NRA Launches Anti-AWB Website

NRA Institute for Legislative Action ^ | 1/23/04 | NRA-ILA

[Squantos]

All have been telling me the AWB is toast. If so...... why is the NRA wasting "my" money on a dead issue ?

[fire_eye]

Uh, let's see, uh (scratches head, clears throat)...NO ONE!

That's the thing that Bush's "Boy Genius" (one of Bush's pet names for him) Karl Rove, doesn't understand. He thinks that if confronted with a choice of two evils, gun owners will vote for Bush.

What he doesn't realize is that hardcore conservatives in general, and gun owners in particular, are not like a lot of other constituencies in that it's even harder for us to look at ourselves in the mirror after voting for a RINO who stabs us in the back, than it is to look at Hitlary Clinton on TV. So given *that* choice, we'll just stay home on election day and clean our guns.

But the political calculation is - and I for one think that smarter heads than Rove will eventually prevail on this: What is more likely to tip the balance in the Clowngressional elections: the people who will be infuriated over the AW ban getting renewed and who would otherwise have voted for a Republican, staying home on election day and causing Demonrats to get elected, or the people who are infuriated enough over it NOT getting renewed, going to the polls and voting for a Demonrat instead of a Republican?

I don't think it takes a boy genius to figure that one out... but if Rove blows it (and I think he's a closet gun-grabber, myself, so he may be thinking with his "lizard brain" and not his cerebellum on this issue), he may very well end up finding himself *permanently* tagged by Bush with the *other* of Bush's pet names for him: "Turdblossom".

[eskimo]

But if we can't change the direction where we are marching, only slow its pace, by voting Republican, then speed it up instead so we deal the trainwreck it in our generation rather than pass it along to our children.

I have heard that same sentiment from a lot of people lately.

[supercat]

What about Congress resuming funding of the ATF to process prior felon redress before they cut it off in 92. (whoops felons don't vote usually so what's in it for pragmatism)

Actually, what would probably be politically easier would be to pass a statute explicitly requiring the BATF to reject all non-approvied applications within 30 days. The current statute provides that a rejection may be appealed and the issue decided in court, but a court has held that courts aren't allowed to overrule the BATF until it actually rejects an application. If the BATF simply sits on an application indefinitely there's no available appeal.

So a statute which on the surface is ordering the BATF to explicitly reject applications would actually have the effect of making it possible for people to have their applications appealed and maybe even granted.

[yarddog]

I don't know the exact wording of the law but I think if an application is not approved but is not denied either, that after a short period, the dealer is allowed to sell.

I have also heard that most dealers still will not sell even tho they can just to be safe.

[supercat]

I don't know the exact wording of the law but I think if an application is not approved but is not denied either, that after a short period, the dealer is allowed to sell.

I think the earlier post was discussing the provision that allows felons to apply for rights restoration.

[zeugma]

Well, except for that little DC sniper thing.

You're right. The interesting thing about that one is how little resemblance it had to the other, more convienently timed ones.

[wardaddy]

Interesting perspective...as it now stands, it's the proverbial catch-22 and the VPC and "others" including some quasi-conservatives like it.

I will bet you that they may well amend the black powder and pre 1-1-1899 antique firearm gap to include those too at some point though to my knowledge no ex-felon has ever killed anyone with those.

In fact I believe that out of the 22,000 restorations the ATF granted between 68 and 92 only 169 went on to commit further crimes involving firearms. I think the ATF was approving about 1/3 of applicants historically.

It's so silly. Anyone ex-felon or otherwise who intends to commit a crime will get a firearm and could care less about the legality of it if they intend to use it to commit a crime.

It's just another way to outlaw gunowners if not guns. I believe that somewhere around 1 in 7 adult males are disenfranchised as such either federally or otherwise....and growing.

[supercat]

It's just another way to outlaw gunowners if not guns. I believe that somewhere around 1 in 7 adult males are disenfranchised as such either federally or otherwise....and growing.

What's especially galling is the notion that "felonies" don't even require any prison time. If someone is convicted of any crime for which he could theoretically have been sentenced to over a year in prison, he's a "felon" even if the facts of your case wouldn't support anything near such a sentence. One example that comes to mind is a person with an otherwise-clean record who plead guilty to being an accessory to the theft of a case of beer off an open porch. Because the "theft" statute provided up to IIRC a three-year sentence, the person became a "felon" even though there is probably no judge who would have given even a six-month sentence given the facts of the case.

[wardaddy]

and domestic abuse charges which might otherwise be a misdemeanor or the misdemeanors a number of states use as grounds for revoking gun rights

it goes on and on.

and no politician will touch this one....the NRA sure won't either though GOA and others have protested.

Hell, the NRA is complicit indirectly at a minimum.

[xsrdx]

why is the NRA wasting "my" money on a dead issue ?

While I'm optimistic that the AWB is without a savior, in an election year anything can happen.

The NRA intends for the site to help in limiting any public support for renewal, IMO.

[45Auto]

I'm in agreement that President Bush was perfectly clear in his opposition to so-called "AW's" in his campaign for the 2000 election; But it's not the Pres who will pass a bill - its the Congress. I have spent a fair amount of time explaining to the House leadership (in so many words) that IF they are stupid enough to pass a renewal, they are going to lose their majority-ship in Congress and they might very well cause the Pres. to lose his re-election bid. The ball is in their court on this one: and I hope they are not as dumb as the media (and the RAT-bastards) think they are. (By the way, my definition of "AW" is @sswipe - and I think we do need a ban on them.)

[stevio]

I didn't watch the SOU. He actually mention the AWB?

[cinFLA]

I'd vote Libertarian again (forever) if they did that.

And thus support:

totally open borders (no visa, no passport required)

same sex/any sex marriage

legalization of cocaine

legalized abortions (NO restrictions)....

[cinFLA]

And of course removing your support for the war on terroism.

[xsrdx]

I didn't watch the SOU. He actually mention the AWB?

I forgot the sarcasm tag.

He didn't go anywhere near the AWB issue.

[T Wayne]

I voted for Bush, but if the AWB is renewed any way other than over his veto, I WILL NOT vote for him again!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Shooter 2.5]

I keep hearing what people won't do. It would help to read anecdotes on what they have done and what they are doing.