AW Ban to sunset now for sure?

[jmoser]

From what I heard on the news, the Senate 'is unlikely to take up gun legislation again this year.'

Coupled with the low probability of House action on AW ban renewal, it appears that the AW ban will indeed expire this September.

Gotta love election years - the same Senators can now say that they:

A) Voted for the assault weapon ban (ie passed the amendments)
and
B) Voted against the assault weapon ban (ie killed the amended bill)

All in the SAME DAY!

Based on the vote counts something like 49 senators must have done exactly this; 57 voted for the amendments but only 8 voted for the amended bill. Can't wait to see the campaign ads on this one.

[Dan]

It's dead for now, but we gotta stay vigilant.

[G22]

I'm with you Dan. 8)

[Divegeek]

Who knows what else Sarah Brady's Gun Fearing Wussies will pull out of their collective butts next. We definately can't stop watching them.

[Wesley w/Glock]

From what I am seeing AWB renewal as we know it is dead. Hopefully gun makers see this and are gearing up for hi-cap production so that come next September we can buy hi-caps at our local gun shops.

I really had not thought it not possible but there was a huge price we paid for the death of AWB renewal. Legislation to protect gun makers from frilous law suits is now dead as well.

I think that the Brady bunch must be claiming a huge victory in this.

So my speculation of AWB renewal was wrong. Let us now hope that my speculation on the Whitehouse occupant come 2008 will be also be wrong. I am claiming certain victory for Hilleary Klinton in 2008.

[Cherokee]

I read somewhere they upheld the ban????
Someone point me in the right direction please.

[Kimber45]

I read somewhere they upheld the ban????
Someone point me in the right direction please.

An amendment to extend the ban was attached to the bill providing protection to gun manufacturers. That amendment is what was approved. It died when the entire bill was voted on and defeated.

The fight to let the gun ban expire is not over.

[joen]

The Brady Bunch and Million Mom's are really playing this up as a 'huge victory' over the NRA. Check out their site. As usual, though, they leave out all the details; most notably the fact the NRA sent letters to the Senators last week suggesting they vote AGAINST the bill due to the AWB and other amendments that were tacked on to it.

[Jim]

I hate to say it but it is a victory for them. They were able to prevent passage of a bill that would help gun manufactorers. Hopefully Congress can pass such a bill next year without the amendments.

[gruvinbass]

I don't exactly consider it a victory for the most part for either side. True, we didn't get the lawsuit bill through, but there's nothing that says it can't be re-introduced next year, and as many times as necessary after that to get it through. However, because of the way the Senate operates, it does make it highly unlikely that a new AWB will make it through this year. It's possible, so, yes, we need to keep our eyes open. But it probably isn't going to happen, and I think it unlikely that it ever will, in part because once the current ban sunsets, and it becomes obvious to everybody except the brady bunch that the world doesn't come to an end, the push for a renewal just won't happen. So, mark your calendars, for the 14th of September, and try not to bounce up and down like a kid with the fidgets. :D I for one, intend to have all the appropriate supplies ready to put together a nifty little AR-15 shorty carbine (the part about being shorter than 30 inches needing to be registered as a handgun doesn't really apply to me any more since I don't live in MI now), :twisted: and I'm anticipating finally getting some full cap mags for my Glock 23.

[Wesley w/Glock]

Hopefully Congress can pass such a bill next year without the amendments.
GOA is saying that it is almost impossible for that to happen. A case can now be made for adding these amendments to any future protection bill. In view of how overwhelmingly they were voted for, it unlikely to push them out.

[Kimber45]

Hopefully Congress can pass such a bill next year without the amendments.
GOA is saying that it is almost impossible for that to happen. A case can now be made for adding these amendments to any future protection bill. In view of how overwhelmingly they were voted for, it unlikely to push them out.

Yeah, but there is a quid pro quo. The protection bill can be added as an amendment to a bill the Democrats really want.

[Wesley w/Glock]

Yeah, but there is a quid pro quo. The protection bill can be added as an amendment to a bill the Democrats really want.
Let us hope so because this is from my perspective a really big loss for us.

[jmoser]

Many things will change after November elections. All this voting was election year posturing, as was Bush's promise to sign the AW ban renewal. He knew it would never reach his desk so it was a promise he would never have to keep.

Once the AW ban expires in Sept it will be a different landscape, the lawsuit liability bill could be resurrected in a different light next year.

[Cherokee]

Ok, thanx..I was a little confused ( nothing new around here ).

[goldwing2000]

Besides all that, haven't 95% of the cases that have been brought against gun manufacturers already been decided in their favor or just thrown out completely??

Eventually, these people will get the idea that they can't win the case and will stop trying. With ream upon ream of case law against them, they won't even have a case to bring.

[keyjockey]

Besides all that, haven't 95% of the cases that have been brought against gun manufacturers already been decided in their favor or just thrown out completely??


I think the problem here is the money and time it costs legitimate manufacturers to defend themselves against this bullshit. The anti's are hoping to wear them down. That's why the bill needed to pass.

There needs to be a law against attaching "riders" to ANY bill. I'm sure that's how alot of "pork" gets added to the budget in general.

[Kimber45]

Besides all that, haven't 95% of the cases that have been brought against gun manufacturers already been decided in their favor or just thrown out completely??


I think the problem here is the money and time it costs legitimate manufacturers to defend themselves against this bullshit. The anti's are hoping to wear them down. That's why the bill needed to pass.



Keyjockey is right. The manufacturers have to defend themseleves against state, city and even county suits so if you multiply that by thousands of potential suits you can see the real goal is simply to drive them out of business.

[Jim]

What we really need is tort reform. The fear of countersuits would prevent these cases from occuring in the first place. Hey, Mr. Simmons, what is your take on that?

[Jim Simmons]

I don't like the overbroad reach of "tort reform" in general. It has, in Michigan especially, resulted in a cannon being used to shoot a house-fly.

As a result, it's virtually impossible to sue a surgeon who really botches a surgery and leaves someone crippled or dead. By making it much more costly and much more expensive to successfully sue, and at the same time capping monetary damage awards, they've pretty much eliminated medical malpractice litigation altogether. Yet insurance premiums are still outrageously high, and it's hard to find a competant OB/GYN. So tort reform there hasn't accomplished bupkis.

The gun owners lawsuit ban was an appropriate response to use the courts to accomplish what could not be accomplished by legislation -- banning the sale of some guns, limiting the numbers and types of guns that could be sold, or imposing other restrictions on the transfer of various types of guns. Social reform by litigation is never a good idea.