PDA

View Full Version : Question on optimism vs 1994


Scarecrow Repair
12-18-2012, 8:44 PM
I don't remember much at all about the process leading up to the 1994 AWB. For those of you that do, how does it compare to these points?

1. This conversation the hoplophopbes want to have has been going on since 1934, 1968, 1986, 1994, pick a date, and the hoplophobes have been losing for at least 10-20 years now.

2. There are 43 (or so) states with shall issue CCW and the streets aren't running with blood.

3. Obama and his party have been remarkably quiet about gun control up until this last week, and the momentum even after Sandy Hook is still now going their way.

4. Texas and Tennessee are talking about arming school teachers, and I have seen other similar ideas such as allowing teachers with CCW to carry in schools.

5. Heller and McDonald at SCOTUS, and several circuit decisions, have gone our way.

6. The 1994 AWB expired and blood hasn't started running n the streets.

This seems to me like a big deal, but I have no memories of 1994 to compare with.

How say you who do remember 1994 and the politics of the AWB?

bwiese
12-18-2012, 8:56 PM
Well, in 1994, there was no prior "1994 AWB" that left political blood on the floor.
.
There weren't as many guns to protect (from a financial and interest-based viewpoint).
.
States were making their own AW bans with CA's as a prototype. Plus there were the import
bans & 922r compliance stuff, the crack wars had not subsided, people like so-called conservative
(statist, really) 'drug czar' Bill Bennett used an attack on such firearms to divert attention from
the failed drug war.
.
We didn't have ~34 states with rational carry issuance yet; guns had not fully entered the
personal space for many. Daily carry makes people less fearful of, and more rational about,
guns.
.
NRA wasn't as strong then. It was only 17 years after the Cinncinatti Revolt in 1977, where
NRA was directed to be a political animal more than a shooter's association. It had correctly
worked its way up, to some degree, from small potatoes local/state fights to build a footprint.
.
There was no Heller & McDonald, and the 2A was not a right. High-level gun law practices were
to some degree relatively new outside of basic criminal defense and/or just compliance for ATF,
etc. Our friend Don Kates is one of the few that was early on trying to bring "gun rights are
civil rights" from out of the wilderness; Dave Hardy (Of Arms & The Law website fame) is another.
.
The popularity of the AR and high-volume production of America's Rifle had not really ramped up
yet. Look at the catalogs of the time and you can see the variations & accessories were far, far
more limited than today's offerings.
.
The 'duck hunters', "Thirty Caliber Idiots" and other compromisers of the past may have an inkling
now of how they screwed us last time.

USMCM16A2
12-18-2012, 9:01 PM
Scarecrow,


In 1994 I was 28 years old, and the atmosphere quite different. Fineswine was basically free to pass her abortion of a bill. Democratic President, a willing Congress. No formal ruling on the Second Amendment.
What I think will happen, in 2012-2013 is that everybody will scream, yell, and make lots of noise. But it will be EXTREMELY difficult for to get the bill passed, and if it does pass to survive the Court rulings of 2008 and 2010.
Fineswine/McCarthy/Boxlicker and their ick think that they will get enough bi-partisan support to get this POS passed, but it has to stand to up to a 2a challenge. With all that has/is going on, we are in a far better position to defend our rights than ever.

USMCM16A2
12-18-2012, 9:02 PM
What Bill said.........

wjc
12-18-2012, 9:13 PM
Look at the number of people buying guns...

More accepting environment

SwissFluCase
12-18-2012, 9:17 PM
I lived through that ban. America was not the police state it is now, and normal people were not arming themselves "just in case" like they are now. Katrina was also a watershed moment. Katrina even convinced the SF Chronicle editorial board to oppose the SF handgun ban that was up for a vote back then.

People are shocked and mad right now, and the same ones who are spewing gun control garbage are probably the ones who supported the 2nd Amendment after Katrina. In other words, they flip flop.

It has always been the case that the 2nd Amendment supporters are more committed as a group than the gun control lobby. That is still the case. Gun owners will vote for a pro gun Democrat, but gun haters won't vote for an anti-gun Republican.

We are much better organized now, and the NRA isn't necessarily the center of our action. This also means that the NRA can't horse trade our rights as much as they could in the past, and they know it.

We have a much better chance of surviving this time, but by no means take this as a signal that you should let your guard down. Instead, take it as an encouragement to fight with the understanding that we will succeed.

This could be in incredibly viscous fight, but it might be over quickly. This is the internet age, after all. Don't forget to keep an eye on Yee. He is more dangerous.

Get ready...

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Scarecrow Repair
12-18-2012, 9:18 PM
Well, maybe I should have been more specific :-)

Were any politicians suggesting things as shockingly common sense as allowing teachers with CCW to carry in class? Or whatever the equivalent was back then?

Were any politicians actually suggesting more CCW as a solution?

What kind of resistance to the AWB was there? About all I think I remember is that they had to tack on the sunset provision to get enough Republicans to sign on?

What was the NRA stance?

And I know the Dems have been blaming election losses ever since on pushing the AWB through. Was there much prediction of the backlash beforehand?

SwissFluCase
12-18-2012, 9:26 PM
Well, maybe I should have been more specific :-)

Were any politicians suggesting things as shockingly common sense as allowing teachers with CCW to carry in class? Or whatever the equivalent was back then?

YES

Were any politicians actually suggesting more CCW as a solution?

YES

What kind of resistance to the AWB was there? About all I think I remember is that they had to tack on the sunset provision to get enough Republicans to sign on?

Moderately stiff, but many gave up the fight.

What was the NRA stance?

They opposed it, but they didn't really mobilize their base. The next election cycle was gun owners voting on their own, not a coordinated NRA movement.

And I know the Dems have been blaming election losses ever since on pushing the AWB through. Was there much prediction of the backlash beforehand?

No. The gun control lobby convinced Washington that America was ready for gun control, and were even preparing the next, more restrictive bill



Regards,


SwissFluCase

nicki
12-18-2012, 9:52 PM
Well, in 1994, there was no prior "1994 AWB" that left political blood on the floor.
.
There weren't as many guns to protect (from a financial and interest-based viewpoint).
.
States were making their own AW bans with CA's as a prototype. Plus there were the import
bans & 922r compliance stuff, the crack wars had not subsided, people like so-called conservative
(statist, really) 'drug czar' Bill Bennett used an attack on such firearms to divert attention from
the failed drug war.
.
We didn't have ~34 states with rational carry issuance yet; guns had not fully entered the
personal space for many. Daily carry makes people less fearful of, and more rational about,
guns.
.
NRA wasn't as strong then. It was only 17 years after the Cinncinatti Revolt in 1977, where
NRA was directed to be a political animal more than a shooter's association. It had correctly
worked its way up, to some degree, from small potatoes local/state fights to build a footprint.
.
There was no Heller & McDonald, and the 2A was not a right. High-level gun law practices were
to some degree relatively new outside of basic criminal defense and/or just compliance for ATF,
etc. Our friend Don Kates is one of the few that was early on trying to bring "gun rights are
civil rights" from out of the wilderness; Dave Hardy (Of Arms & The Law website fame) is another.
.
The popularity of the AR and high-volume production of America's Rifle had not really ramped up
yet. Look at the catalogs of the time and you can see the variations & accessories were far, far
more limited than today's offerings.
.
The 'duck hunters', "Thirty Caliber Idiots" and other compromisers of the past may have an inkling
now of how they screwed us last time.


Some things I have to also add to Bill's well written comments.;)

The 1994 ban basically was the end result of California type assault weapons bans that the first seeds were actually laid down following the loss of prop 15, a statewide handgun ban in 1982.

Up to prop 15, the antis had been making a push for a national handgun ban.

After prop 15s defeat they had to find a new demon and that demon turned out to be semi auto versions of military full autos because they looked the same.

The San Ysidro(1984) and Stockton(1989) massacres got the first AW ban rolling, the Roberti-Roos bill.

On a fed level, then President Bush stopped the importation of military style assault weapons which we still have today. This is why we have to retrofit our foreign made guns with so many American made parts to make them legal.

The left wing media had a monopoly on shaping public opinion because for the longest time, they controlled the info that the majority of Americans got.

In the 1970's, most people got their news from their local newspaper and the three major tv stations(ABC,NBC,CBS).

In the 1980's cable brought some competition, but most of the competition was still anti gun.

It was in the 1990's that the internet started to grow and it was during this time that grassroots gun groups became more effective because we got better and faster communications and those communications have increased drastically since.

The assault weapon ban had some unintended consequences, it showed it didn't work which is why it wasn't renewed.

It motivated many gun owners to the polls and it drastically changed the way Bill Clinton governed. People seem to forget that in 1994 that Bill Clinton was very unpopular and that he drastically changed after the 1994 elections and moved at warp speed to the political center, something Obama has not done.

The backlash against the assault weapon's ban is why we have CCW in so many states, without the 1994 assault weapons ban, I don't know if CCW would be as wide spread as it is nowadays.

People are emotional wrecks right now, but after they get off their emotional binge and calm down, then we will start looking at real solutions.

Americans are turning against prohibitions as a government policy because more and more people are coming to the believe that prohibitions create more problems than they solve, this is why Colorado and Washington voters just legalized marijuana.

The courts are going to have to deal with this issue soon and so called "assault rifles" are very common and statistically the least used guns in crime, there is no compelling government interest for a broad ban of these self-defense arms for the general law abiding public.

We may see tighter sales on people who have mental health issues, maybe increase in safe storage laws for people who have children who have certain mental illnesses, but I don't see an across the board ban.

As far as our magazines go, we have a right to functional arms and I would go to say, functional arms that are fully functional or as functional as designed. There is nothing magic about 10 rounds versus 11 plus.

I would go as far to say that a law abiding citizen needs to be equally or superiorly armed to criminal attackers in order to have a chance at surviving a criminal attack.

If criminals have 15 rounds, I want 30 rounds.

BTW, above 10 round pistol mags were created because many drug crazed criminals needed to be shot more than 10 times to stop them.

Many Americans view the 10 round mag limit as a pain and with 6 million plus CCW permit holders, many of them will get involved if it means they have to reduce mag capacity.

Many people carry 9mms and 40 cals rather than 45s.;)
All in all, it will be dark, but ultimately we will prevail because our side is right.

Nicki

SwissFluCase
12-18-2012, 10:08 PM
Don't forget, it's 2012 and we are just about to have our mass consciousness shift as we enter a new age, and this does not include being defenseless.

It isn't going to be unicorns and rainbows and fairy farts...

:p

Regards,


SwissFluCase

supermanuf
12-18-2012, 11:24 PM
Agreed. Posts like this one are that little bit of optimism, that little light in the darkness that makes you realize this is not only a fight worth fighting day after day, but a fight that we can very much win.

SwissFluCase
12-18-2012, 11:26 PM
I almost forgot...

The gun control lobby used to complain about "gun porn". Like it was a bad thing...

Regards,


SwissFluCase

0nTarg3t
12-19-2012, 12:40 AM
sure is good to see a little optimism,i cant even tell you how this incident has been eating away at my gut. seeing all the inti,s just licking there chops ready to pounce with gun bans, ammo restrictions ect. i'm sick of having worry about this crap every damn year or when some maniac goes on a killing spree.

IVC
12-19-2012, 1:27 AM
The 'duck hunters', "Thirty Caliber Idiots" and other compromisers of the past may have an inkling now of how they screwed us last time.


There is a silver lining. The previous AW ban has proven that it doesn't work as intended. It's now a liability for the antis.

Scarecrow Repair
12-19-2012, 8:19 AM
Thanks for all the answers, especially Nicki's details. I remembered a lot of that in very general terms, but not the dates and timing and how they all tied together.

I think the fiscal cliff is also drawing a lot of attention away from this. Especially the payroll deduction -- if that 2% hit does take effect, people are going to have swivel necks in how fast they forget teh evul gunz and remember government fiscal mismanagement.

SwissFluCase
12-19-2012, 11:28 PM
Always remember, this is the anti's fight to win, it is ours to lose. All we have to do is not drop the ball.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

SwissFluCase
12-19-2012, 11:28 PM
Always remember, this isn't the anti's fight to win, it is ours to lose. We have the upper hand. All we have to do is not drop the ball.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

tiki
12-20-2012, 2:16 AM
What bothers me is that in the past, assault weapon bans were talked about for preventing "crimes".
Now they are talking about "mass shootings" and protecting "our children".

I hope you guys are right, but I'm not so optimistic.

CCWFacts
12-20-2012, 9:06 AM
We didn't have ~34 states with rational carry issuance yet; guns had not fully entered the personal space for many. Daily carry makes people less fearful of, and more rational about, guns.

This is a big factor. My observation is that no state that has ever gone shall-issue has ever subsequently passed any meaningful gun control law of any kind. The one state I can think of that has passed anything gun related after going shall-issue was Colorado which restricted reciprocity to resident permits. Not exactly earth-shattering gun control, and that's just one state out of 30+.

The popularity of the AR and high-volume production of America's Rifle had not really ramped up yet. Look at the catalogs of the time and you can see the variations & accessories were far, far more limited than today's offerings.

That's a HUGE factor. AR-15s were exotic back in 1994. They are the opposite of exotic today. They are the default rifle choice. Why would you buy anything else, given the choice? They're great for target shooting, self-defense, and hunting anything that can be hunted, especially with some of the new AR-15 compatible rounds, like the 50 cal rounds. If I could only have one gun it would be my AR-15 and I would not feel limited in any way. I can use it for self-defense, for 50 BMG shooting, I could put it into an AOW configuration (not sure what's the legal path for that), could put on a 50 Beowulf upper, could use it for plinking with a 22lr upper. It's not the ideal gun for absolutely everything but it can be very very good at almost every real-world use.

The goal of the ban in 1994 was to ban AR-15s to prevent them from becoming widespread. Unfortunately for the banners, they didn't succeed in banning AR-15s. They banned flash hiders, something which I don't even know what good it is. I still have my RAW AR-15 in a 1994-legal configuration (no flash hider), just because I don't even want all that stuff.

I don't even know how you write a ban that covers AR-15s without covering all other semi-auto rifles out there. They tried that in California and AR-15s are still pouring into the state, in California-legal configurations.

I hope they don't go after magazines. To me, I'm more annoyed over the mag ban than the AR-15 restrictions. Crippled mags are terrible. Fortunately, there are now (guessing) billions of large capacity mags in the US so banning them is a meaningless gesture.

The good thing about all this is that a) it's driving thousands of new NRA members and b) it's resulting in the biggest splurge of gun / ammo / mag buying EVER.

I have a (not serious) solution. Maybe this country should be split up. All the liberals can create a gun-free welfare state with open borders and do whatever they want, while all the conservative NRA types can create a hell on earth where M4s are legal, there's no welfare, and the borders are closed. Guess where all the economic activity and investment is going to be. Guess where all the poor people are going to be. Guess where all the gun violence is going to be.

ipser
12-20-2012, 9:40 AM
Scarecrow, great question and several good answers already.

I would add another: Second Amendment advocates have made great progress in educating America. The best evidence I have to offer are the balanced articles coming out of the New York Times such as these:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/us/owners-of-assault-weapons-dismiss-idea-of-federal-ban.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us/lanza-used-a-popular-ar-15-style-rifle-in-newtown.html

Make no mistake about where the NYT and other mass media organs stand but they are now distinguishing journalism and editorialism. I belive it is because they can no longer count on the ignorance of the American people as they once did. They are not merely reporting on the wide adoption of the AR15 platform, they are reflecting a more knowledgable population and don't want to be made to seem as fools and ideologues, at least outside the editorials.

You would never have seen articles such as the above in 1994, much less in 1989. In those days, "news" organizations could get away with showing a fully automatic gun as representative of semi-auto rifles.