Posted on 07/22/2004 9:38:52 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
WASHINGTON, July 22 /U.S. Newswire/ -- There are only six days left when Congress is in session before the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban -- a law that President Bush pledged he'd renew as a candidate for President in 2000. "It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society," he said then. And another Republican leader made statements this week indicating the President can get a vote by simply asking for one.
"President Bush is blocking a vote on the Assault Weapons Ban," said Michael Barnes, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence united with the Million Mom March.
Here's a brief review of published comments since May. First, on May 12, The Hill newspaper wrote "an aide to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has said privately that if Bush pushes for it, the ban will probably be reauthorized. But if he doesn't, the chances of legislation's passing this year are remote."
Then, on June 24, the Boston Globe reported "Ken Lisaius, a White House spokesman, said Bush still supports the ban, but is waiting for the House to act."
Then, on July 11, the Washington Post reported the House Majority Leader Tom Delay said "we stated our position before the White House had to ask us... (the White House) knew not to (ask,) because the votes are not there."
Now, following a news conference held by Representatives Michael Castle (R-DE) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), Delay told the daily newsletter Congressional Quarterly "there's no reason to use floor time for a vote just to have a vote on this particular subject," he said. "And unless directed otherwise, I see no reason to bring it to the floor."
The Assault Weapons Ban has enormous public support across the nation. A poll released last week by Penn, Schoen & Berland showed 66 percent of Republicans, 75 percent of Democrats and 79 percent of independents supported renewal.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence united with the Million Mom March is planning a growing effort to save the law, with television and print advertising, phone banks, grassroots lobbying efforts across the nation throughout August, culminating in the first week in September.
You should tell them anyway. Maybe you can convert some RATS. LOL! :-)
Stalin remarked that it would be suicidal for a general to invade America, a land of 90 million sharpshooters.
These polls are about as legitimate as Saddam's 99 percent of the vote.
Mark J. Penn is president of Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates Inc. and was pollster to President Clinton
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=269&contentid=252103
Imagine if a terrorist attack is NOT stopped because of an UNarmed pilot. Even anti-gun Senator Boxer has tried to get on the right side of this issue.
As originally passed, GCA'68 required dealers selling ammunition to maintain purchase records for government inspection; I don't know whether the information was kept on form 4473 or something else, but nonetheless the paperwork requirements were sufficient to force many manufacturers and retailers out of the ammunition business. I don't know whether the registration requirements for ammunition were eliminated as part of FOPA'86 or had been eliminated even before that, but they certainly have been repealed sometime between 1968 and 1992.
Additionally, FOPA provides that a person travelling in a car from a place where a particular firearm is legal to a place where it is legal may transport the firearm in the trunk of his vehicle, any statutes, ordinances, or regulations of any locality through which he passes notwithstanding. To be sure, one could usually get away with such travel even without such legal protection, but prior to the FOPA anyone doing so risked becoming a felon if his car got searched for some reason in an anti-gun area.
Thanks. Your explanation on federal ammunition paperwork and state/local/national firearm transportation immunity confirms that my original statement, literally, is precisely correct to say that it wasn't until President Bush armed pilots that any federal *firearms* control per se was repealed. 5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
In a confrontation with a grabber organization, more knowledgable people than I pointed out the falseness of the statistics that they were using. When it was clear we had the facts and we had the correct data; the scumbag leaned back in his chair with an arrogant look on his face and said contemptuously, "It doesn't matter. This issue will not be decided on the data."
My point here is that this issue is a potential loser for President Bush ONLY IF he signs the Renewal. Gun control is a big LOSER in every way, but the grabbers don't want you or anybody else to know that.
LOL! WAY to much information for me!
Actually the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 would be a better cannidate for that description. It repealed some of the more useless provisions of the 1968 Gun Control Act.
Via a last minute amendment (literally) it also banned the sale of newly manufactured machine guns to private citizens. Which illustrates why the Ugly Gun and normal capacity magazine ban isn't dead for 51 more days, and why eternal vigilance is required to prevent it's reinactment thereafter.
That was two years ago, and the delays continue. He should have fired Minetta. Minetta was anti arms rights as a Congress Critter and he was the one who brought in Magaw, former head of the BATF, who was anti gun as well. In fact he should fire Homeland Security Czar Ridge as well, also an an enemy of the RKBA from his days as PA governor.
Yes, we know about the machine gun ban, but GOPA still repealed a good chunk of the '68 gun control act.
So what would that leave, 39,997?
I know, every journey starts with a single step, but this one will be so long I'll wear my feet out up to my knees! ;-)
The requirement to present ID and be logged into a purchase book every time you bought any handgun ammunition, which included the .22 shorts I used to buy for my Grandfather in law's Browning. I used to present my USAF officer's ID for that. :)
It repealed the prohibition on interstate sale of ammunition (IE. mail order sales) , and ,IIRC, relaxed some of the laws baning purchase of long arms by residents of states other than the one where the sale took place. The restrictions on handgun sales remain however.
The law also attempted to reign in some of the worst abuses of the BATF, in part by requiring knowledgeable intent to violate gun laws for a crime to have been committed. See THE FIREARMS OWNERS' PROTECTION ACT: A HISTORICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE by David T. Hardy.
Well he did say he would sign it, if it came to his desk. I believed him then and I believe him now, and on that basis I did not vote for him in '00, and I wouldn't vote for him again in '04 if he signed it. Might not anyway. But that's a "safe" protest vote for me, because there is no way he's not going to carry Texas by a large margin. I did demonstrate in his favor during the Florida Fiasco, twice in fact, right in front of the Alamo.
If kerry is elected, this rifle will be useless along with every centerfire weapon in America.
Every single gun owner should bring all their friends to vote on election day to vote a straight Republican Ticket.
FYI, US Newswire simply puts out press releases.
This isn't bias...it is a piece written by the Brady folks.
How did the police repeal go down?
Actually it less to do with compromise than some really sneaky manuevering. From the Hardy paper linked above:
The amendment came up on the House floor, time expired before it could be debated, and it passed on a voice vote of questionable propriety.460 As a result, the House vote has no legislative history, aside from the frantic pleas of one Representative, moving for additional time and implying that it "banned" machineguns, which it clearly does not.461 On return of the amended bill to the Senate, two Senators conducted a colloquy relating primarily to the exemption for presently possessed machineguns and devoted to listing actions which were not meant to be covered by the House-proposed ban. Even the limited light this sheds on the issue is blocked by a twofold barrier: the pair of Senators involved in the colloquy appear mainly concerned with demonstrating that the House amendment is not meant to bar [Page 671] what it clearly does bar,462 and another Senator objected to the colloquy as not reflecting his or other Senators' understandings.463 Denied any clear history, we are left both with the recognition that repeals by implication are not favored464 and the inevitable deduction that Congress must have meant to rule out something previously allowed.465 The application of the normal rules of construction to this amendment will, perforce, yield a result which can best be [Page 672] characterized, not as a choice of the better interpretation, but as a choice of the "less worse" one.
If Bush, or more properly Mineta and Ridge, were so frustracted, they didn't need another law to speed implementation of the first. They, including Bush, just needed to kick some bureacratic butt and tell the bureacRats that there would be X per cent of armed pilots by a date certain. Instead they moved the training from a reasonably accessable Quantico Virgina to that 160 miles from Lubbuck site. They would not require 5 days of training, when one day, conducted perhaps at military facilities near major airline hubs (DFW, Chicago, Atlanta, Denver, etc) would do the job. They wouldn't have insisted that the pilots become reserve deputy federal officers. (Can't have mere private citizens protecting themselves and those whose safety they are responsible for.)
The truth is that Conress passed that second law due to inaction by the executive branch. The provisions of that law, with the reserve federal officer provision, were a result of negotiations with the adminstration and with the gun grabbers in Congress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.