All of what you said, plus the crime rate dropping.

It's so hard to determine with any certainty whether the bill will be reenacted.  The sunset is still a ways off yet.   Let's not forget that Bush has been signing off on Liberal bills such as campaign finance reform and spending increases for social programs.  Bush needs to start listening to Rush Limbaugh and use his political popularity to educate the American people and hopefully sway opinion.

I'm planning to already have on hand the parts necessary to restore my single post-ban to it's proper, intended configuration at 0001 the day after the ban sunsets. Basically, my Colt MT6731 will be turned into an M4 type, complete with collapsible stock, 14.5" barrel, pinned on flash suppressor, and bayonet lug.

Of course, until then, these parts will be officially classified as spare parts for my pre-ban ARs. [:)]

Pinned on flash suppressor?!?  I, my friend, am going to be threading all my barrels!

If the AW ban sunsets in 2004...

...then I will eat the monkeys that fly out of Tom Daschle's ass.
(I'm betting a lot it doesn't - or is replaced by an even worse one)

That may be so, but if your barrel length is under 16", you'll still have to

A) Permanently attach some sort of muzzle devive to bring the OAL out to at least 16"

B) Register it as a SBR

C) Use it on a registered machine gun lower

D) Hope like hell you never get caught, in which case it shouldn't matter to you whether or not the ban sunsets at all as you obviously don't care about legal compliance.

While I agree with the sentiment, the 16" restriction dates from a little earlier, like the 1934 NFA that defines a short barrelled rifle.  Now if that went away, too ...

Hence the pinned on flash suppressor. For added clarity, perhaps I should have said "threaded on, permanently attached flash suppressor" to comply with the barrel length requirements of the 1934 NFA.

But yes, I too, wish GCA 68 and the 1934 NFA would disappear as well. For now, we'll probably just be lucky to see the current AW ban sunset.

I'll just congratulate myself on having owned a pre-ban AR and high cap mags for all the years the AW ban was in effect, and continue to mutter under my breath about the stupid CA gun laws...


[>:/]

The only exception I see to this would be if Colt did not resume selling guns marked "AR-15A2". I believe that if they did not, the pre-ban Colts that are now collectable would remain so. The very early SP-1 will probably also continue to remain collectable and command high prices, too.

Assuming the ban does sunset, I would love to see Colt start making "AR-15A2 Government Model" marked semi-auto M16A2 clones and "AR-15A3 Government Carbine" marked semi-auto M4 clones. Not sure it would happen, but it sure would be cool if it did. I'd be first in line to buy one.

I wonder if come say June of 2004 if there is no bill set to replace the ban if anyone will start producing hicap mags to be ready for when the ban ends.

I'm sure Bush and congress will put something worse in place "for your protection" "for national security" "for the children". By being a good patriot, you should be more than willing to trade some more liberties for the sake of security. You are either with us or against us. I'm going to puke.[puke]

I have been asking myself the same question.

Before that day in 2004, I plan to already own a few extra lowers, a couple of collapsible stocks and a couple of pre-ban configured uppers.

Then on day one, put them all together, take a few photos with date stamps and then log on to AR15.com and see what everyone else did that day!

We should start thinking about "how" rather than "if".

Activism:

Contact legislators
Contact the big lobbies
Write letters to the editor (have them ready to go as the date approaches)
Start a petition
Place ads
And generally raise hell!

Ummm, they already are.  If the bill sunsets, the LEO/Govt only becomes just a nifty(probably collectable) stamping on mags and receivers.  You could buy just as many LEO mags as you want.  

This really needs to be part of the FAQ.

Here are the facts.

The Assault weapon provisions of the omnibus crime bill of 1993 will sunset. It is an integral part of the law. To prevent the sunset would require repealing the omnibus crime bill of 1993, which isnt going to happen.

Additional legislation, which mimics current law, or even further restricts AW's may be passed before the sunset. But the AW provisions of the omnibus crime bill of 1993 will sunset as required by law.

Evreyone who doesnt understand this yet, please go shoot yourself in the head now. Because you are so ignorant about federal gun laws that your unimformed ramblings will only hurt our cause.

If you think for one minute the Assholes at the
whitehouse are going to let it set there is NO
FREAKING way. it will set but I really think there will be a new one to replace it.

Are you easily confused? Are you distracted by shiney objects? In the first sentence you say it will not sunset, then in the very next sentence you admit it will.

Try to focus.

The AW provisions of the omnibus crime bill of 1993 will sunset as required by law.

IT will go away but there will be another Bill to replace it or just renewed. clear enough.
If I was the president I would, because I can.
Its not about rights, its about "If can do it i can" its all about power. How we could beat it
would be we all ban together, Fight tooth and nail to keep another from happening.

Everbudy kaint be as smart like you, AR15fan.

[flame]

I sure hope so because that day I plan to buy a half dozen magazines for my Calico's, and a dozen mags for my USR, which that day will be converted into and AUG A2.

I don't see much or any of a chance that the ban will get replaced, too many bodies it would have to get throught, and too many pro gun, or gun neutral people in congress now. Worse case scenario, we have 6 months to a year play time to restock on full-caps and collapsable stocks, best case scenario we go on the offensive and ger rid of 98' and 89'. As usual the reality will be somewhere in the middle.

Price gouging on new mags, flash suppressors, stocks, uppers, lowers, hell - the whole nine yards.

Get 'em while there hot!!

Mo' money, mo' money, mo' money!

Jesus H. Christ, THANK YOU!

You beat me to it.

The only ones worse than those who think that we won't have more restrictive legislation in effect BEFORE Sept. 2004 are the ones who are so misinformed they wonder "IF" the ban will sunset.

I notice you even made it your sig line.

I am glad you took up religion there SteyrAUG.
That's what I believe will happen more restrictions passed.  

Some of you guys still don't really get it, I'm afraid.


As has been pointed out, the AW ban of '94 WILL sunset.  There is no other option.  By the letter of its own law, it sunsets ten years from the date it was signed into law, which means that come September 14, 2004, it's DEAD and NOTHING in it applies anymore.  

Period.  End of story.

Could there be a replacement ban?   Possibly.

But...the President can't enact one.   The Senate can't enact one.   And the House of Representative can't enact one.

Civics 101:  For a bill to become law, it MUST pass BOTH houses of Congress, and it must then be signed into law by the President, or he may elect to veto it, or he may simply decide not to sign it, in which case it becomes law without a signature, ten days after it was presented to the President.

The hook is that it's VERY unlikely that a new ban bill would survive the House of Representatives.

Look at the facts:  In the 'feel good 1990's', with Clinton and his merry band of socialist bastards in office, the AW ban passed...but by a ONE VOTE MARGIN.

Today, the Republicans have a significant majority in the House that they did NOT have in 1994.

This House is not as anti-gun as the 1994 House, and as things stand, it will NOT permit the passage of another ban bill.  

Which means the bill will DIE.  Dead.  History.
Nothing the Senate or the President can do will force the bill to become law if it doesn't pass in BOTH houses of Congress.
Not only that, but gun control is a subject that's falling out of vogue as gun sales have climbed following 9/11, and have stayed high.  People who never considered doing so before have bought guns, many have learned to use them, and some of them have discovered that they LIKE shooting.   There is a definite and distinct net gain for the pro-gun side.

Membership in gun rights organizations like the NRA and GOA hasn't been this high for decades, at least.

The gun control failures of Britain and Australia are being noticed.

In summary, things are looking good so far.  I truly do not believe that the ban will be replaced at any time in the next several years.

CJ

I must refer you to the following link!

[url]www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=104693[/url]

Now THAT is funny.  lol

For the extremely anal retentive amongst ourselves, we already are well aware that the yes, indeed, the current AW ban will sunset.

This thread simply deals with the hypothetical situation that a similar or even more draconian one is not drafted and passed to replace the current AW, thereby leaving us in the same situation we now find ourselves or maybe even worse.

I'm sure you already knew that, however. So step away from the computer for a while. Ease up on the coffee. Go out and get some fresh air. Or go back to full-auto.com to look at the girlie pictures and talk about mud people.  

Thanks [b]Boomer[/b].

BTW, what's this "full-auto.com" of which you speak? [;)]

What?  Many of the bans on guns have been enacted via EXECUTIVE ORDER.  The other two branches of government were never involved.

1986--Reagan added the language that now prevents us from registering new full-autos via executive order

199? (help me out here someone) -- imports on sporterized Uzis and Galils stopped cold by executive order.

That's just two I can think of.  I think there was something in 1987 or 1988 also.

All Bushy has to do is add the guns from 922v to the NFA via executive order.  Boom, we are also instant felons for owning "preban" type arms if we don't register them, but you can't register them because their post '86--catch-22 city.

I have a very hard time believing everything will be okay.  The law will sunset, and something will happen to keep the bans in place or make them worse.  Look at Ohio--there is an emergency court order banning concealed weapons because their stupid law was shot down in court.  The Ohio Supreme Court (or whatever it's called) intervened--how can they do that?  Well, they did it.  Some clause lets them intervene in an "emergency" which these days means "anything that would increase the freedom of the people or is in line with constitutional principles."



As far as "price gouging" goes--that is a term invented by collectivists, I encourage lovers of liberty to stop using it.  Prices rise according to perceived demand according to well established economic principles.

I didn't say it was bad... it's part of  capitalism.  See an opportunity and take full advantage.

Let the market decide the price - that's the American way.


BTW... Executive Orders can bite both ways, but I doubt W has the gonads to make it work in our favor.

Bzzzzzzt. Wrong. You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

Senator Frank Lautenberg slipped in a last minute amendment to FOPA 86 that banned general civilian ownership of automatic weapons produced after May 1986.



Correct. This was done through Executive Order by President Bush in 1989 after Patrick Purdy went on his rampage in a Stockton, CA schoolyard with an imported AK-47.



Bzzzzzt. Wrong. Ever hear of Ex-post-facto?



As has been said multiple times now, the ban WILL sunset. The only question is whether or not a new or more restrictive one will be implemented.



Sorry, but I have to disagree here, too. I see price gouging in our own exchange forums. People jumping on a good deal and then turning around and advertising it for a higher price only days later. People hording items and hoping to raise the prices to artificial levels. While I definitely prefer it to the alternative forms of economy, don't sit there and tell me for one second how capitalism is always so great. Ever hear of a monopoly? Capitalism is as subject to abuse, probably even moreso given our freedoms, as any other economic system.

I'm not exactly sure, but I believe it to be a discussion board created by AR15.com rejects and wannabes. Soemthing about a place where they can show each other dirty pictures and make racist/bigotted comments. [;)]

Trickshot, I don't have to refute you.  Boomer did it just fine all on his own.

Bush is not anti-gun as Clinton is, in fact Bush is a gun owner and sometime sportsman/hunter. He also knows damned well that the pro-gun vote was as important as any other in getting him that cool oval office with the leftover spooge stains on the carpet...which I HOPE were thoroughly cleaned off.

Bush is well aware of the strength of the gun lobby and I consider him to be EXTREMELY unlikely to draft any anti-gun executive orders, particularly when the entire administration is even OFFICIALLY pro-gun and pro-second amendment.   Remember, John Ashcroft has already publicly stated that he believes that the 2nd protects an INDIVIDUAL, not COLLECTIVE, right to keep and bear arms.  That opinion holds a lot of weight, even with the Supreme Court.

You are free to be skeptical about the future for gun owners, but I don't see how that will help.   I believe in a positive attitude and I firmly believe that there is more than adequate reason for that positive attitude.

Time will tell.   No use arguing about it.  But you could apply some of that energy toward contacting your elected representatives and encourage them to support the Constitution and the gun rights that are protected by it, rather than post here with, dare I say it, poorly researched and untrue information.

No flames.  Use that energy elsewhere where it can do some GOOD for the cause.

CJ

Here is a clue for everyone.  Don't be so God Damn negative.  Explain to your friends and co-workers in a nice and friendly manner how their rights are slipping away.  If some of you guys discuss gun issues even half as cranked up as you get here, all you are doing is turning off potential new shooters.  People reflect what they see.

Go shoot yourself because you are stupid?  Great way to present your point.  Pure genius, just makes people want to follow you.  Everybody bow their heads to the fucking AR kings because they know so much.  Hey, experts in some things, not in everything.  

There won't be a bill to replace this one when it times out.  If there is, and it is passed before 9/04 a lot of shooters will vote third party and Bush is out of a job.  You think he wants that to happen?

To be safe, everyone here should recruit 3 new shooters this year.  That is the one issue that is totally missing on this site, recruitment.

Well at least the members there know about federal laws. And yes we are free to talk about anything. Not sure what your problem is but I remember your "Keep SteyrAUG in his cage" sig line.

Rather than offend stick up their ass tightwads like you with anything upsetting/controversial a AR15 member created a new board that was less restrictive. Yet, you still complain.

Yes, I discovered "freedom" one of the several times GB went on sabbatical and took the whole site with him. [:P]

It was a bit slow (slower than here if you can believe) with my computer or browser - got frozen out a few times, had to close browser & restart.  

The_Macallan, I think the web site in question is www.4gunshop.com

Actually, it was "Keep McUzi and SteyrAUG in their cages". Get it right. Remember the circumstance? The "Free McUzi" campaigns and your own little whiny tirades about overbearing moderators, censorship, and not being able to post material as intellectually sound as BOTD threads?



Complain? Hardly. I think it's great that the porn freaks, racists, and bigots have a place to call their own. By the way, whatever happened to your vows in your "Goodbye, cruel AR15.com" threads to never return here? A man of your word, are you?

Ah yes you did group me with McUZI. And I was not alone with Free McUZI, didn't know I wasn't allowed to have independent thought. I also was not alone with complaints of overbearing moderaters, went on LONG after I left. And yes, BOTD is my ONLY contribution [rolleyes], but it was the most popular thread in AR15.com history. So again, I was not alone.



nice that you group every member there as simply "porn freaks, racists, and bigots" or as I call them "anyone who doesn't think exactly like YOU." nice sense of freedom you got going there.

And as for my "vows in your "Goodbye, cruel AR15.com" threads to never return here" you too have made a error. I said I would post FAR LESS as most of what I post would just get locked. I just don't enjoy posting in a touchy feely environment. I made good on that and post anything controversial at full-auto.com.

So in your words..."Get it right."

And the main reason I left was not some "goodbye mean ole' AR15.com bullshit", it was clear I was a lightning rod for anything that went wrong here. So I stepped out for a while and the next guys in line took the heat. People continued to bitch, moan and complain long after I left, but they sure as hell couldn't blame me for the problems.

Always a man of my word. Even if you can't remember them.

The only thing that concerns me is that the Republicans are in this GET THE DEMO'S VOTE MODE. And they have shown that they are willing to HIJACK DEMO causes to get those votes.  So I don't know what to think about this situation.  I can see it a couple of different ways..

The Repulicans (however much I don't want to admit it) may just look at it this way.
We can right a bill just like the old bill and not loose any votes because it won't be any different from what they are used to, besides re-inacting a bill of the same type will get democrat votes.  I think that is the nightmare scenario.

Benjamin

And yet...Democrats are even now beginning to soft-pedal the gun control issue because it HAS fallen out of favor, generally speaking, and particularly in light of the fact that so many people bought a gun after 9/11  when the finally realized that their police departments and even armed forces just can't protect them against.  

The dems have also been put on notice by a LARGE percentage of their membership that being democratic is not necessarily the same as being anti-gun.   How many genuine old dyed-in-the-wool yellow dog Southern Democrats own guns and/or grew up with them?    MOST of them.   Finally the Democratic leadership has become aware of this, and efforts are underway to divorce the gun issue from the Democratic party, at least by some party leaders.

When's the last time you heard a peep out of our least favorite Schumer or Feinstein on guns?  It's been longer than usual, and that's because the party leadership quietly told them "Can it. That issue isn't very popular right now and we're losing support whenever you open your trap about guns."

I lurk at democraticunderground.com (and I've made a few posts, just testing the waters) and there are a LOT of pro-gun democrats out there. It gives me great hope to know that.   If they can be turned into one issue voters, it will be a marvelous thing.

I've seen a great deal of data that I have analyzed and I have synthesized a conclusion based on that data.    It is that there is approximately a seventy percent probability that the assault weapons ban of 1994 will NOT be replaced in 2004, and probably will not be replaced for, at the minimum, the duration of George W. Bush's term(s) in office.

That's my gut feeling, backed up by the evidence that has been made available to me.

CJ

The ONLY NFA items that have been made illegal for civilian possession are post-86 MACHINE GUNS.  Not DDs, not SBR/SBSs, not AOWs, not Suppressors, just MACHINE GUNS.

Since a SEMI-AUTOMATIC Assault Weapon does not fire multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger, adding them to the national firearms act would result in a form 3, $200 tax, interstate sales problems, and registration (NONE of which is a good thing, mind you, just stating the facts.)

If we are involved in a "larger" War at the time, I think the ban will not be "renewed". But that is just my opinion.

We must think POSITIVE, and take POSITIVE action.

Be sure to visit our [url=www.ar15.com/forums/forum.html?id=112]Politics & Activism[/url] forum at least once a week, and get involved. [:)]

Tyler

Speaking of puppets....


Hook on!

[;)]

Well, I'm trying!!!!  I do remember something in the 80s and it had to do with Reagan.  I'm getting old and my memory is faulty though...



What happens on the exchange forums is not price gouging.  It is disreputable, but it isn't gouging--prices are set based on demand.  If I started giving away A3 flattop uppers to everyone who wanted one, the demand for my free uppers would go through the roof (this is what is wrong with our education system, but I digress).

In fact, there is no such thing as gouging, it's a made up term to create an air of suspicion against the productive members of society.  It is based on petty jealousy and irrational thinking.  Here's the truth:  I am selling something and set a price for it.  Buyer comes along and likes it and agree to pay me the asking price.  I sell it to buyer at the agreed upon price.  Suddenly, buyer realizes he is a total fool for buying it from me because my price is 200% higher than everyone else's.  Buyer accuses me of "gouging" him when it's really his fault--he didn't do his homework.  Am I to blame?  I see this at gunshows all the time. Caveat emptor.  Life isn't fair and it's not my job to make it fair--if you don't like my prices, find a different venue.

Whenever there is a natural disaster, the state tries to expand its control over the economy by accusing people selling generators and other emergency supplies of "gouging" customers.  Bullshit!  The people in need failed to plan ahead. Suddenly they are all after the last two of whatever item and expect to get a "deal".  It would be the height of foolishness for the owner of the items to sell them at his regular prices when there are ten people willing to bid in an auction!  Should the low bidder always win?  Yes, according to the much screwed up government that wants to own us all and control our lives.  But that's wrong, you see?  It's actually immoral not to sell to the highest bidder--the person with the most need is the one wililng to pay the most when there is high demand and low supply.  Otherwise, we have a communist economic system that will ultimately fail and leave everyone to go without the most basic human needs.  The most good is done when this system is allowed to operate and not be tinkered with by fools (including Alan Greenspan).

As far as monopolies go, they are usually created by government regulation--patents are an excellent and very useful example.  

The railroads (can't recall the name) were granted monopolies, Carnegie steel and Standard oil had monopolies because they had huge government influence and because there was a pressing need by government to get certain things done at certain times.  You can just about bet that if there is a monopoly, there is a government (or mafia, I suppose) behind it.  Otherwise, in a high demand market, you would see a lot of competition.

Sometimes monopolies are desirable--look at public utilities such as electricity, water and sewer.  It is often better to have monopolies in these areas at the local level because of the infrastructure required.  The trouble comes when regulations prohibit contractors from bidding on the services in a fair manner.  I'd still like to see more experimentation with private highways, and other critical services and even libraries.  



IF you think that preban parts are going to skyrocket in value, you should start buying them up and get ready to sell them at a profit in a couple of years.  Your investment might pay off and you could make a lot of cash.  Or, it might not--you might have figured wrong in that the end of the ban will encourage more vendors to start making and selling these parts once again.  The law stifled demand.  

Capitalism implies risk, but it is capitalism that made America what it is, not unions and not heavy-handed regulatory regimes that follow discredited Marxist ideals.

What you are really afraid of, like so many Americans, is that someone else is getting ahead through their own hard work.  

Or you are afraid of taking a chance yourself.  You have been conditioned to see failure as devastating to your self-esteem and so you avoid taking risks at all costs.  You need to reprogram your thinking--failures are only setbacks and have no reflection on you because you are brave enough to take risks.  Get it?