated. This is when a fillibuster can occur. With enough support, Pro-Gunners could fillibuster any new bill. But, the Democrats with enough support can invoke Cloture and end such a fillibuster. That is why it is important to get the Senate this year.

4) It must be approved by the Senate. In view of the current Senate and the soon to be addition of Elizabeth "Who Needs an AK-47" Dole, things in the Senate look bleak.

5) Once approved in the Senate, it must be fowarded to the House.

6) The House will foward it to the appropriate comitee.

7) If even one punctuation mark is changed, it must go back to comitee to hammer out differences in the Senate and House versions.

8) Assuming both chambers can agree on a single version, it must now be placed on the Calendar. Tom DeLay (R-TX) decides what goes on the Calendar.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 10:06:04 PM EDT
9) Once on the Calendar, it must be debated. House debates are more formal than the Senate. So there is no real possibility of stalling the bill at this point.

10) It must be voted on and passed by a majority of the House.

11) If the bill has been changed it must be approved by the Senate.

12) Once both chambers approve it, it is sent to the President's Desk.

13) Bush may either Sign it, Veto it, or Shelf it.

If it is vetoed, it is back to the drawing board. If it is signed we are screwed royally. Shelving a bill is for all intensive purposes akin to signing it. It will become law, except Bush doesn't have to sign it.

Now, here is the real issue. In 1994, the original AW Ban passed by only 1 vote. Repeal attempts lead by Ghengrich in following years resulted in landslide votes to repeal in the House. The Senate did not follow the House's example and it wouldn't have mattered as Klinton would have vetoed any repeal.

But, in 1994 the Democrats overwhelmingly controlled the House. We now have control. We must mantain control to prevent any new bills from passing.

But, unlike some believe the current law cannot simply be extended. A new law must be passed to take its place. The current bill expires 9/14/2004 regardless.

But, here is an interesting question...since it is a new bill, wouldn't the pre-ban clause take effect based on the new date of enactment (?/?/2004). If so, then yess prices would drop since no matter what any current LEO restricted stuff would become Pre-Ban. I can see Manufacturers pumping out as many LEO Mags. as possible when a new ban is proposed. I do not see how they can make any Pre-Ban clause retroactive.

Unlike 922(p) (Plastic Gun Ban) which was extended 5 years in 1998, 922(v) and 922(w) do not contain the sunset in the text of the law where it can be amended out. It is a provision that will occur regardless.

Now, as for my predictions...we will likely see repush for something similar to the 1991 AW Ban Bill which failed miserably. That bill would have banned all Hi-Cap. Detachable Mag. guns. But, as happened in 1991 such a bill would be fruitless. So, there will be a likely push to simply pass one with text identical to the current bill. This is iffy. But, will likely not pass the house. There is another possibility, a different bill that would likely gain mroe support. I predict overt bans, such as requiring special lisences to sell AWs or restricting AWs like Handguns or worse. Almost defintiely we will see a provision to jack the age for AWs up to 21. Other provsisions might include federal waiting periods of 5, 7, 10, or 14 days. Perhaps, other overt restrictions such as the bill Ashcroft proposed when he was in the Senate (That man is no friend of the 2nd), incarcerating any parent who lets a kid even touch an AW.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 11:28:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/10/2002 11:29:25 PM EDT by M4_Aiming_at_U]
cc48510, I must say that after reading your points and thoughts on the issue,I feel the future looks bright for us AW owners.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 11:42:10 PM EDT
lets just all cross our fingers, personally I feel very optimistic about this.
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 8:31:04 AM EDT
cc48510, an excellent analysis.

We need to also start a media education campaign to help us out. While I don't think that the media can ever be persuaded to support assault weapons, I think that it is possible to persuade them that an AW ban is useless, will not affect crime, and will hurt the Democrats' electoral prospects.

In the 1994 AW ban, the headless media support was essential in obtaining its passage, particularly with the infamous bait and switch tactic of showing fully automatic assault rifles firing.

Any ideas here?
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 9:48:03 AM EDT
Effects of 1994 AW Ban on:

1) AR-15 -- No Longer Bayonet Lug, Flash Hider, or Threaded Barrel. Renamed Colt Sporter. Allen Screw Mazzle Brakes substituted for Threaded Muzzle Brakes.

2) AK-47 -- No difference for imports as they are still subject to 1998 import restrictions which ban all Hi-Capacity Capable Guns.

As for US made AKs, they have removed the threaded barrel and in some cases the Bayonet Lug. Twist-on Muzzle Brakes have replaced threaded Muzzle Brakes.

3) Uzi Pistol -- No Affect that I know of. If some had threaded barrels, the threads were remvoed.

4) Uzi Carbine -- Folding Stock replaced by fixed stock. Bayonet Lug removed.

5) TEC-9/TEC-DC9 -- Removed "Evil Looking" Barrel Shroud. Made it lighter and more concealable in compliance with 50 oz. weight limit. Renamed AB-10.

6) Street Sweeper -- Finalized the reclassification of are these as Destructive Devices requiring a $200 Tax Stamp, CLEO signoff, etc...Even if the ban sunsets, Street Sweepers will still be highly regulated as DDs.

7) MAC/M11 Pistol -- Barrel threads removed. Renamed PM-11. Pre-Bans still widely availble for only $100 more than a Post-Ban.

8) MAC/M11 Rifle -- No effect at all.

9) FAL Type -- No difference for imports as they are still subject to 1998 import restrictions which ban all Hi-Capacity Capable Guns.

As for US made FALs, they have removed the threaded barrel by permattaching a Muzzle Brake over the threads (Except G1 which does not have threaded barrel). No longer have Bayonet Lugs, Flash Hiders (Except IMBEL which uses a Muzzle Brake). No longer capable of launching Rifle Grenades which almost no civies can get anyways. Overpriced Paras aren't really affected as the Kits are so expensive that the cost of a Post-Ban Para comes close to the price of a Pre-Ban FAL.
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 9:57:35 AM EDT
You guys are missing out on one thing:

If a new bill passes the House and Senate and is sent to the President, one of three things happens:

He signs it, and it becomes law.

He vetoes it, and it does NOT become law unless Congress musters enough votes to override the veto.

He DOESN'T sign it, and it automatically becomes law ten days after it was submitted for signature, even without the signature.

That's how it works.

I think the ban will be allowed to sunset and no significant replacement legislation will be enacted for at least a two year "let's see what happens now" period. If the post-sunset era doesn't show any alarming trends in gun-related crime, then there won't be any replacement legislation for some time to come. If gun-related crime does take a jump, then another ban will be introduced and may even pass.

CJ

Link Posted: 4/11/2002 1:48:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
You guys are missing out on one thing:

If a new bill passes the House and Senate and is sent to the President, one of three things happens:

He signs it, and it becomes law.

He vetoes it, and it does NOT become law unless Congress musters enough votes to override the veto.

He DOESN'T sign it, and it automatically becomes law ten days after it was submitted for signature, even without the signature.

That's how it works.

I think the ban will be allowed to sunset and no significant replacement legislation will be enacted for at least a two year "let's see what happens now" period. If the post-sunset era doesn't show any alarming trends in gun-related crime, then there won't be any replacement legislation for some time to come. If gun-related crime does take a jump, then another ban will be introduced and may even pass.

CJ




There is one small twist to this:

If the President does not sign the bill AND Congress is in adjournment, then it is a "pocket veto."
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 2:02:13 PM EDT
There is one other thing that could happen: the 1994 AW Ban "reactivation" legislation could be incorporated in another bill that's tantalizing enough for Prez to sign (i.e., attached to a tax cut!) - or even in case of veto and override (say, pension legislation esp. after Enron).

It could be done with a few lines, as a 'rider' on another bill. (Something like: "Be it enacted that the contents of USC 922..., which bans various dangerous assault weapons and which will soon become inactive, will, for community safety, be permanently enacted from Sep 14, 2004.")

This is the way pork-barrel spending on special pet projects happens. All it takes is one line to say "keep it the same as it's been for the last 10 years".

Bill Wiese
San Mateo, CA

Top Top