i hate to ask a stupid question but witch bill is going to run out

Who is this bill guy, and what does he have to do with watching sunsets.


2004, and although the bill has a end date, a new bill may be written to be retroactive back to the original date of the ban.

The specific bill is the 1994 Crime Bill which contained the 1994 Assault Weapons ban.  It runs for a 10 year duration, at which time it can be renewed or it can sunset and die on its own.

Pray no AW type guns are used in a crime in the next year and a half.

get involve in these posts:
The first one should answer alot.

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=144894&page=1

and

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=145186

well, I started this one, but it is to support the same cause[d:]

As much as I hate to say it, there's no way they don't sign a new bill immediately when the current one expires.  There are just too many people out there who are freaked out over guns.  And the politicians are no help.

Some of you boys must be the same ones that leave a ballgame before its over....

As much as I hate to say it, there's no way they don't sign a new bill immediately when the current one expires

Don't believe it... for a new ban to be renewed, it has to pass the Senate, the House, and the President.

Bush has already said he would sign a renewal of the ban. The ban will also likely pass the Senate; but it still has to pass the House.

Under a Democrat-controlled House, the original ban passed by a single vote. After the Democrats got booted out of Congress en masse in 1994 (in no small part due to that vote), the Republican house voted to repeal the ban with a 70-some odd vote margin; but it was killed by the Senate.

The past voting record of the House suggests that stonewalling a renewal of the AW ban is definitely possible. The key here isn't the 2004 election - it is the Congressional elections in 2002. We need to make sure we are putting people in place who can help us out in 2004.

The sunset of this bill could have unintended consequences.

For example, lets' say a bunch of pro gun experts get together and testify to congress that post ban configured rifles and pre ban configured rifles are exactly the same rifle with the exception of the bayonet lug and flash hider. Or that there is no difference between imported assault rifles and those made with a handfull of US made parts. Or that the AW ban had no impact whatsoever on crime. Or that the size of the magazine in a weapon is immaterial to it's lethalness.

The congress, spurred on by the anti gun nuts, the media, hollywood a$$holes and such could say one of a number of things>

>First, that since banned guns and non banned guns are essentually the same, then the AW ban bill didn't go far enough and all like AW should be banned.

>Or, since there is no real difference in the pre and post guns then we should keep the law as it is and you should quit whinning about it.

>Or, whether crime went down because of the ban or not is immaterial, you congressmen don't want the blood of the children on your hands should someone go back into a school and shoot up the place with one of these evil rifles. Furthermore you should do more to limit these rifles getting into the wrong hands.

>Or, Since the reduction of magazine feeding devices, attacks on school children have decreased thus showing that is was the right thing to do. Or, the proliferation of high capacity magazines which were produced before the ban keeps the AWB from working, therefore we need to ban all existing magazines and feeding devices that have a capacity over 10 rounds.

>Or, we must guard against domestic terroism and to ensure safety, all citizens should turn in thier firearms to the government for safe keeping.