2004 Sunset of the 1994 Useful Defensive Weapons and Full Capacity Mag Ban

[Futo Inu]

One of many thoughts I've had recently on this subject is this - and I'm sure I'm not the first one to think of it, on either side, pro-gun or anti:

WHEN the ban sunsets (it WILL - there is NO if - only a question of whether or not it's renewed), even if it is renewed at some point a few days, a few weeks, a few months, or a few years later, there will be SOME "window" of opportunity of some time period before it's renewed (which of course we will fight hard to defeat). But even if we ultimately lose, let's say it takes 3 months for antis to "re-pass" a new ban on full capac. mags and useful defensive weapons. Well, the gun and mag making companies could get their production lines completely geared up for production BEFORE the sunset occurs, and begin cranking out production the same day of the sunset, and crank out WAREHOUSES full of full cap mags and defensive semi-autos before the critters could re-pass it. The companies would have a strong incentive to do this, if they THINK it would re-pass, because if it does, the grandfather clause would likely still be in there, and thus the value of their goods would once again skyrocket. They actually would NOT have an incentive to over-produce if they thought that we could defeat the re-passage - they don't want to be stuck with unsold merchandise - so it's a double edged sword, really, fighting for the defeat. In any event, I just hope that some companies crank out some high volumes of high quality stuff in that window. In fact, when it comes to mags, all they have to produce is the mag BODIES, because that's what is essentially banned by the 94 act. Using a "rebuild kit" to make a full-cap mag is not a banned act - nor is possession of such a "re-built, pre-ban" mag, assuming a new ban. So mag bodies could be churned out by the truckload in a short time, I would think. Kind of a plan B to the primary plan of beating the dog poop out of the blissninnies in 04. Come to think of it, for useful defensive semi-autos, all they have to do is produce truckloads of "pre-ban" rifles, then the day of the sunset, start slapping on the bayo lugs, flash hiders, and/or pistol grips.

 

[uptown]

Bush has already stated that he would sign the law renewing the ban. The only question is..... will there be new weapons added to the list?

When they do renew it, I hope there is public debate on the issue and it is not quietly passed in the middle of night or during a congressional "recess" where only a handful of legislators are left in washington DC to conduct "the nation's business".

 

[Futo Inu]

Yes, I too hope there is a hearty debate and a no-holds-barred fight to stop it by all pro-gun orgs and freedom-loving Americans.

But I believe you are incorrect, in that there are many other questions to be answered, namely:

1. Can we change Bush's mind about signing a renewal, by calls, letters, campaigns, raising a stink the likes of which he's never seen?
2. Is the renewal permanent, or will it once again have a built-in sunset clause?
3. [the MOST important question] Can we stop it from ever reaching Shrub's desk, by using our friends and fence-sitters in the House and Congress to bury it, defeat it, whatever? We need to bury our critters with letters, faxes, and emails now, just before the 02 elections, and again when the renewal rears its ugly head.
4. Even if we can't stop it, can we crank out so many to-be-banned items in the window, that it will prevent (for a number of years at least) the kind of skyrocketing prices on these items which we saw in 94-04? And what is the window going to be? (i.e. Can we lengthen the window by employing, at a minimum, some delay tactics for the bill in the Congress?).
5. Probably many other questions, so your analysis is too simplied and defeatist, IMO.

 

[Ceol Mhor]

What's to stop them from writing and passing the replacement bill before the original expires?

 

[uptown]

I can remember when this law pased the first time. Numerous letters and faxes to congress against it. Bentsen asked legislators to ignore them as they didn't represent the grass roots of America. Many big NRA supporting congressional types voted for it's passage, including Jack Brooks. Gun supporters in the senate didn't want to filibuster it when it first came up. The bill passed with big time NRA guy Tom Foley's assistance in the House Of Representaives. Granted they were all defeated in the next election but they all went on to more lucrative lobbyist jobs.

I wish you all the luck in the world with the letter writing campaign and I hope it's successful.

I truly believe congress will renew it. With all the anti-gun nonsense still going on, what else would they do?? Maybe status quo would be best considering just bringing up the issue for a vote could rekindle past nonsense and make things even worse.

Can you imagine a politician holding up an AK and saying before the T.V. cameras at a press conference "We need alot more of these in the country!"

It would get my vote, but probably wouldn't play well with the rest of the sheeple in the republic.

It will be interesting to see if the media starts beating the drum on the Ugly Gun Ban when the time comes.

 

[nascarnhlnra]

Well I also heard Bush said he will sign it for renewal. That and the fact that he is fighting arming pilots are the two things I strongly disagree with him on.

 

[Bogie]

They'll just tack it on to some 3,800 page "Homeland Security" thing, and folks won't know about it until someone actually sits down and reads it...

 

[RenegadeX]

Whether or not this law will be re-newed will be decided in the next 5 months. If we can get a good pro-gun Congress it is dead. If we lose seats, it is a sure thing to pass.

I personally believe if #43 signs it, he is a one termer, just like #41.

 

[glock glockler]

Bush has already stated that he would sign the law renewing the ban.

Bush stated lots of things, including that he would not limit our rights to free speech, but where did that end up?

He's a politician, and he will do what is politically expedient. If Congress doesn't pass the bill, there is nothing for Bush to sign, so it's only an issue if it gets to that point, and he will also do what is politically expedient at that time.

Rather than talk about what Bush might or might not do, why don't we get off our behinds and install a solid pro-gun Congress so the Bill is dropped into the dustbin of history and it is completely mott what Bush thinks of it.

Don't worry about what Bush will do, worry about what you aren't doing.

 

[Frohickey]

#41 is a one termer.

#43 would be a two termer if he gets to sign it, so the point about #43 being a one termer if he signs it is moot.

Can people sue the US government for infringing on their constitutional rights? Or do people need to find harm first? There has got to be some family out there that lost a loved one because they were deprived of us of suitable weapons to protect themselves with.

 

[Futo Inu]

uptown, you are wrong on many counts, IMO. If someone slaps you in the face, I guess you just turn around, pull down your pants, stick your butt in the air and let it be kicked too, huh? Such wimpy defeatism is absurd. Things can and do change depending on HOW MUCH of a fuss WE gun owners raise. Back then, the mood was extremely anti-gun, with Clinton in the white house. The idjits at NRA who went along with it were fearing much more extreme stuff, and viewed it as a compromise. The mood is 100 times more gun friendly now - it's all relative, even though Shrub is not necessarily pro-gun. NOW is the time to strike. Now, with your vote in the 2002 races, and letting the critters know why you're voting for them in 2002. Now is the time to realize what a huge slippery slope the then-seemingly-"reasonable" restrictions are, and pull out all the political stops to turn back the tide, now that we have all the momentum of the CCW laws, etc., on our side.

So say that "it happended this way 10 years ago, so it will happen the same way now" is ridiculous. If you get beat at a game, or try to learn something new, do you simply give up if you don't win or can't do it the first time, stating, "well, I tried it and can't do it.", or do you try, try again, as the old adage goes? Your attitude is truly sickening, and I wish you wouldn't spread your wound-licking cancerous attitude here on TFL - keep your defeatism to yourself, if you don't mind - it's not good for morale.

The dems have already admitted gun control is a loser issue, and cost Algore the election - very very different than in 94. We can and will defeat it, whether folks like you help or not. I'll bet you sure as hell will participate in the fruits of the defeat we hand the antis without your help, won't you? I think you need to get off your defeated arse and join the letter-writing campaign (and everyone else with your same attitude as well), or pledge right now in writing that you won't buy or use any politically incorrect guns or anything but castrated mags, even after people like me get your rights to do so back.

The bill won't even come up if the Dems don't think they can get political mileage out of it, and right now, they don't. So, no, of course there's no technical reason why it cannot be renewed prior to the sunset. But there are a few million reasons - politically active gun owners like us who can stop it. Guys, this ain't like Newton's law - "the apple came loose from the branch; therefore it is inevitable it falls down", or "Schumer will bring it up, and Shrub said he'll sign it, so it's an unstoppable force." No, there are many many variables and ways in which we can fight it, and the tide is turning back - we just need to give it a strong oomph of a push right now. It only takes one patriotic senator to filibuster, and only a few powerful Repubs on committees to bury it. Sorry, I had to stick it to ya uptown, but you asked for it.

And you haven't got a clue about how the political process works if you think that I would seriously think that our allies in Congress are going to accomplish anything by waving an AK in the air. Of course that doesn't play politically, but that's not how it's done. It done with low-key opposition to the new measures proposed by Schumer et al, with stern debate explaining how the ban has had no impact on crime, and how the guns used in crime were the same before and after the ban, etc.

 

[Jeff White]

The fate of the assault weapons ban will be decided in November...This year

The congress we elect this November will vote on renewal of the assault weapons ban. The time to go on the offensive is NOW!!!!

We must mount a sustained attack on the re-election of those who would strip us of the Bill of Rights. The most critical part of the campaign season is just around the corner. We have but a little more then a month to get our act together and attack.

To those of you who say you will write letters when the time comes....the time is now! Incumbents must know that support for this unconstitutional legislation will cost them their job THIS year. We must remind them of the election of 1994. We must wave Jack Brooks' scalp (figuratively speaking of course) in front of them. They must know that we will not give them the chance to destroy our freedoms and fire them for it later. They either support the Bill of Rights, all of it, every last word, or they don't go to Washington.

We must accept no promises from the Bush administration, that we will get favorable treatment if we support "moderate" Republicans and don't make our 2d Amendment rights an issue in this election. They will be unable to keep the "moderates" in line once the media blitz to extend the ban starts.

To those of you who say that this is a done deal and it's no use fighting, I say that it will be easier to fight them now at the ballot box, then later in the streets. If you can't stand shoulder to shoulder with us now, when the effort only involves some time, a little money and minimal effort, I know you wouldn't stand by us if TSHTF. You're with us or you're against us...no one sits this one out!!

There are 14000 + of us here at TFL. I would bet that we have at least one member in every congressional district. That's 14000 + centers of influence. Our numbers grow tremendously when you lok at the number of people each of us knows and each of us can influence.

We have a chance to see the biggest piece of gun control legislation since 1968 go down in flames. Come on, get in on the fight. What have you lost if you're right that it's a done deal, and I'm wrong? A little time, a few dollars? There is so much to gain here, and getting opur rights back the other way will be unpleasant to say the least.

We are at war here for our way of life and our very culture. All of you who've ever expressed you opinion here in the Legal and Political Forum have a chance to take some meaningful political action. It's not much harder then posting here.

LET'S ROLL!!!


Jeff

 

[Brett Bellmore]

As far as Bush's pattern of violating campaign promises goes, I sure as heck wouldn't find any comfort in it; Every last promise I'm aware of him breaking has been a conservative promise, broken in the direction of being more of a leftist. If he were going to violate any gun related campaign promises, it would only be by doing something even WORSE than he promised.

I am of the opinion that that ban is either going to be made permanent BEFORE it sunsets, or won't be renewed at all. And in the current atmosphere, if it's made permanent it will be in the dead of the night, without warning, and without any opportunity to lobby Congress against it. It wouldn't be the first time, after all. If we're lucky, we'll learn it's in the bill before Bush has a chance to sign it.

And sign it he will. His actions on the issue of armed pilots have convinced me of that. Politicians don't obstruct something 3/4s of the population wants, lightly. Bush hasn't let Minetta and Magaw have their way on a whim, he's thought it over, and done it deliberately, for reasons he considers more than sufficient to justify thwarting public opinion and pissing off his base. I can't conceive of him being willing to do that, and NOT being willing to sign a renewal of the ban.

My opinion? Bush isn't a conservative, and he sure as heck isn't our friend. He never was. He just felt he had to pretend to be one, when he was running for office in Texas. He's not pretending any more, and if it pisses off his base, so what? He doesn't LIKE his base, he's been trying to swap them for NAACP members and amnestied illegal immigrants since before he was elected.

 

[uptown]

Brett:
I agree with the points you made. However, I think Bogie is on to something. The danger is in it being tacked on to some other kind of legislation by unanimous consent which won't be filibustered or vetoed. That's the way the original law got attached to the crime bill. No debate, no chance to filibuster. The Brady Law was passed the same way in the Senate.

And Futo, the Polyanna award goes to you.

 

[Jeff White]

Uptown,
The assault weapons ban was not attached to the 1994 Crime Bill in the dead of night by unanimous consent. It was introduced on the floor and debated for days. I know, I was sickened as I watched it live on CSPAN.

I don't trust the Bush administration as far as I could throw the White House. They have proven to me that they have no core values.

The battle will be fought this election. If we elect enough pro gun legislators this year, renewal is a dead issue. The only thing either party wants is power. We have to keep reminding them of what happened in 1994 after they passed it the first time. We have to show them that this is an issue that will have them all quoting Mel Brooks as the governor in Blazing Saddles; "Gentlemen this is serious, we've got to save our phony baloney jobs!"

Forget the administration, fight in Congress.

Jeff

 

[Justin Moore]

As usual, I wholeheartedly agree with Jeff. This Fall is critical!

You watched the debate on CSPAN? I wonder, at this late date, if it would be possible to get a tape of that somehow. Would make for interesting viewing.

 

[labgrade]

1. Those elected in '02 have 10 months of open congress to play any games they want. '02 decides where this'll likely go.

2. Don't allow The Administration have an chance to veto/sign anything. The Shrub is merely less-anti than his last opponent & "promised" (giggle) to sogn it if it comes up.

3. If you're not participating in the political process ( :barf: such as it is .... ), you're blowin' smoke.

 

[TexasVet]

I mail the Prez and my reps and sens reguarly to remind them that GB the 1st lost 4-5million votes on this ONE issue last time. Including mine. And that's figuring that only 5% of the gun owners got mad.

 

[Tom B]

What law or repeal of law has Bush signed to help gun owners since being elected president? He has made a few pro gun statements but what has he signed? I am amazed at the number of people that still believe what a politician tells them!

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Jeff, it's true that the ban wasn't attached to the crime bill in the dark of the night, by unanimous consent.

The rule of debate prohibiting any filibuster of the crime bill, (Which is why we couldn't block it!) WAS adopted in the dark of the night by unanimous consent. Just as the Brady bill was revived, after having been defeated, by a vote of three Senators when the Senate had been in recess. (Bob Dole brags about having done that, as a matter of fact; It's the sort of thing he regarded as clever, which is why I thought his failure to end up floating face down in the Potomac was adequate proof that the GOP isn't a serious political party.)

And, let's see, I believe both the Lautenberg amendment, which is what they nailed Emerson on, and the Kohl amendment reinstituting the ban on guns near schools, were also secretly placed in bills during conference committee, and passed by Congress before the text of the bill was made available for review.

So while you can't blame every last anti-gun bill ever passed at the federal level on shady deals cut in secret, it sure has been a major factor. If we could clean up the way Congress runs, we'd really spike the gun control movement's wheels, even if we didn't have one more pro-gun vote available to us.