Awb-renewal Vote Anyday!
Posted 23 February 2004 - 06:10 PM
S.659, the bill that will help eliminate frivolous lawsuits against the firearms industry, will be taken up in the Senate this week, possibly as soon as tomorrow. It is widely reported that Sen. Feinstein will attempt to amend the bill with a renewal of the 1994 "Assault Weapons" Ban.
The anti-gun lobby is staging a "phone-in" tomorrow (Tuesday, February 24th) in opposition to S.659. Though the bill already has enough co-sponsors (54) to ensure passage, a filibuster could still be attempted, which is presumably what the anti-gun side is hoping for.
To ensure our elected officials know they will lose more votes than they gain by supporting a renewal of the AWB, we all need to do our part by calling our Senators and voicing our strong opposition to the Feinstein AWB renewal amendment that will be offered for S.659... not only should this ban not be renewed, it should not be allowed to cloud the issue of whether S.659, an unrelated bill, should be passed.
The anti-gun folks are asking their people to call between the following hours:
9:00 AM - 1:00 PM Eastern Standard Time
8:00 AM - 12:00 PM Central Standard Time
7:00 AM - 11:00 AM Mountain Standard Time
6:00 AM - 10:00 AM Pacific Standard Time
Call 202-224-3121 and ask for one of your Senators' offices (you'll have to call back to reach the other one).
Even if you've already called your Senators in the past few weeks, CALL AGAIN tomorrow. Be polite, but firm in your opposition to Feinstein's AWB renewal amendment. Please spread the word to everyone you know.
Thank you, everyone, for taking an active role in ensuring this useless ban does indeed sunset this September.
Posted 24 February 2004 - 06:07 PM
Here is his response to my concern of the AWB. I infomed Evan that I would not be voting for him again. And I would inform all those interested about his feelings on the ban. I also informed him that this did nothing but raise prices for collectors such as myself. If a criminal or terrorist wants a large capacity mag or "assault weapon" they will bring them in or smuggle them in.
February 24, 2004
Dear Mr. Hensley:
Thank you for your letter concerning the reauthorization of the
Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. I welcome your thoughts and comments.
The primary purpose of any gun control legislation must be to
keep firearms out of the hands of criminals or juveniles. Throughout my
public life, I have opposed legislation that fails to appropriately balance
the need to maintain a safe society with the ability of law-abiding
Americans to own and use firearms responsibly. I have always
supported the second amendment and have opposed efforts to impose
burdensome regulations on gun-owners. I believe that tough and
effective enforcement of existing firearms laws is the best way to save
As you may know, the Assault Weapons Ban passed as part of
the 1994 Crime Bill. This legislation prohibited the manufacture,
transfer or possession of 19 specifically named assault weapons, all
semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can accept a detachable magazine
and have at least two features outlined by the statute, and all large-
feeding ammunition devices. The Assault Weapons Ban will expire
after September 14, 2004 unless Congress and the President approve the
reauthorization of the law before this date.
While I was not a member of the Congress when this ban was
passed, I do plan to support the reauthorization of the Assault Weapons
Ban. In a post September 11th world, we simply cannot increase the
difficulties faced by our law enforcement community in keeping our
nation safe by allowing assault weapons to land in the hands of violent
criminals or would-be terrorists.
However, I would be reluctant to support efforts that would expand the
scope of this legislation or undermine the right of law-abiding citizens to
Thank you for taking the time to advise me on this important
matter. I value your input and hope that you will continue to share your
thoughts with me.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope that the information
that I have provided is helpful. My website, http://bayh.senate.gov, can
provide additional details about legislation and state projects, and you
can also sign up to receive my monthly e-newsletter, The Bayh Bulletin,
by clicking on the link at the top of my homepage. I value your input
and hope you will continue to keep me informed of the issues important
United States Senator
Posted 24 February 2004 - 07:17 PM
Posted 24 February 2004 - 07:32 PM
correct address for any replys, so I had delayed doing so. It was the first thing I did after getting set up
I still have not heard from either of them.
I did not bother Representative Burton who is without doubt on the correct side of this issue.
I will be calling them tomorrow.
The sad thing is I helped put that "gentleman" into office. Well, this is one Republican who will not be
voting for a Bayh ever again. The vote for Clinton during impeachmant was embarressing. His response
to Mike (FullAuto45) was laughably a poor attempt at justifying his "follow the lemmings vote" that he has
probally been strong armed into by his democratic colleages from the other states.
How a Senator from Indiana could have that stand is beyond me. This Hoosier is embarressed.
Posted 24 February 2004 - 11:17 PM
Posted 24 February 2004 - 11:34 PM
Posted 25 February 2004 - 12:01 AM
Posted 25 February 2004 - 01:32 PM
I cannot get through. All I am getting is a fast busy signal via landline
and my cell says that they "are unable to complete my call at this time".
Will keep trying.
Posted 25 February 2004 - 03:10 PM
Posted 25 February 2004 - 08:25 PM
You guys are great!!! Loved that Wolfer113 response!!! Sounds like me! I called both my senators local offices here in Missouri (Kansas City area) and at their D.C. offices yesterday and discussed the AW ban and the sunset. I also got several people from work to do the same thing. Next, I pretended I was a resident of Kansas and called their D.C. offices as well. Maybe not completely ethical but what the hell. Besides, I getting taxed at about 4 or 5 levels, I should have the vote of four or five people. We are trying to get conceal carry passed here, but some F...ing liberal judge and his buddies are stalling. (Our newest republican ran house and senate passed a bill and then overruled the demo governors veto!!). Then it when to the courts because the liberal m... f... had a fit. Kansas is attempting to do the same thing. Its hard to believe, here in the great midwest, where I would say guns are plentiful, we dont have conceal carry. Most people around here grow up (I guess used to) hunting and handling a gun at an early age.
I am still a little worried that Bush will sign the AW ban if it gets to him. I think he made that statement, thinking the ban would die in the House. Note, he signed the McCain campaign finance reform bill! Again, I think he figured the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional. Screw up #1. Then he talks about amnesty for illegals. NOT GOOD in my opinion. Screw up #2. Hes got the WMD issue to deal with. Possible screw up #3. Wont protect our borders, screw up #4. Then he rides the fence on the gay marriage issue, but then recently states he is for a constitutional amendment. I think he knows he's in trouble, even with his base. I know I am having problems voting for him again at this point. So I think that was a first step in trying to get back his base. Now we have to make it known he has a lot more to do to get a bunch more of us back. And that can start with sunsetting the AW ban. Like I said about 2-3 weeks ago, I am now a one issue voter (told that to my senators aides). So lets keep the heat on and make it understood that these politicians had better support the Second Amendment or they are next out the door.
An elected politician has to take an oath to uphold the constitution. If these liberal pussy aren't man enough to do what is required to perfrom the job, why do the bastards run for office? The first question anyone running for office should be asked is "are you going to support all of the constitution should you be elected and more specifically the Second Amendment? A follow up would be "would you support the repeal of recent guns laws in order to restore Second Amendment rights to law abiding citizens"?
Guys, lets stay at it!! We can win this if we play our cards right. Thanks Lionhart for keeping us informed! And happy belated birthday!
Posted 25 February 2004 - 08:39 PM
|QUOTE (Mario Scarpino @ Feb 25 2004, 08:25 PM)|
| Guys, lets stay at it!! We can win this if we play our cards right. Thanks Lionhart for keeping us informed! And happy belated birthday! |
Mario, Thanks! I've been watching C-Span most of the day..WOW. We ALL must do our part now to win the soft war. Otherwise it will be the hard war we'll end up fighting! We must NEVER, EVER give up!NEVER!
Posted 25 February 2004 - 09:41 PM
Posted 26 February 2004 - 12:08 AM
Today, the Senate spent approximately 12 hours on the firearms industry lawsuit preemption bill... and got nothing done. Well, almost nothing. The two sides hammered out an agreement that will result in a plethora of amendments being offered over the next several days. Amendments ranging from "cop killer" bullets to concealed carry to "snipers" and more will be offered, along with Feinstein's AWB renewal, and a handful of totally unrelated measures (unemployment, voting rights, etc.), giving the appearance that this bill is quickly becoming a very messy free-for-all.
The vote that primarily concerns us, of course, is on Feinstein's amendment, which will occur at 11:30 Tuesday morning. A vote on final passage of the bill should also happen Tuesday.
Keep the pressure on! Call your Senators, and tell them you want the firearms industry junk lawsuit preemption bill to be signed into law as quickly as possible, and in order for that to happen in a timely manner, the bill must be passed in the Senate without the baggage of these extraneous amendments. And, of course, stress your strong opposition to the AWB renewal specifically.
You can reach your Senators by calling 202-224-3121.
Already called yesterday or last week? CALL AGAIN!
Posted 26 February 2004 - 06:25 PM
The local communists newspaper (Kansas City Star) reported a rather convoluted story about what the senate did on 25 Feb. As Lionhart stated above, it sound like a big pile of crap coming our way. But the Star reports that the White House supports extending the AW ban and that there were 75 senators on board for the pending bill. The paper makes it sound like there are 75 senators supporting both the new bill and extending the AW ban. The guy who wrote the story must have been educated in the public school system, as the meaning of the article is up for grabs.
But I think this is the bottom line. We have to get our message to one individual and that's Tom DeLay. I now really believe he is our only hope. Bush is lost and can't lead this country. We know the senate has no balls (the house impeached W.C. Clinton (ugly bas....) and the senate would not convict). So ts down to Tom DeLay to save our Second Amendment. This could get real nasty. I plan on contacting Delay's office frequently. Pass the word and do what you think needs to be done, but it doesn't look good.
Posted 26 February 2004 - 06:48 PM
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, the Colorado organization coordinating the efforts of many state-level firearms rights organizations in fighting against the current slew of federal gun control amendments currently being offered in the Senate, is wary of the strategy the NRA appears to be employing.
Dudley Brown, Executive Director of RMGO, sent out an e-mail alert today urging immediate action from all gun owners on preventing S.1805 from being passed, due to the gun control amendments it now contains, and those that will almost certainly be added (possibly including Feinstein's AWB renewal).
In his alert, Brown states, "as predicted, S.1805, the Lawsuit Liability bill is being debated on the Senate Floor (at the behest of its sponsor, Idaho Senator Larry Craig).
"And late last night, Senator Larry Craig (a board member of the NRA) worked with rabid anti-gunner Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) to come up with a "Unanimous Consent Agreement" which allows a large number of gun control amendments to be offered to S.1805.
"By pushing this bill to be heard on the floor, and agreeing to hear a large number of gun control amendments, Senator Craig has opened up Pandora's Box of Gun Control.
"That means you MUST call your US Senators immediately, even if you called them yesterday."
Brown then goes on to say, "after agreeing to the "Unanimous Consent Agreement", Sen. Larry Craig said "Some of these amendments could pass." This C-Span2 admission is understating it -- some of these gun control amendments WILL pass. In fact, one already has, and others gun control advocates are lining up to join in on the "fun".
Questioning the NRA's strategy on this bill, Brown asks, "have you received an e-mail from NRA-ILA urging voting against S.1805 IF it gets gun control on it? They KNOW quite well that this bill will have gun control on it, and have known it for weeks. Instead, they play inside baseball and tell gun owners "Trust us -- we have a plan", trusting in their own cleverness to circumvent the anti-gunners amendments. That is the same thing they said on the McCain-Fiengold Campaign Finance Deform bill (which stripped gun owners of their 1st Amendment rights) as well as the first Assault Weapons and High-capacity magazines ban bill, Brady Registration Checks, Lautenberg Gun Ban, etc, etc. That's a failed strategy, and should be abandoned.
"Remember, the definition of insanity is continuing to do what you've always done but expecting different results.
"They'll post some things on their website, but they won't apply real pressure. That means they are, by their silence, agreeing to this "Unanimous Consent Agreement." And their board member, Sen. Larry Craig, openly agreed to that agreement with Sen. Reed. Craig will vote against most (not all) of the gun controls, but he's the person who enabled all of these gun control amendments."
Whether or not you agree with all of Browns assertions, one thing stands out as being awfully odd. Wednesday morning's cloture vote should have cleared the way for the bill to be voted on within a day or two (with a handful of anti-gun amendments to deal with). Late last night, however, all of us were taken aback by the agreement that permitted this onslaught of amendments, some not even related to gun control at all. One has to wonder why this was even necessary... why was a "deal" with the other side needed to proceed with a bill that had already overwhelmingly won a cloture vote?
We must all flood our Senators' offices with phone calls and e-mails, urging that the bill not be passed with these anti-gun amendments, especially the "assault weapons" ban renewal. Call the capital switchboard at 202-224-3121, and ask for each of your Senators.
Alternatively, you can easily locate your Senators' contact information here:
Posted 26 February 2004 - 08:29 PM
Poor Walter, you might as well talk to the mirror, talking to Schumer & clinton; Move next to Ft.Knox, ky here; there is a house for sale next to me(2000yds from the Gold Vault,where Thompsons use to guard the gold) .........jw
Posted 27 February 2004 - 01:12 AM
Posted 27 February 2004 - 08:33 AM