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

Jeff White

New member
Brett,

I agree that there have been a lot of legislative tricks used to foist unpopular and unsupportable legislation on us. I believe the 1986 machine gun ban was also snuck into the bill (Firearm Owners Protection Act of all things) by Lautenburg.

I just don't see any way we can reform the rules that congress make for itself. (Well actually I do, but it involves a lot of turmoil in the country, the number of light poles on Penn. Ave between the capitol and the White House and a distingished artist to make an oil painting, a print of which woul hang in every congressional office.)

While it's possible that they could stick the renewal into an appropriation bill or some other legislation, I doubt that the Schumers, Durbins and Feinsteins could pass up another chance to pontifcate at the rest of us like they did in the hearings and debates in 94.

All you handwringers out there need to remember that it only passed by one vote and that the House subsequently voted to repeal it and the repeal was never even debated on in the Senate. I repeat, the time to fight is now. We've got the following factors in our favor:

1. The bill only passed by one vote. Afterward, the American people got mad and fired their congressmen who voted for it. Many long time congressmen who were considered untouchable paid for their treason with their jobs.

2. The House (although not the one that sits now) passed a repeal. By a lot more then one vote too.

3. The Democrats have realized that gun control is costing them elections. It's a bad issue for them. They desperately want to regain control of the House. Are they willing to start that debate that was so costly to them in 94 when they are going up against an administration with approval ratings in the 80% range?

4. We have the facts on our side. Not that this really matters to anyone but us, but the mood of the public has changed since September 11th. Despite the best efforts of the Bush administration to reassure the sheeple that they are safe, more and more of them are coming to the realization that they are ultimately responsible for their own safety. We need to educate them about how this law denies them the means to efficiently protect their families.


So what are we waiting for.....LET'S ROLL

Jeff
 

Bogie

New member
Guys, the reality is that they're going to call the thing something like the "Safe Streets" or "Save the Children" or "Anti-Terrorist Armament" bill, and that'll be all she wrote. Politicians will not vote against it, simply because it'll look really bad in the 30 second commercials their opponents will run when it is pointed out that they voted against something that sounds so "good for you."

What we need to do is get our OWN legislation going, with a similar good name attached to it. Military & Defense Preparedness Act or some such.
 

BigG

New member
If the window opportunity lasts for more than a few weeks, wouldn't we be able to buy existing full cap mags for better prices as they would not be subject to any ban even if they had some mandatory date on them or marked LEO Only or whatever? :confused:
 

RenegadeX

New member
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!

No President has ever signed a pro-gun law that I know of. So this is not a good litmus test. #43 has not signed any anti-gun bills, and that is a better record than any other President in the last 40+years. Also, #43 did sign the CHL bill as TEXASGOV, so as I see it, he is as close to a pro-gun President as it gets.
 

labgrade

Member In Memoriam
"Let's turn up the heat." WD ...

Couldnt hurt. Why not allow your elected things to know where you stand = always a good enough thing.

Put on the pressure (always!) to allow them to know that their next job is depenedent upon how they vote on specific issues.

It's the "democratic" way. ;)
 

nralife

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


Now might be a good time to start calling our useful defensive weapons Homeland Defense Rifles! Seems the time is right. :D


Sound like a good idea?


Joe
 

Justin

New member
My 2 cents...

Ok, here are a few of the factors that I think will affect the renewal/sunset of the '94 ban:

1)Earlier someone said that if Dubya doesn't let this die, he'll be a 1 term president. Pre-9/11 I'd agree with you. As of now, I think that Dubya is pretty much assured victory in the 2004 elections. They even have a phrase for it: Waving the bloody flag. Look at it this way: Dubya's term started rough, a lot of people hated him because of the Florida thing. 9/11 comes along, and now even Rosie O. is singing his praise.
Mark my words: Dubya is in for 8 unless he gets caught doing something incredibly stupid.

2)The window of opportunity If this does happen, it would be a quick breath of fresh air. Magazine and preban style rifles could be churned out by the thousands, but this will only be enough to whet everyone's appetite. Since it would essentially be a big game of speculation, look for prices to be exorbitant.
The upside is that you may be able to purchase standard-cap mags for post-'94 gun designs such as the Walther P99, HK USP compact models, and all those neato guns chambered in 357 SIG.
But make no mistake, it will be a seller's market, with most people wanting to hedge their bets and stock up before the window closes.

3)At least one former president did sign a pro-gun bill into law. It was the 'Firearms Owner Protection Act.' This was passed by Reagan in 1986 and rolled back a lot of the stupid stuff instituted by GCA '68. Of course, this also had that little rider on it that set the number of civilian owned full-autos. The NFA guys really got hammered in that one. :(

4)As part of the '94 ban, a study was commissioned to detail the effect of the ban on crime rates. The idea being that if the study concludes that the ban had no effect, it should be repealed. So far, the details of the study have all landed squarely in favor of us, which means the ultimate recommendation will be that the ban should die. Of course, Congress does not have to vote that way, but it is a point in our favor.

5)As mentioned before, gun control is a topic the Democrats don't even want to touch. Expect to see lots of empty rhetoric coming from the diehards: Shumer, Fienstien, Kennedy, Boxer and a few others. However, most centrist Democrats, especially those in the South will stay silent.

6)If the sunset even makes it onto the radar of public perception, expect a media onslaught. After all, everyone (even antis) likes to see footage of guns being shot. It's dramatic and a ratings booster. Keep an eye peeled for reporters who sucker some local yokel into rapid-firing a 30-round magazine from his Norinco AK.

7)We can, and should fight this with everything we have. Write, call, and even visit your local representative, and let him/her know what's what.

Ok, that ended up being longer than I expected...
 

DeputyVaughn

New member
I think when the bill comes near to vote day, the anti-gun people behind the scenes in concress will stage another deal like the guy who was shooting at the whitehouse the week before the 1994 crime law was passed. Then while the public is outraged vote for it. Nobody really thinks that guy really lost it and just happened to choose the week of the Crime Bill debate for an "Assault on the Whitehouse" with a folded stock SKS. That situation should have ended with one shot fired by a sniper from the roof. NO WAY such an assault could take place without the offender getting greased. this sort of setup is how they will pass the renewal bill.

Scott
 

DeputyVaughn

New member
My Tin foil hat is two layers thick already. Shiny in and out. also have my cealing and walls protected. Maybe I should change that to padded.

Trivia question. Who remembers the name of the guy who was shooting at the whitehouse????? Anybody know what the disposition of the case was? Was the sentence carried out?

Scott A. Vaughn
 

RenegadeX

New member
3)At least one former president did sign a pro-gun bill into law. It was the 'Firearms Owner Protection Act.' This was passed by Reagan in 1986 and rolled back a lot of the stupid stuff instituted by GCA '68. Of course, this also had that little rider on it that set the number of civilian owned full-autos. The NFA guys really got hammered in that one.

ROTFL.

The proper name for this bill is "The Machine Gun Ban of 1986". Therefore, no matter what else was attached to it, it cannot be considered a pro-gun bill. It was a gun -ban bill, and it was passed by Ronald Reagan.

I t has done almost nothing to help gun owners. and it was an important piece of legislation for the anti-gunners, to get the ball rolling, and it was followed quickly by a variety of other anti-gun stuff in 1989, 1991, and 1994. So a lot more people than NFA owners got hammered.
 

Brett Bellmore

New member
"4)As part of the '94 ban, a study was commissioned to detail the effect of the ban on crime rates. The idea being that if the study concludes that the ban had no effect, it should be repealed. So far, the details of the study have all landed squarely in favor of us, which means the ultimate recommendation will be that the ban should die."

'Scuse me, but you DO recall an earlier study, by another Bush? Bush the elder banned the import of a bunch of so-called "assault rifles", and said he'd study whether or not they were "used" for sporting purposes, and make the ban permanent, or recind it, based on the result of that study.

Fool that I was, I actually BELIEVED HIM!

When they found that sporting purposes were about the only use the guns he'd banned the import of were ever put to, he just ignored it, anounced that they'd been found to be not "suitable" for sporting purposes, and made the ban permanent anyway.

"W" will do exactly the same: He wants to sign the ban, and no matter what the study finds, it's conclusion will be that the ban should be made permanent.

"Studies" instituted by politicians always come up with the recomendations the politicians want, no matter how much contrary evidence there is.
 

Beowulf_93

New member
My main problem with all the anti-terror legislation is that it amounts to nothing but control. Has anyone heard the color condition for current terror warnings? I thought not. This body of law is going to be used to suppress domestic dissent, not to hunt foreign terrorists. It is only a matter of time, once a regime goes in that is hostile to gun owners, they will declare all of us "domestic terrorists" and try to round us up. The "assault" ban was passed to keep effective weapons out of the hands of the unwashed masses. Control, control, control.
 

DeputyVaughn

New member
Christopher II,
You win a kupi(sp) doll. Francisco Duran (no relation to Duran Duran or Roberto Duran) was found guilty(in a short quiet trial not even covered by the national media that showed that vidio clip over and over) and sentenced to 6 years in a federal prison. No mention of whether or not he ever served a day.

My theory (re-applying my tin foil hat) is that he's living large on a Carribean Island somewhere on the million or two he was paid to do the video.

Scott A. Vaughn
 
Top