Over the last several decades, RKBA advocates and 2nd amendment rights' supporters have seen the slow whitering of the RKBA and the slow withering and increased 'gun control' which will inevitably lead to an attempt at a total ban, a national "needs based" licensing system, a national registration database (some say it already exists; it certainly does in California), and perhaps a confiscation. Those enemies of freedom have nothing to lose; all they need is patience, while we lose the RKBA slowly over the years. Look where gun rights were prior to 1968 and compare that to where we are today.
Its true that some great progress has been made in the number of states that now have a "shall issue" CCW laws; these have been interpreted as a "turning of the tide" against private gun ownership. That is true to some extent, but when the government has totally changed the RIGHT to keep and bear to the PRIVILEGE to keep and bear, then "What the government giveth, the goverment can take away."
One federal law is all it would take to negate every state's CCW issuance.
The sunsetting will be more than symbolic; it will mark a REAL turning point in the right to arms, so basic to the liberty of the citizens of the Republic. And we cannot ever expect that any member of the RAT party leadership will ever stop trying to destroy the private ownership of guns. The minute those "fine gentlemen" regain control of government, they will once again start hammering the RKBA. So in the meantime, it would be nice to see a gesture of "rolling back" egregious gun laws on the part of the Repubo Party, the self-appointed "party of freedom".
Because it's a blatant violation of the Tenth Amendment.
Question (directed especially at any politician who would consider voting to extend the ban): Why did it take a constitutional amendment to empower the federal government to ban alcohol during Prohibition, but not to ban certain semi-automatic firearms?
Note that both bans were supported on the same grounds (public safety, not everyone can use booze/guns safely, etc.)
Never before has the federal government banned the simple private ownership of any item which they are not explicitly granted power to control by the Constitution. Machineguns? Nope, they were careful to simply apply onerous tax fees and regulations on them. Drugs? Nope, most possession laws are *state* laws, the feds only get involved in *trafficking*, which is interstate or foreign commerce of narcotics. And so on.
"Slippery slope" is one way to think of it, but I prefer "thin end of the wedge". As it currently exists, the Assault Weapons Ban is more aggravation than anything else - it merely forces the gun manufacturers to make cosmetic changes and little else. The ban on manufacture of "high capacity" (actually standard-capacity) magazines is the worst part.
The law need not be repealed; it dies automatically by virtue of a sunset provision. In order to continue past the sunset date, a bill must be passed which would re-authorize the '94 law... but here comes the wedge, being driven deeper: with the new bill, additional provisions can be added, making the ban bigger.
The original AW Ban has done absolutely nothing to reduce crime, and in fact has piled on the technicalities to the point where a gun purchaser is more likely to be in violation of the law (example: some muzzle brakes received the okey-dokey from BATF, which later took another look and decided that no, it really suppressed the muzzle flash too much, so it was actually a flash hider, and therefore illegal. Meanwhile, a few thousand of the things had been sold).
If only EVERY ineffective law on the books could sunset. This is indeed a rarity.