Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 12/11/2001 10:17:00 PM EDT
I was under the impression that this piece of fine legislation would run out in time. Is this right?...and does anyone know what that time may be?
Link Posted: 12/11/2001 10:32:32 PM EDT
2004...I believ in Sept. of that year...right before elections
IMHO, Don't expect it to happen.
sgtar15
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:41:49 AM EDT
A wall calander was showing Klinton signing the bill on November 30, 1993, calling it the Brady Gun Control Bill.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:49:35 AM EDT
From reading the bill, it does in fact expire in 2004. It is not a renewable piece of legislation. It is what they throw on us afterwards that we need to be afraid of!

Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:50:55 AM EDT
Midnight, September 14, 2004
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 2:27:47 PM EDT
Does this mean you will be allowed to have threaded barrels and flash supreesors etc.. if it expires ?
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 3:55:12 PM EDT
Many states have separate assult weapons bans that do not sunset like the Federal. Here in MA if/when the Federal law sunsets, we still have the MA law and we're out of luck.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 5:44:39 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 7:00:47 PM EDT
Troy,
The Term "assault weapon", is the correct term used for this post. Bravo!!!!!

moNgRel.66,

As for the "Assault Rifle" Ban. This was the 1968 ban on automatic rifles(mg). It is near word for word the same 1938 Nazi weapon ban that was imposed on Germany. If you are wondering when this ban is going to be over, then you haven't been paying attention!!

The only reason that the original NFA act was passed was that it would give the government revenue in the form of a tax. The real reason, Gun control, was not constitutional.

The 1968 act was to continue the government on it's way of taking arms from the people. At the current rate, we will all be Gunless before the turn of the next century. Take a look at some of the other places around the world. First government needs to know what the people have, then the they can go and take them away!!!

Point blank: Any government act or law that concerns gun's is just a ploy of the government to unarm the people of it's nation. The sole purpose of our government is to serve it's people. The Bill of rights is the power of the people to insure that "we the people", are in control of our government, and not the reverse.

We have no "King or Queen", and are not a possession of such entity. "We the people", pick who is to "Serve us", and have the power to remove that person from office if they are not serving us, "We the People".

So the real question is, when are "We the People", going to stop electing persons that are taking rights away from "We the People".

Unless you are voting to improve your government and it's laws, then "You" are are the reason that this law is allowed.

Sorry for the vent, But Question like this should be asked to the people that are elected to serve us. Better yet, ask these questions before they are elected. That way, when they are elected, they are Serving YOU!!!!
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 7:40:07 PM EDT
there is no gun control without the consent of the voting public.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 7:46:53 PM EDT
"The only reason that the original NFA act was passed was that it would give the government revenue in the form of a tax."

I find it sort of ironic that this is one tax liberals don't want us to pay. I'd be more than happy to pay $200 to register my AR as a machine gun and be able to buy an RDIAS for cheap, but for some reason, they don't want to take my money. Imagine that.

Of course, I'd like for the NFA to go away completely, but I'm not holding my breath.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 7:54:13 PM EDT
Dano 523, Its the '86 ban that covers the MGs. Typo, I'm sure.
GG
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 7:57:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NinjaMonkey:
"The only reason that the original NFA act was passed was that it would give the government revenue in the form of a tax."

I find it sort of ironic that this is one tax liberals don't want us to pay. I'd be more than happy to pay $200 to register my AR as a machine gun and be able to buy an RDIAS for cheap, but for some reason, they don't want to take my money. Imagine that.

Of course, I'd like for the NFA to go away completely, but I'm not holding my breath.



Wrong, It was to "deter" people from owning them. $200 in 1934 is a chunk of money.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:36:09 PM EDT
So the Assault weapons ban will lapse at the federal level. The full court press on this beast will be phenomenal when and if they resurrect another. We have the House of Representatives, We have the Executive branch. And maybe just maybe if Jim Jeffords gets to feelin to bad we will get the senate back. But then we must remain in control past 2002 , which looks likely as the democrats are grasping at straws big time.

So how do Texas and Oklahoma fair if the bill lapses and there is not another one?

Benjamin
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:40:16 PM EDT
Anybody remember Bob Smith (R-NH). He changed parties a couple years ago from Republican to Independent. Within a few months, he was getting back into the Republican Party and has been there ever since.


Originally Posted By Benjamin0001:
So the Assault weapons ban will lapse at the federal level. The full court press on this beast will be phenomenal when and if they resurrect another. We have the House of Representatives, We have the Executive branch. And maybe just maybe if Jim Jeffords gets to feelin to bad we will get the senate back. But then we must remain in control past 2002 , which looks likely as the democrats are grasping at straws big time.

So how do Texas and Oklahoma fair if the bill lapses and there is not another one?

Benjamin

Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:43:57 PM EDT
NinjaMonkey,
You missed the point. The "tax", was a means to a end, legal Gun Control!!!!

Top Top