PDA

View Full Version : Nation-wide support for gun bans still less than 1994


Creeping Incrementalism
12-21-2012, 10:24 AM
Looking at polling data nationally, support for gun bans is still weaker than before the '94 AWB, which was a huge disaster for the Democrats politically. So I don't think any new laws can make it through the House especially if we keep the pressure up.

Looking at data from Langley research which is used by ABC and references Gallup and ABC/WaPo polling data, the spread was 11 points for more gun control two days after the recent shooting. In comparison, before the '94 AWB the spread was 25-30 points in favor of more laws. See http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1145a1GunControl.pdf for a graph (scroll down just a bit).

Considering the stronger position we are in now compared to 1994, both in polling and in Congress, I don't see any laws getting through as long as Congress is reminded of what happened last time. So the main worry would be executive order, but there would still be huge push back from that for Obama, and he could just use the excuse that it is Congress's fault he can't do anything. Of course, maybe he would still try something like an import ban on ammo and/or magazines, or misuse of the sporting purposes clause, but all Dems would suffer even if Obama does not ever need to be elected again.

Boogie Woogie
12-21-2012, 10:47 AM
I'm going to hope for the best and expect the worst... Considering the weird passing of "Obamacare", I don't think the President is going to push a ban through the proper channels if he deems that he'll be met with serious opposition. I think it's quite safe to say the anti's are going to expect the NRA to step up against any more regulation. We can surely expect quite a political battle in regards to gun control in the upcoming year(s)...

Untamed1972
12-21-2012, 11:35 AM
I've been wanting to ask....hope it's its not a threadjack. I was alot younger and in a much different place in life in 1994, so I wasn't paying attention to this stuff back then.

But what prompted the 1994 Fed-AWB? Was it the drug war stuff? Some other mass shooting incident?

aklover_91
12-21-2012, 12:03 PM
I've been wanting to ask....hope it's its not a threadjack. I was alot younger and in a much different place in life in 1994, so I wasn't paying attention to this stuff back then.

But what prompted the 1994 Fed-AWB? Was it the drug war stuff? Some other mass shooting incident?

We had a big spike in the homicide rate, probably as fall out from the 'Crack Wars' of the 80's and early 90's

wilit
12-21-2012, 12:48 PM
Back in '94 they couldn't get enough support to pass the AWB on its own. They ended up tacking it on to a crime bill which provided billions of dollars in funding to LEO agencies. Don't be surprised to see another similar thing happen to help sugarcoat it.

Sent from the depths of the S3 Galaxy via Tapatalk 2

211275
12-21-2012, 12:52 PM
Doesnt matter what happens on a federal level. CA seems to think they can make their own rules with complete disregard for the second amendment, your rights and your liberties. They will still crack down here forcing many more of us to move out of this pathetic state.

Cobrafreak
12-21-2012, 12:55 PM
In 94 almost every congress person who voted for the AWB got fired in the coming election. Things are different now too. We have Internet and can react quickly, we have The Heller Win, and we have a Republican majority in Congress. I wouldn't want to be in the DEM's shoes trying to get this passed again. A HUGE uphill battle.

Fellblade
12-21-2012, 6:50 PM
Dems have the media to tell them everyone is on their side and wants evil guns and standard sized mags banned. The only bright side I can see is we (should) still have the Supreme Court if this garbage passes, maybe them striking down some bad laws would ease the pain in CA.

cjc16
12-21-2012, 6:56 PM
this thread has lifted my spirits. thank you.

SickofSoCal
12-21-2012, 7:04 PM
I dunno. That is right now, what about in 2-5 months from now?

Also, if Obumhead uses an E.O., Congress has no backbone, they'll just roll over. That's my opinion.

daveinwoodland
12-21-2012, 7:10 PM
I have to say I think it will be worse when things wash, From the many forums I've looked at too many people are not too happy with the NRA's response unfortunately. And these were usually people that had a fairly good grasp on how useless further gun control was.

I'm worried this time.

nicki
12-21-2012, 8:13 PM
I've been wanting to ask....hope it's its not a threadjack. I was alot younger and in a much different place in life in 1994, so I wasn't paying attention to this stuff back then.

But what prompted the 1994 Fed-AWB? Was it the drug war stuff? Some other mass shooting incident?

Back in 1994 I was around and I was around in 1989 when all this crap started here in California.

In fact, the assemblyman who got the original Roberti-Roos out of committee was Chuck Quakenbush, a bay area republican out of Saratoga/Los Gatos.

Back in that time, most people were not on the internet, so we were at a significant disadvantage in communications. The best the NRA could do was post cards.

Back in 1994, most of us still had significant charges for long distance phone calls, today many of us have unlimited nationwide calling. This means we don't break the bank calling Washington/Sacramento to voice our opinions.

The Roberti Roos bill was the first "assault weapon" bill and other states following. The 1994 Fed bill was modeled after the Roberti-Roos, except that it came up with a "features" test. It also banned above 10 round mags.

What was interesting is that while 30 round AK/AR mags were available at reasonably prices from 1994-2004, the cost of above 10 round mags for Glocks skyrocketed. Above 10 round mags were running around 100 dollars each during the ban. The price of other normal capacity pistol magazines spiked as well.

When Bill Clinton was elected, he also gained seats in both the Congress and the Senate. The 1994 AW ban easily passed in the Senate, but it passed by only 1 vote in the house and the only reason it may have gotten those last few votes is because it had a 10 year sunset in it.

The truth is the Fed AW ban made no difference which is why it was not renewed in 2004 and inspite of a full court press by the anti-gun forces, it wasn't an issue in the 2004 election.

The 1994 AW bill and the passage of the Brady Act grew the NRA and those laws actually got people involved, ironically I don't think we would have as many shall issue states today if it weren't for those two laws.

Our opponents today are like the German Army in Dec 1944 when they launched the battle of the bulge.

They will throw everything they got, but if we hold tight and counter-attack smartly, then not only will be defeat them, but we will effectively destroy them.

Things always look bad here in Cali because we are deep in blue territory,.

Nicki

CEDaytonaRydr
12-21-2012, 8:49 PM
But what prompted the 1994 Fed-AWB? Was it the drug war stuff? Some other mass shooting incident?

Cleveland school shooting, for one...


...but mostly Rap music. :rolleyes:

sarabellum
12-21-2012, 11:45 PM
I've been wanting to ask....hope it's its not a threadjack. I was alot younger and in a much different place in life in 1994, so I wasn't paying attention to this stuff back then.

But what prompted the 1994 Fed-AWB? Was it the drug war stuff? Some other mass shooting incident?

The 1989 shooting at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton precipitated the AWB movement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/gun-control-california-stockton-school-shooting_n_2316666.html

One of my students lost her sister in that incident.

Hoop
12-22-2012, 6:14 AM
They will bundle it up with billions for law enforcement and education to get it through. Dont think for a minute they wont try. Call call call get your friends signed up in the nra. Dont let up this is it.

Creeping Incrementalism
12-22-2012, 7:01 AM
I dunno. That is right now, what about in 2-5 months from now?

The more time goes by the more opinion will switch to our favor because the knee-jerk emotional response will die down. That's why Obama wants this thing in January, so delay is almost as good as an outright defeat of the AWB for right now. Gun owners just need to keep the pressure on Congress and we will win federally.

Also, if Obumhead uses an E.O., Congress has no backbone, they'll just roll over. That's my opinion.

Yes, but E.O.'s would be more limited in scope. I think they could be defeated in the courts.

REH
12-22-2012, 7:31 AM
There are allot more AR owners now than in 1994, more will be threaten. They used the divide and conquer then, no hunter needs an AR to hunt.

SilverTauron
12-22-2012, 10:45 AM
Looking at polling data nationally, support for gun bans is still weaker than before the '94 AWB, which was a huge disaster for the Democrats politically. So I don't think any new laws can make it through the House especially if we keep the pressure up.

Looking at data from Langley research which is used by ABC and references Gallup and ABC/WaPo polling data, the spread was 11 points for more gun control two days after the recent shooting. In comparison, before the '94 AWB the spread was 25-30 points in favor of more laws. See http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1145a1GunControl.pdf for a graph (scroll down just a bit).

Considering the stronger position we are in now compared to 1994, both in polling and in Congress, I don't see any laws getting through as long as Congress is reminded of what happened last time. So the main worry would be executive order, but there would still be huge push back from that for Obama, and he could just use the excuse that it is Congress's fault he can't do anything. Of course, maybe he would still try something like an import ban on ammo and/or magazines, or misuse of the sporting purposes clause, but all Dems would suffer even if Obama does not ever need to be elected again.

The Devil's in The Details.

Support for a gun ban isn't high because of a difference in concepts.

If you ask someone off the street if they support a gun ban, the statement will be a "no". Banning dad's 12 gauge hunting shotgun makes no sense, they'll say.

Now if you ask them if mandatory nationwide gun registration, 28 day waiting periods, renewable purchase permits for handguns and rifles, and discretionary issue CCW is a good idea you'll get a lot more "yes" answers. Laypeople don't consider being allowed ONLY a .22 target pistol and one 2 shot hunting shotgun as a "ban".

As to the political side of things, even some gun owners are supporting more restrictions. Just because you own a weapon doesn't mean you understand the Constitution, as 1994 also proved. While more AR15s are in circulation today then there were in the 1990s, I'd personally bet that most of their owners have never read the Bill of Rights and would sell them or hand them over without a fight if they were legally compelled to do so.

gunsandrockets
12-22-2012, 11:03 AM
Looking at polling data nationally, support for gun bans is still weaker than before the '94 AWB, which was a huge disaster for the Democrats politically. So I don't think any new laws can make it through the House especially if we keep the pressure up.

Looking at data from Langley research which is used by ABC and references Gallup and ABC/WaPo polling data, the spread was 11 points for more gun control two days after the recent shooting. In comparison, before the '94 AWB the spread was 25-30 points in favor of more laws. See http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1145a1GunControl.pdf for a graph (scroll down just a bit).

Considering the stronger position we are in now compared to 1994, both in polling and in Congress, I don't see any laws getting through as long as Congress is reminded of what happened last time. So the main worry would be executive order, but there would still be huge push back from that for Obama, and he could just use the excuse that it is Congress's fault he can't do anything. Of course, maybe he would still try something like an import ban on ammo and/or magazines, or misuse of the sporting purposes clause, but all Dems would suffer even if Obama does not ever need to be elected again.

I agree that our position today is much stronger than in 1994. Not only that, but the bill Feinstein is pushing today is much harsher than the bill which barely squeaked through to passage in 1994. And we have the added benefit of the obvious failure of the 1994 ban to stop the Columbine shootings and failure of the Connecticut ban to stop the Newton shootings.

But I disagree about what the greatest danger is. It isn't from Obama executive actions. Even if Obama over-reached with executive order, the House could de-fund any effort to enforce it.

No, the greatest danger is from State action. Those States which already
have AW bans are likely to increase the repression of gun-owners. The words "confiscation" have already been spoken.

BOHICA.

gunsandrockets
12-22-2012, 11:08 AM
Back in 1994 I was around and I was around in 1989 when all this crap started here in California.

In fact, the assemblyman who got the original Roberti-Roos out of committee was Chuck Quakenbush, a bay area republican out of Saratoga/Los Gatos.

Back in that time, most people were not on the internet, so we were at a significant disadvantage in communications. The best the NRA could do was post cards.

Back in 1994, most of us still had significant charges for long distance phone calls, today many of us have unlimited nationwide calling. This means we don't break the bank calling Washington/Sacramento to voice our opinions.

The Roberti Roos bill was the first "assault weapon" bill and other states following. The 1994 Fed bill was modeled after the Roberti-Roos, except that it came up with a "features" test. It also banned above 10 round mags.

What was interesting is that while 30 round AK/AR mags were available at reasonably prices from 1994-2004, the cost of above 10 round mags for Glocks skyrocketed. Above 10 round mags were running around 100 dollars each during the ban. The price of other normal capacity pistol magazines spiked as well.

When Bill Clinton was elected, he also gained seats in both the Congress and the Senate. The 1994 AW ban easily passed in the Senate, but it passed by only 1 vote in the house and the only reason it may have gotten those last few votes is because it had a 10 year sunset in it.

The truth is the Fed AW ban made no difference which is why it was not renewed in 2004 and inspite of a full court press by the anti-gun forces, it wasn't an issue in the 2004 election.

The 1994 AW bill and the passage of the Brady Act grew the NRA and those laws actually got people involved, ironically I don't think we would have as many shall issue states today if it weren't for those two laws.

Our opponents today are like the German Army in Dec 1944 when they launched the battle of the bulge.

They will throw everything they got, but if we hold tight and counter-attack smartly, then not only will be defeat them, but we will effectively destroy them.

Things always look bad here in Cali because we are deep in blue territory,.

Nicki

Well said. Good history, good context, good focus.

randian
12-22-2012, 11:08 AM
No, the greatest danger is from State action. Those States which already
have AW bans are likely to increase the repression of gun-owners. The words "confiscation" have already been spoken.
CA, NY & MD are already agitating for more repression. Haven't heard anything out of NJ, DC, MA, and HI.

CT seems silent too, maybe they realize that if what they've got didn't work nothing will. Seems Bloomberg hasn't gotten the message.

press1280
12-22-2012, 11:09 AM
They will bundle it up with billions for law enforcement and education to get it through. Dont think for a minute they wont try. Call call call get your friends signed up in the nra. Dont let up this is it.

If they try that then I'd suggest using National Reciprocity as a poison pill, or at the very least "get something" in exchange for an AWB.

rla_2000
12-22-2012, 11:16 AM
We need to fight every ounce of "gun control", we've already lost too much. You give them an inch, they will be back for more next time.