Hey guys I was reading the Assault Weapons ban post earlier and I'm a little confused. As I see it, the AW ban sunsets in 2004, a few months before the election. Now we all know things run a little slow in Washington, so lets say that during all the bickering between the Republicans & Democrats the bill expires and another bill hasnt been passed yet and wont be for a few months. Which could very well happen.

You guys mean to tell me that during that time anyone with a post ban lower can slap it on a pre-ban upper and be legal. If this is so I'll start buying lowers right now.

So basically even if we have a few weeks or even a few days where the ban ends there is no new ban, then it'll be like Christmas time! Another thing, how would the authorities from that point on even know if any "new" weapons are legal or not. As I see it, any lower manufactured before the ban expiration date is fair game to convert.

As far as I'm concerned, all I need is a few days of liberty. So let them pass another ban after the election for all I care. By then I'll have a dozen new rifles in my basement.

it should make all post ban prebans.

Not going to happen.

I believe Bush Jr. can sign the AW ban it into law, which I don't doubt he will do to help his reelection cause.

Don't forget who originally signed the AW ban, big pappa Bush.

As far as the antis being too distracted to notice the sunset of the AW ban...  Good luck!

yes he will sign it read bushes policys

no his dad dindt sign it u are thinking of the 89 import ban same kinda thing thu

yes the antis will notice it

heres how i think it will go do

AW bill sunsets new one passes before so we dont get a grace period

Right, sorry, I didn't do my math right on the one!

Besides, the import ban is the one that really upsets me.  Who cares if my AR can have a collasible stock, if you can't import H&K 'assault weapons'!

No, the 94 Crime Bill must be extended by passing a new bill.  Thats what it means when we say a law expires.  It has to be passed again by both the House and the Senate and then signed by the President.  I doubt the house would pass any renewel UNLESS the Republicans do something really dumb in the next year and loose a whole lot of seats.

Go read the other thread on this same topic: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=38541#lastPost[/url] it gives all the details.

yeah but you are under the impression that all Republicans would vote against it.  Look at McCain.  As the saying goes, "don't count the eggs in your basket yet."

And you are assuming that all Dems will vote against it.  We both may be right in the Senate, it may be party line there.  But in the house it is a whole nother matter.  There are rural Dems there, and their are urban Republicans from SoCal and NY and SoFL.

But the states that are getting the new seats almost all went for Bush, almost all are Repbulican controlled. That part is fact.

hmmmm, lets see, the ban expires in 2004 after 10 years. who was the President 7 years ago?? CLINTON.

Bush eneacted some rules banning the import of certain weapons. Mainy because the Chinese were using Norinco to finance military operations and as a spy base. Of course who here would have given aid and comfort to enemy by buying such things?? Buy American.

After the AW Ban was passed more incumbents than ever, in recent history, were voted out of both houses of Congress. Maybe they learned from that. Of course Schummer and Fienstien can always try to re-enact the ban becuase they can tell their voter.."if the poeple of this state can live with restrictions why shouldn't the rest of the country"

It is clear that gun control is going to be THE topic of the 2004 election.  I believe after this last election, the Republicans and Democrats learned  that is it an issue that transcends party lines.  Therefore, it is in their best interests not to rock the boat.  The Democrats know the 94 ban cost them the House and and gun control in general cost them the presidency in 2000.  I think what you might see is token gestures, but if the NRA and voters sympathetic to firearms ownership come out in droves for the 2000 election, I don't beleive any of the parties want to be the ones that re-enact ANY ban.  

I tend to agree, the Democrats know this issue can really hurt them at the polls.  Essentially, this does not hinge on the 2004 elections or how it is "played" during the presidential campaigns.  It is entirely dependent on what happens in the 2002 elections.

If the Democrats gain seats in the Senate and/or take control of the House of Representatives, the AW ban *will* be made permanent - Bush will have little choice but to sign it.  The idea is to prevent such a bill from ever landing on the President's desk.  If Republicans recover the Senate and stand firm in the House, the AW ban is toast.

During the campaign, someone who posts over at the Bowers message boards had an opportunity to participate in a face-to-face interview with then candidate GWB.  His answers indicated that he was well aware that the AW ban was a very sore point and that renewing it would be political suicide.  He knows the pro-gun voters made his dad a one-termer, that's why Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft are currently two of the most powerful men in the nation - and they are both pro-RKBA.

Bottom line:  We better start our grass-roots push *now* to hurt the Democrats next year.  That is how to win this battle.  If we get a good ruling in the Emerson case, we may just win the whole damned war, too.

You people are so lucky that there is even a possibility that the ban might get lifted whatsoever, here in Canada once a law is passed it becomes impossible to remove it. If your ban does sunset I'm packing my bags and joining you folks.

Unfortunately they don't have to wait for the AW ban to expire. They could enact new AW restriction legislation today if they were so inclined.

The individual states could also enact their own restrictions to mirror the current law like NY did.

Yes but the state laws are far more likely to get thrown out in court, a lot still depends on the outcome of the Emerson case too.

We have got to take back the house and senate during the mid-term elections to have any hope of getting it stalled or thrown out. I mean by big margins.

As long as the public likes feel good legislation the politicians will keep feeding it to them to get reelected.

To actually come up and implement solutions to complex problems takes a little more time and effort.

Actually the state laws are more likely to be upheld in court.  Even if Emmerson is heard by the SCOTUS and it is held that the RKBA is an individual right, it won't do much to impact state gun laws.  The larger problem is the 14th amendment and selective incorporation; we may have an individual right to keep and bear arms, but until the 2nd is held incorporated to the states through the 14th amendment, that right is only effective as against the federal gov't.

If Emmerson is decided by the SCOTUS, and it is held that there is an individual RKBA, it will, however, set the state for an incorporation case for the 2nd.

In Alabama a politician responsible for passing a law such as this would come up missing faster than Condits girlfriend! Thank GOD for the south!

Careful. Large numbers of New Yorker's are moving to the south each year. They weren't satisfied in f***ing up NY. Now they want to expand!

All New Yorker's are belong to you.