is there a possibility for a Assault Weapons ban extension?

[JayRuff]

I'm a little worried, both democratic candidates support the extension of the AW's federal ban, do you think it will happen?

[bwiese]

While vigilance is always warranted, the pro- vs. anti- composition of US House/Senate is not likely to change severely enough that HR1022 has even a remote chance. So the presidency is not that important.

Remember, blood ran in the streets and we toppled a Speaker after the 94 ban.

Also, gunnies national position actually *improved* a bit in the 2006 elections. And we have likelihood of at least a partially (or better) result in Parker/Heller that will be extendable from further derivative cases.

As a Californian, your worries should more properly be focused on urgent CA politics - things like ammo bills (AB2062).

[AngelDecoys]

Will be hard for them to get that sort of legislation through the Senate, and the House. Only takes 1 senator for a fillibuster and the Dems would need 60 seats to stop one. Don't think (with the 33 seats up this time around) the Dems can pick up enough to have the 60 needed.

In CA, its easy to think in terms of Conservative = Republican, and Liberal = Democrate. Not as easy of a distinction in other states. There are plenty of Pro-gun Democrates in congress. We just don't find any in CA.

As Bill states Heller will in all likelyhood change the climate somewhat out of the state. As Californians we should be more concerned with state legislation.

Hasn't popped up (and I hope never does) but I can forsee another possible CA AW ban adding the new lowers, and bullet buttons/prince 50/monstermag configurations. We call those modifications being compliant. They call them loopholes. The Dems hold the cards.

[JayRuff]

well, if laws keep getting tougher in CA I still have an option of moving, if there is a federal ban on AW's there's no point of moving because there is still a AW's ban here

[bwiese]

well, if laws keep getting tougher in CA I still have an option of moving, if there is a federal ban on AW's there's no point of moving because there is still a AW's ban here

Even if a Fed AW ban *were* to occur the best that could happen would be a renewal of the 1994 Fed ban, which basically was just an irritant as it primarily just banned flash hiders and telestocks on new rifles.

[CCWFacts]

There's no chance of the Fed AWB being re-passed. It barely passed last time. It cost the Dems control of Congress when it did pass. It probably cost Al Gore the presidency. They don't want to go down that path again.

Also, back in 1994, the kind of guns and mags that it covered were exotic and rare, and therefore easier to ban. Today, they are commonplace and standard, and therefore much harder to ban.

I think the Fed AWB is a dead issue.

We need to watch things in this state. This is where trends start. We need to somehow reverse the decline of "gun culture" in this state.

[Librarian]

... and just a point of clarification: since there is no Federal 'assault weapon ban' NOW, there is nothing to be 'extended'. It would take completely new legislation, as in Rep. McCarthy's H. R. 1022 or Joe Biden's subtitle B of S. 2237, neither of which appears to be going anywhere.

But people do continue to introduce bills to bring it back ...

[hoffmang]

Also, this time around an attempt to pass a Federal AWB is going to face a level of Constitutional scrutiny that it did not face the last time due to Heller.

-Gene

[nothing4u]

When the next big quake sinks half the state.

[GuyW]

There's no chance of the Fed AWB being re-passed. It barely passed last time. It cost the Dems control of Congress when it did pass. It probably cost Al Gore the presidency.

Please, stop making the AW ban sound so positive...

[AngelDecoys]

Also, this time around an attempt to pass a Federal AWB is going to face a level of Constitutional scrutiny that it did not face the last time due to Heller.

-Gene

Assuming the decision applies to state law and not just federal law. And assuming they take up strict scrutiny I would agree. I know the Brady Bunch is already clamoring about the decision possibly still allowing for more erregious (egregious) regulations such as semi-auto bans. I think we're going to have to sit and wait for what the actual decision says.

Gene - Just curious. How did Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox look to you in the courtroom? I can't help but think they're killing themselves for not getting the NRA involved sooner. Or did they seem pleased?

[CCWFacts]

Please, stop making the AW ban sound so positive...

Hey, for those dedicated W fans: Bush Jr won EVERY SINGLE ELECTION HE HAS EVER WON thanks to Democrats throwing themselves on the sword of gun control. You would think that the Democrats would finally figure out that gun control makes them feel good but is causing them harm. But maybe that's as unlikely as a crack addict coming to an analogous realization.

[sierratangofoxtrotunion]

Assuming the decision applies to state law and not just federal law. And assuming they take up strict scrutiny I would agree. I know the Brady Bunch is already clamoring about the decision possibly still allowing for more erregious regulations such as semi-auto bans. I think we're going to have to sit and wait for what the actual decision says.

Gene - Just curious. How did Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox look to you in the courtroom? I can't help but think they're killing themselves for not getting the NRA involved sooner. Or did they seem pleased?

Altho I believe we did have a calgunner in the court, I'm pretty sure Gene couldn't get in.

[Riodog]

erregious ???

What does this word mean??
Rio

[AngelDecoys]

erregious ???

What does this word mean??
Rio

egregious is what I meant to type.

It also means a pot of coffee slurped down in under an hour. See sig.