Click The Logo To Donate
Posted on 04/13/2003 3:42:13 PM PDT by dljordan
In a surprise, Bush backs a ban on semi-auto weapons Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is bucking the National Rifle Association and supporting a renewal of the assault weapons ban, set to expire just before the presidential election. "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
Tossing out the ban on semiautomatic weapons is a top priority for the NRA. President Bush said during his presidential campaign that he supported the current ban, but it was less clear whether he would support an extension.
The White House comment comes just before the NRA's annual convention and as the gun debate overall shows signs of fresh life after several years of near hibernation.
Republicans now control the House and the Senate and are using their newfound power to breathe life into the stalled pro-gun rights agenda. This week, they pushed through a bill in the House to give gunmakers and dealers sweeping immunity from lawsuits.
The assault weapons ban is considered a crown jewel by the gun-control movement, and even though its expiration is more than a year away it is already being watched closely.
Attorney General John Ashcroft, who like Bush is a staunch gun-rights supporter, muddied the waters in a recent appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee when he refused to say whether the administration supports an extension. Ashcroft cited a 1999 Justice Department report that said the ban's impact on deadly gun violence is unclear.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., will introduce a bill in the coming weeks to reauthorize the assault-weapons ban.
The White House announcement surprised those on both sides of the gun issue. "That's lousy politics," said Grover Norquist, an NRA board member who leads the conservative pro-Bush group Americans for Tax Reform.
Joe Sudbay of the Violence Policy Center said it "creates a huge problem for Bush" with the NRA. "The NRA said they would be working out of the Oval Office when Bush was elected. This creates an interesting situation for them," he said.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, said Bush's support was somewhat irrelevant. "Ultimately, I think this issue is going to be decided by the Congress," LaPierre said.
If it is, the NRA has reason to be optimistic. This week's action on the immunity legislation for dealers and gunmakers reflects the interest of Republicans to resurrect the pro-gun rights agenda.
Congress had been poised to act on the bill last fall, but the deadly sniper attacks in the Washington area prompted a delay. The measure has enough co-sponsors in the Senate to pass that chamber unless Democrats dig in their heels and filibuster.
Supporters of the immunity bill say it shields gunmakers from bankruptcy because of frivolous lawsuits that became popular during the Clinton administration.
Lawsuits filed by cities against gun manufacturers -- modeled on similar litigation against the tobacco industry -- have so far been unsuccessful but have kept gunmakers tied up in court.
Gun control advocates say the immunity bill will keep innocent victims of gun violence from getting their day in court. The gun industry would become the first to receive blanket immunity protections if the bill succeeds.
Are we playing Clintonian word games?
The President is the chief executive officer of the executive branch of the federal government. Congress belongs to the legislative branch.
The constitutionally dictated concept of separation of powers dictates that the President has nothing to do with drafting legislation or getting the House and Senate to approve it. He merely signs or vetoes laws that Congress send to him.
All we have to do is convince our Congress persons that renewing Brady would be detrimental to their continued residence in Washington, DC and the question of whether Bush is for or against it will be moot.
I have sent letters to my Congress persons. Have you?
That's simply not true. You sound just like a liberal, or some fringe extremist. Some sectors of the economy are still recovering from too much irrational exuberance of the 1990`s. But the economy is strong and this slow growth cycle will soon end. The economy will make a serious rebound in the area of jobs production and capital investments. By next year at this time the economy will be back on track and producing 3%-5% monthly growth rates.
PresBush supported the assault weapons ban in 2000. I don't believe he'll be changing his mind on that one. And the more you keep comparing PresBush to Bush41, the more you look foolish. Where have you been during the last 27 months? Asleep? Haven't you learned anything by now.
Exactly what do you mean by "conservative third party" that the Democrats are behind?
The economy will be up from where it is today, Iraq will be over but the war on terrorism will still be ongoing, and what third party candidate do you have in mind?
I suspect this may be a "good cop/bad cop" routine, as the House will never authorize this, and Bush gets to look good to the middle.
1. The Second Amendment doesn't GIVE us a bloody thing. It merely acknowledges a GOD-GIVEN inalienable right to keep and bear arms. In fact the entire Bill of Rights is NOT a list of federal gifts but rather recognition of freedoms. No one GAVE us these freedoms and NO ONE can take them away. Government can (by force and abuse of power) restrict or deny freedoms. But that doesn't make it right.
2. The Framers wrote the Second Amendment not to guarantee my right to hunt birds or competition shooters to perforate paper. The Second Amendment was written, and specifically intended, to guarantee that citizens always have access to firearms. Why? So that if or when it were ever to become necessary to rise up and overthrow an abusive and unresponsive government citizens would have the tools to do so. THAT'S A FACT.
3. Notwithstanding revisionists' attempts to the contrary two facts remain:
a. Communities in which gun ownership is less controlled by government realize less crime.
b. Communities in which government impedes gun ownership realize increased violent crime.
I have been accused of being "paranoid" about efforts to destroy the Second Amendment. Paranoia is defined as "delusions of persecution." EXCUSE ME! The persecution is not delusional. It is very real, palpable, and documented.
Why Are We Paranoid About Efforts To Destroy The Second Amendment ...
The founder of Handgun Control, Pete Shields, was quoted in the New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976, pg. 53.
You appear to be another Molly Ivins fan. Long on ridicule, disrespect and ad hominem attacks and short on intelligent and civil debate. So be it. It's easy to sit back and throw sink bombs from the political back row.
Nobody who believes in "small government" stands a chance of being elected president. Even Pat Buchanan was not for "smaller government."
Spending may decrease in one area, but it will increase in another.
That's absolutely silly.
Shrub - that's clever. Did you think of that yourself?
Considering your post is still here, it would seem your statement is a complete lie. Do you make things up a lot around here?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.