Analysis of the new ban in the house- 2nd draft

[yzguy]

Yeah, I know, I tried to be as short as I could, but still get my point across....

As long as the first line is read they will at least get my drift....

The problem with phone thing (I think anyway) is, how do I get a hold of right person to talk to? I mean, if I'm just talking to somone who answers the phone, all of my points wil be lost as soon as I hang up.

I guess my point is, should I just call to make my position known like

"I am calling to urge Congress critter so and so to oppose ANY type of "Assault Weapons" ban"

or should I attempt to go into more detail as to why?

Also I'm sure they will not read it the first time.... but if they get enough coppies of it, the point may sink in a bit more....

 

[alan]

I submit that you can do one of two things, perhaps both.

When you call, by all means call, ask to speak with the staffer involved with whatever issue you are interested in, firearms in this case. If you get through to he or she, you might go into detail with that particular individual. If y

ou are able to so do, drop that person a note, thanking them for their time and attention.

Failing that, simply leaving a message with whomever it is that picks up the phone, the KISS Principle has many advantages, as your use of the following recognizes, "I am calling to urge Congress critter so and so to oppose ANY type of Assault Weapons ban".

Your particular message will likely not be passed on to the particular "elected thing", however people in the office are likely to be keeping count of the number of calls that come in, and which side of the issue they are on. That sort of message tends to get across, and make an impression, though there probably are exceptions to this, as there are exceptions to so many "rules".

The foregoing aside, I suppose that one could go down to their office building and beat one's head against the wall, however I would not recommend such action to anyone.

 

[Kaxter]

Well I am writing 3 letters today...hope it helps somewhat.

Thanks for the excellent post by the way, wonderful (if not sickening) information.

 

[emc]

While I do plan on writing my representative and senators (again!!) on these matters, I will add a short section at the end, in order to head off the infamous form letter that so many of these elected swine seem to favor. This will state that "the lack of an affirmative response to my requests will be interpreted as support for the opposing view, and the loss of my vote to your opponent, whether in a primary or in a general election. I also want to bring to your attention that all of my friends and relatives are of the same mindset, even though you will not necessarily receive a letter from them."

FWIW,

emc

 

[alan]

Re the upcoming sunset of the assault weapons ban, the following comes to mind. Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

While there is certainly the possibility of a straight forward reauthorization proposal, something that I think would likely fail, I believe that there is a much greater possibility of "parlimentary trickery" being utilized to obtain reauthorization or extention of the ban. For instance, the attachment of an amendment to some piece of "must pass legislation", one of the ever present "Omnibus spending Bills" for example, being I believe, much more likely.

With the foregoing in mind, I can only suggest that the pressure on those congress critters, must be maintained. What we need to beat into their heads is the following. That there is absolutely no way that reauthorization, or extending the life of this ban legislation is acceptable, no matter how it might be posed. I also think that soft peddling our side of the issue is an almost certain receipt for our defeat.

 

[hillbilly]

I am sending out postcards that say, in big bold letters, the following.

"SUNSET THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN!"

I intend to send one postcard every two weeks to both my Senators and my Rep until Sept. 14.

hillbilly

 

[hillbilly]

When you write letters, don't get into making convulted, complex points.

Be short and sweet and very, very clear.

Something like "Sunset the Assault Weapons Ban or never get my vote again" would be about right.

hillbilly

 

[redhead]

Something like "Sunset the Assault Weapons Ban or never get my vote again" would be about right.

That wouldn't work very well in my case, never having voted for Senators DiFi and Babs Boxofrocks, nor for Ellen (the constitution is like my little blue dress) Tauscher. But then, I guess they don't need to know I didn't vote for any of them, do they?

 

[GigaBuist]

I think we're missing something.

I got my thinking cap on (NRA hat) and something just hit me.

We've got two issues here really, if I understand the legal process right.

To renew the current AWB only the Senate needs to approve it.

To tighten it HR 2038 needs to pass, then the Senate needs to pass it. If the Senate version of HR 2038 doesn't pass (I forget it's designation) then they can still pass the original AWB through again. I'm not sure if the senate-only AWB renewal allows for the removal of the sunset provision.

I don't know why I hadn't thought of this until today. I can't remember where I got the notion that it's only the Senate that needs to renact the bill to keep it from sunsetting... but knowing that there's no Congressional bill on the docket for a straight through renew reinforces my idea that I might be right.

I'm not a lawyer or politicial though. Regretfully I do not quite understand how our Congress and Senate work in detail. I'm working on that.

 

[Pendragon]

If the law is set to truly expire, then any AWB after that will have to be a law.

Further, any "extension" or modification will also have to be a law.

Both the House and Senate will have to pass it and the President sign it for it to become law.

Unless you can show me where they get to short-circuit the process...

 

[GigaBuist]

Both the House and Senate will have to pass it and the President sign it for it to become law.

You're right. I was _way_ off base with my original post. I'm not sure where I got that idea stuck in my head that only the Senate needed to re-approve it.

Hey, at least I'll sleep easier tonight.

 

[9 m&m]

Gun Illiteracy. Those people are just gun illiterate.

 

[Waitone]

Don't stop with you elected congressional vermin. Others have a part in this pagent.

Dennis Hasert--House
Tom DeLay--House

Oren Hatch--Senate Judiciary committee chairman
Each and every single member of the senate judiciary committee
Bill Frist--Senate majority leader.

RNC will be hitting you up for money. Take the time to fill the RNC ear. Remind the RNC Dubya is president now because of the gun vote. Not a good idea to cross that particular lobby.

Last and least Dubya. After all, it would all disappear with the wave of his hand.

 

[Bigjake]

Thanks for the translation Justin, much obliged, otherwise i would've remained in the dark on this one. gona go raise holy hell about it now!

 

[Mulliga]

Good Lord. Ten years of the AWB doesn't have any effect on crime, so now they modify it by limiting mag capacity to FIVE rounds? And now "sporting purpose" is a requirement for a firearm?

The PRK can do what it wants, I suppose, but this is federal level legislation. Maybe I'll show up on DiFi's doorstep (if I can get through her armed security) and read her a little thing called the Constitution, BOR and all.

Thanks, DiFi and Chucky - I'll rest easier knowing that vicious maniacs and school shooters are prohibited from owning such weapons...let's hope they follow the law...

 

[cracked butt]

Maybe its time for a mass protest and civil disobedience over the AWB.

Since they don't want us to have weapons that hold more than 5 rds at a time, maybe we could do something like this:

Dear honorable whoever:

I understand that you are in favor of a new assault weapon ban that would make it illegal to own a rifle with a magazine capacity over 5. Since I own a rifle that holds more than 5 rounds and my ammo comes in boxes of 20, I decided to send you and 14 other representatives in favor of the new law a shiny new cartridge out of a fresh ammunition box. The way I see it, I'm trying to comply with the spirit of your new law- I don't want to have more than 5 rounds of ammo on hand which might tempt me to load more than 5 in the rifle's magazine.

Thankyou for your time,

A lowly tax slave serf.

 

[Stetson_CO]

I have sent this out to all on my contacts list and posted it on some other discussion boards. Emails sent to my congress critters, phone calls and hard copy letters going out tomorrow.

Thank you for making it easier for some of us to understand this.


c):{

 

[Maimaktes]

I believe the new, *expanded* "assault weapon"/normal-capacity magazine ban being proposed is just a ruse or bluff to make us all more grateful to the NRA and the GOP for "saving" us when they "compromise" with the antis and *only* reauthorize the 1994 ban and make it permanent. They are NOT going to let the 1994 ban sunset, even if it costs them their offices. They can't *afford* to let it sunset.

Maimaktes

 

[aquapong]

The NRA knows better. They have already told Republican leaders in the Senate to vote down S.659, the firearm lawsuit preemption bill in the Senate, if a AWB renewal poison pill was attached. I believe the NRA is serious about the ban sunsetting.

 

[mr_dove]

wow, this is the scariest piece of legislation that I have seen in some time. My congressman is already a co-sponsor so I sent a letter for myself and one for my wife.

Everyone please do the same.