I read this on another posting here... is this true?  Are there any facts to back up this claim?

Thanks for the info!

Not only no it's not true, but fuck no it's not true. GW spoke to this on his campaign website over two years ago.

Unless taken up and passed again by the House and Senate, and signed b ythe president, the AW and hicap bans will sunset in September 2004.

The midterm elections are crucial to ensuring this occurs.  If anti-gunners gain control of the house, and retain the Senate (and with all the pro-gun, or pro-leaning, types retiring this year, this seems likely) the bill will pass again, and will probably be far, far worse.

GWB will sign a renewed AW/hicap ban if one passes Congress--he's said so before, during, and after his campaign.

Quoted: Not only no it's not true, but fuck no it's not true. GW spoke to this on his campaign website over two years ago.

Spoken like a true idiot.

Quoted: Spoken like a true idiot.

Why does not believing GWB is a pro-gun president make one an idiot?  Just curious.

Quoted: Quoted: Spoken like a true idiot. Why does not believing GWB is a pro-gun president make one an idiot?  Just curious.

Because the assault weapon ban will sunset in 2004. So, fuck yeah, it is true.

Anything else?

Sunset it will, but another bill will take its place.  i just hope GW will drag it out awhile before the new bill is signed. so i can stock up.

The ban WILL sunset, but you can count on it being replaced with another bill of some type.  

However, if they do not overlap or one ends and the other goes into use...will that few days or whatever allow all post bans to be config. into pre ban?

medcop

Quoted: Maybe.  What's to stop 'em from making the new bill retroactive to the instant the old bill expired?

I'd say the Constitutional ban on ex post facto laws, but we know how well that's worked recently.

The ban will sunset, this is not a question it's in the bil, period, read it. The question of course is if it will be replace. I am very confident it won't. The first one only passed by a single vote in a democratic house and senate. Not likeley to happen again anytime soon. Get out and vote this coming election season, and you can help get ride of it. I can't vote yet, but I do write all of my elected officials on issues I care about.

Quoted: Maybe.  What's to stop 'em from making the new bill retroactive to the instant the old bill expired?

Well, they can simply ban them outright (compensating citizens when the government takes their property, as required by the constitution,) or classify them as NFA weapons, requiring registration, transfer and making taxes, etc.

By the way, GWB is IN FAVOR of the Assault weapon and hicap bans--if it makes it through congress, Bush will not "hold it up," he'll sign the damn thing.

Didn't GW sign the Texas CCW into law amid some controversy?

I'm still curious about when and where he said that he would support a new bill. Did he say this in front of a bunch of big-city liberals? Or to lots of people in general?

Call my crazy, but I still think that we can beat it if we all work together. Remember to watch who you vote for in the elections this year.

Quoted: Call my crazy, but I still think that we can beat it if we all work together. Remember to watch who you vote for in the elections this year.

The one thing we can all do right now and for the next two years is to remind GWB that he got elected on a very slim margin and won't be getting any votes from the gun control crowd but will get thousands, even millions by not renewing this ugly piece of legislative drivel.  Let's get out the letters, faxes and emails starting now!

It would be political suicide for GWB or the republicans if he doesn't sign the bill if it passes the house.  The dems would just wait until some ass shoots up a school and point their fingers at GWB and the republicans and condemn them for letting it happen.

Personally I am not impressed with "Shrub" and I do not feel he will take any action to preserve our gun rights.

If he was interested in our gun rights he would have done something by now, but there isn't anything even on the radar.  The gun rights people are just catching their breath and waiting for the next attack, they are not attempting to strengthen their position.

I honestly believe we are at the top of our gun rights now, and the only direction they will go is down, in spite of what "Shrub" says hes supports.  Only time will tell, and I sincerely hope I am wrong.

Shrub is presently floating out to the public trial balloons on using nukes, the tourcher and execution of citizens, secrete trails and if you don't support him your a terrorist... this type of thinking does not support gun ownership by the public

Quoted: The ban will sunset, this is not a question it's in the bill, period, read it. The question of course is if it will be replace. I am very confident it won't. The first one only passed by a single vote in a democratic house and senate. Not likely to happen again anytime soon. Get out and vote this coming election season, and you can help get ride of it. I can't vote yet, but I do write all of my elected officials on issues I care about.

I think this is spot on. This next election is very important and we need Republicans to gain seats now to make sure there is no new legislation later. I both write and vote which is what some of ya'll should be doing instead of crying and moaning about how we are all screwed and it doesn't matter anymore because it's only going to get worse. That is how we got into this position in the first place.

Lots of votes is one of the only two ways that can get this whole gun-ban craze over with.

Quoted: It would be political suicide for GWB or the republicans if he doesn't sign the bill if it passes the house.  The dems would just wait until some ass shoots up a school and point their fingers at GWB and the republicans and condemn them for letting it happen.

It will be political suicide for anyone to try and put up such a bill. In 94 it passed by one vote, and just a few months later the Democrats lost control of BOTH houses. Gore ran a gun control campaign and lost the Presidential election, and its precisely because it was close that they KNOW it was gun control that killed his campaign- just look at a county by county map to see where Bush won where Gore won. Gore lost his home state cause of gun control.  So no Democrat outside of California, New York, or Illinois would even be involved with such a bill much less be the author of one.

The only reason the Congress hasnt simply repealed the act outright, and there are certainly enough votes to do so in the House already, is that it would be a party line vote in the Senate- simply cause it was a Republican bill- and McCain would make it 51-49 against.

You complain that if Congress sent Bush a extension he would sign it, you may be right. But if congress were to send him a REPEAL of the 94 law guess what- HE WOULD SIGN THAT TOO, and just say it was the will of the people.

In this day and age a gun control bill would never get out of comittee. Even most Dems would find a excuse to vote against it in a comitte circumstance, saying it would be "to expensive" or "ineffective" while still claiming publicly to support gun control.

I swear, some of you really get off on the idea of people coming to take your guns dont you?  People keep repeating this same thread over and over and the facts still havent changed. The Republicans are going to gain in the House this fall, sadly it looks like the Senate will stay the same.

By the way, have any of you seen very many HCI or VPC pollitical adds lately? And the election is only 7 months away- California has already had its primary. Guess why? THEY ARE BROKE! They cannot compete and dont have the cash to be a major influence in this round of elections.

Quoted: Quoted: Not only no it's not true, but fuck no it's not true. GW spoke to this on his campaign website over two years ago. Spoken like a true idiot.

Could not have said it better.

Quoted: This next election is very important and we need Republicans to gain seats now to make sure there is no new legislation later

Quoted: The only reason the Congress hasnt simply repealed the act outright, and there are certainly enough votes to do so in the House already, is that it would be a party line vote in the Senate- simply cause it was a Republican bill- and McCain would make it 51-49 against.

My god, the utter BLINDNESS in the RKBA community never ceases to amaze me!

I've got news for you, folks:  The word "Republican" is most certainly NOT synonymous with "pro-gun."

There are Fifty-Four ANTI-GUN REPUBLICANS in the House of Representatives.  Anti-gun in this context means they have a Gun Owners of America rating of D+ or worse.  There are twenty something PRO-GUN DEMOCRATS (GOA rating of B- or better) in the house.  If you want the full list, do a search on this board.

In the Senate, our republican enemies include:

Peter Fitzgerard, IL, F
Dick Luger, IN, F
Peter Domenici, NM, D
Mike DeWine, OH, F
George Voinovich, OH, D
Gordon Smith, OR, D-
Lincoln Chafee, RI, F-
Bill Frist, TN, D (Yup, one of my own senators.  Nope, didn't vote for him.)
Robert Bennet, UT, D
John Warner, VA, F
Jim Jeffords, VT, D- (Yeah, I know he's an Independant now, but I still count him--folks like you elected him just because he was a republican.)

That's 11, count them, 11 anti-gun republicans in the senate--that's over twenty percent of them!  We currently don't have ANY allies on the other side of the aisle in the Senate--mostly because folks like you voted them out, just because they were democrats.

Anyway, the way *I* count it, that vote of yours will run 61-39, and not 51-49.  

Don't believe me?  Go to www.gunowners.org/107srat.htm to see the ratings, then go to www.senate.gov for party affiliations.  While you're at it, why don't you count the votes in the house if all current incumbents are re-elected.

One must actually LOOK INTO THE VOTING RECORD OF A CANDIDATE BEFORE BLINDLY VOTING.

(Edited to note for Armdlbrl that John McCain's raiting in a C-, and thus, he's not included in the above list--and there are other republicans with a similar rating.)

That's 11, count them, 11 anti-gun republicans in the senate--that's over twenty percent of them! We currently don't have ANY allies on the other side of the aisle in the Senate--mostly because folks like you voted them out, just because they were democrats

How do you get 11 out of 100 is over 20%?  Maybe I am just hostile becuase I hope the ban will not be renewed

My view is that history will repeat itself.

Despite the unprecedented high ratings that GWB is enjoying, the Democrats will pick up even more seats in the House and Senate in this mid-year election.  Not only does history bear this out (sadly), but many republicans tossing in the towel, make it all the more likely.

I am absolutely certain that the dems will offer a bill to renew the law.  It will be signed by the president.  A renewed ban will become law.

No way will this country remember what happened on 9/11, no way will my neighbors learn that part of the reason they will sleep safe at night is that criminals don't know who might have firearms at home.  No way will the media stop teaching that its OK to be gay.  No way will the media teach anything about firearms except that anybody who touches one will be unable to resist the temptation to point it at the nearest person and pull the trigger (thanks Rosie, you gay-liberal-antigun example of new-age pseudo-morality that pollutes the minds of our children).

Sorry, depressing, I know, but what makes anybody feel that anything will change?

I'll be saving up just in case. I got a long list of things I want.

Quoted: How do you get 11 out of 100 is over 20%?  Maybe I am just hostile becuase I hope the ban will not be renewed

There are 49 republicans.  11 of them are anti-gun.  22.4% of Republican Senators are anti-gun.

Zak you are wrong, if they are told vote by the leadership they will. Right now there is no reason for them to break with the leadership and vote for a loosing cause... If the Republicans in the House dont want to pass a gun control bill it wont pass no matter what the Senate does.

Gun control is not a politically defensible propisition right now except in a few geographicly defined areas of the country.
The more conservatives that are elected to the house this year the wider that gap will grow. Oh and it looks like Wisconsin is going to become the 45th "shall issue" CCW state.  Think about what that means now, the message that sends to the representatives and senators of those states about what their people really want...

Quoted: Zak you are wrong, if they are told vote by the leadership they will. Right now there is no reason for them to break with the leadership and vote for a loosing cause... If the Republicans in the House dont want to pass a gun control bill it wont pass no matter what the Senate does.

After the 2000 Elections, according to Neal Knox, we had about a 6 vote majority in the house.  The speaker of the House (Dennis Hastert) is an anti-gunner.  Do the math on that one.

Now, I'd LIKE to be able to share your faith in the republican party, but unfortunately, I can't.  This issue is WAY to important to trust a congress with an anti-gun speaker, and a president who supports the AW and hicap bans!

As I said earlier, our best chance is to VOTE ON THE ISSUE, and not by party affiliation.  Let your reps know that YOU WILL NOT VOTE FOR THEM IF THEY DO NOT SUPPORT OUR CIVIL RIGHTS.

Gun control is not a politically defensible propisition right now except in a few geographicly defined areas of the country. The more conservatives that are elected to the house this year the wider that gap will grow. Oh and it looks like Wisconsin is going to become the 45th "shall issue" CCW state.  Think about what that means now, the message that sends to the representatives and senators of those states about what their people really want...

The folks with the F ratings don't give a damn.  And it's not the 45th "Shall Issue" state (it's the 33rd, I believe) it's merely the 45th state to support some form of concealed carry.  Those 45 states include such bastions of freedom as New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and California.

Zak,
Even though you are a fellow Tennessean, I gotta disagree on this one.

Firearms legislation goes along party lines.
I tried to find the "who voted" statistics, but I couldn't.
According to articles on the GOA website, key Republicans "broke ranks" to vote for the AW ban.
"Broke ranks", as in didn't vote along party lines.
No, Republicans are not all pro-gun, but as a party, they are a lot better bet than Dems.
If we, as gun owners, could get ever get on the same page, we could have some voting clout.

The GOA has a beef with the NRA.
That's what the opposition wants.
The GOA seems to think that
the NRA has some kind of agenda, but I wonder about the GOA also.

As a general rule, esp. on gun matters, the votes go by party line.
I couldn't find stats on the '94 AW ban, and, as I said, the Republicans that voted for it "broke ranks".
Look at any pro second amendment bills, (is there such a thing?) and I guarantee you will see that the majority of "for" votes are Republican, and the majority of "agin" votes are Demorcrats.

Trust me on this, when we cast a non-Republican vote, we cast a anti-gun vote.

A vote for an Independent is wasted, because they don't have a chance of getting elected.
And how many times have you seen Democrats break ranks and vote pro gun owner?

I think if congress passes the bill, there is a good chance GW will sign it.  He signed the laws federalizing airport security and imposed tariffs on steel - this from a guy who supposedly supports free markets.  It also looks like he will sign the campaign finance reform stuff, which muzzles free speech.  That is another constitutional issue that he is willing to bury in order to get along.  It just does not seem like the guy is willing to take a stand.  If you will recall, the member of our board that talked to GW about the AW ban said that GW did not say he would veto such a bill; he only said it would not out of committee.  The key is to kill the re-authorization in congress.

That makes the 2002 elections all the more crucial.  I think the people in congress are plenty scared of the 'gun-lobby;' we need to terrify them this election cycle.

Quoted: Firearms legislation goes along party lines. I tried to find the "who voted" statistics, but I couldn't.

thomas.loc.gov for all your legislative needs since 1989.

Here are the roll call votes for the crime bill:

Conference Report vote (the final vote that put the bill on Clinton's desk:) www.senate.gov/legislative/vote1032/vote_00295.html.  8/25/94.  Passed 61-38. Seven republicans voted for this, several of which are still in the senate, and on my list above.  Two democrats voted against it (One of which has an "F" rating from GOA, oddly enough.  The other has a "B" rating and has since become a republican, I believe.)

Original Senate vote (original bill, before the house and senate compromised on its final form:) www.senate.gov/legislative/vote1031/vote_00384.html.  11/19/93.  Passed 94-4.  Two democrats and two republicans voted against it.

House Conference Report vote: clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=1994&rollnumber=416  Passed 235-195.  46 republican represenatives voted for it! FORTY-SIX! SIXTY-FOUR democrats voted against it!

These numbers HARDLY appear to be "party line" (except the dems in the Senate--most of whom are/were anti-gun.)

No, Republicans are not all pro-gun, but as a party, they are a lot better bet than Dems.

Agreed.

If we, as gun owners, could get ever get on the same page, we could have some voting clout.

If we gun owners would stop blindly putting anti-gun republicans in office, we could have some voting clout.  Vote the anti-gunners, OF ALL POLITICAL STRIPES, out.  Some people here seem to think I'm advocating everyone not vote republican.  This is simply NOT TRUE.  I advocate we vote for the best candidate, regardless of party.

The GOA has a beef with the NRA. That's what the opposition wants. The GOA seems to think that the NRA has some kind of agenda, but I wonder about the GOA also.

The GOA thinks the NRA compromises too much.  I tend to agree.  If you think those ratings are skewed because of any GOA agenda, though, then feel free to look up the invididual senator/rep on the GOA site and look at the voting record that determined it.

As a general rule, esp. on gun matters, the votes go by party line.  I couldn't find stats on the '94 AW ban, and, as I said, the Republicans that voted for it "broke ranks".

See above.

Trust me on this, when we cast a non-Republican vote, we cast a anti-gun vote.

See above.

A vote for an Independent is wasted, because they don't have a chance of getting elected.

And with an attitude like this, they never will.  Neither the democrats nor the republicans were one of this nation's original political parties.  At one time they were all "third party" (more like 4th or 5th party, actually) candidates.  Today they're the dominant forces.  Change can occur, it just requires a willingness to try.

And how many times have you seen Democrats break ranks and vote pro gun owner?

See above.

By the way, the amdendment that put the assault weapon and hicap bans in the Crime Bill was proposed by Diane Feinstein (surprise, surprise, right?) and the vote that approved it was not really party line.  www.senate.gov/legislative/vote1031/vote_00375.html

According to the above, TEN republicans voted for this amendment.  Seven democrats voted against it.  The amendment passed 56-43.  Think about it.

And how many of those people are still around Zak.

As far as extending the 94 crime bill it doesnt matter what the Senate thinks because it cant get through the house. No Republican in the house is going to be stupid enough to vote for a gun control bill agaisnt the party leadership NOW.

A lot has changed in the last 8 years. Gun control is no longer popular with the public. Look at all the states that have become Shall Issue CCW states since 94. When state houses pass legislation like that, Senators and Reps listen. It shows what the people back home are willing to tolerate and what they arent. Even some of the people who are still around who voted for the 94 bill probably wont again. Especally if they can kill it in comittee.

Gun control was perceved to be popular in 94, its perceved to be unpopular now, they wont touch it.

Quoted: And how many of those people are still around Zak.

I'm not sure, but others have taken their place.  The 54 anti-gun house, and 11 anti-gun senate republicans must be removed from office.  Period.  Vote for them, and you're part of the problem.

As far as extending the 94 crime bill it doesnt matter what the Senate thinks because it cant get through the house. No Republican in the house is going to be stupid enough to vote for a gun control bill agaisnt the party leadership NOW.

Again, after the 2000 election, Neal Knox claimed we had a six vote majority in the house, and were pretty much dead even in the Senate.  That includes both republicans and democrats.  That does NOT leave much wiggle room, and voting for a candidate just because they happen to have a red, white, and blue elephant on their buttons doesn't mean they'll vote our way when the crime bill comes back up for consideration.

Again: Vote for the best candidate.  That's all I'm saying.  Your response is consistantly, "No, don't vote for the best candidate, vote republican--they won't dare stab us in the back."

Sure.  I've got a bridge for sale, too.  Wanna buy it?