Bush, NRA at odds on gun ban

President Bush and the National Rifle Association, long regarded as staunch allies, now find themselves unlikely adversaries over one of the most significant pieces of gun-control legislation in the past decade.

At issue is legislation to be introduced by Senate Democrats today to continue the nationwide ban on semiautomatic assault weapons. A groundbreaking 1994 measure outlawing the sale and possession of such firearms will expire next year unless Congress extends it, and many gun-rights groups have made it their top priority to end the ban. Even some advocates of gun control say the prohibition has been largely ineffective because of its loopholes.

Despite those concerns, however, the White House says that Bush supports extension of the ban -- a position that has put him in opposition to the NRA and has left many gun owners angry and dumbfounded.

"This is a president who has been so good on the Second Amendment that it's just unbelievable to gun owners that he would really sign the ban," said Grover Norquist, a leading conservative and an NRA board member who opposes the weapons ban. "I don't think it's sunk in for a lot of people yet."

Advocates on both sides of the issue say the White House appears to have made a bold political calculation: That the risk of alienating a core constituency is outweighed by appearing independent of the gun lobby, sticking to a campaign promise and supporting a measure that has broad popular appeal.

The president has claimed the middle road -- supporting an extension of the ban but not endorsing the stronger measures that gun-control supporters say would outlaw many "copycat" assault weapons. That position has caused Democrats in the Senate to reject plans for a more ambitious weapons ban.

Bush's position "cuts against the NRA's position, and it will put the president -- for one of the first times since he signed the campaign finance reform bill -- at odds with his own political base," said Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"He's built up enough positive political capital in other areas that it won't be fatal," but the issue could hurt Bush in Middle America states that have strong gun-rights sentiments and are considered crucial to his re-election in 2004, Franc said.

When Bush was campaigning for president in 2000, a top NRA official boasted that the group's relationship with Bush was so "unbelievably friendly" that the NRA could practically claim a seat at the White House.

The NRA has been a major donor to Bush, and the gun lobby and the Bush administration have been in lock step on most major gun issues, including an ongoing drive to limit lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

The Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft has been a particularly close ally of the gun lobby, pushing an expanded view of gun rights under the Second Amendment and initiating law enforcement changes sought by the NRA.

But White House officials said the assault weapons ban is one case where the president and the NRA do not see eye to eye.

"There are times when we agree, and there are times when we disagree," said Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman. "The president makes decisions based on what he believes is the right policy for Americans." McClellan added that the ban was implemented as a way to deter crime and that Bush "felt it was reasonable."

The White House position has heartened gun-control advocates. Matt Bennett, a spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety, which supports an extension of the ban, said: "I think Bush realizes that, number one, this is the right thing to do, number two, he promised to do this in the 2000 campaign, and number three, he knows that it's good politics and this is an extremely popular measure."

The NRA has maintained a polite civility toward the White House over the issue, even though it insists that the ban is a violation of the Second Amendment that deprives hunters and sporting enthusiasts of many high-powered rifles.

Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said the NRA's focus will be on persuading members of Congress to vote against an extension of the ban so that it never reaches Bush's desk.

"Do we agree with the administration's position on this? No, we don't, but the real fight is going to be not at that level, but in Congress," he said.

A bill will be introduced in the Senate today by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., that would extend the ban for another 10 years. House Democrats expect to introduce next week a toughened version of the bill -- rejected by Senate Democrats as too politically risky -- that would significantly expand the class of banned weapons.

Feinstein will oppose Bush nominee to 9th Circuit Court of Appeal Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she will oppose President Bush's nominee to a key federal appellate court Thursday when the Senate Judiciary Committee votes on her nomination. Feinstein, who is expected to cast a decisive vote, had not taken a stance on the nomination of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl until late Wednesday afternoon. Her decision makes it more likely that Democrats on the committee would unite against Kuhl.

9th Circuit: No Right to Bear Arms U.S. Court in Calif. Stands by Gun Ruling

A majority of the active judges on the 9th Circuit must vote to rehear a case for it to be considered "en ban," or by the entire court. In this case, a majority of the 28-seat court refused that hearing while five dissented.

The five judges said the three-member panel's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was flawed. In one blistering dissent, Judge Alex Kozinski said his colleagues had refused to consider the matter because they were simply "none too keen" on a constitutional guarantee to bear arms.

Kozinski said the majority of the court had reached their decision by ignoring U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

"The majority falls prey to the delusion -- popular in some circles -- that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll," he said.

The famously liberal 9th Circuit infuriated Americans last year by declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, a ruling that is also headed for the Supreme Court for review.

Project FREEDOM: Official Web Site of US Rep. Ron Paul

Assault Weapons and Assaults on the Constitution

The Bush administration recently surprised and angered many pro-gun conservatives by announcing its support for an assault weapons ban passed in 1994. The law contained a ten-year sunset provision, and is set to expire in 2004 unless reauthorized by Congress. A spokesman for the administration stated flatly that the President "supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law."

Perhaps this should have surprised no one. President Bush already stated his support for the ban during the 2000 campaign. The irony is that he did so even as the Democratic Party was abandoning gun control as a losing issue. In fact, many attribute Gore’s loss to his lack of support among gun owners. The events of September 11^thalso dealt a serious blow to the gun control movement, as millions of Americans realized they could not rely on government to protect them against terrorism. Gun sales have predictably increased.

Given this trend in the American electorate away from support for gun control, the administration’s position may well cost votes in 2004. The mistaken political premise is that while Republicans generally support gun rights, so-called "assault weapons" are different and must be controlled. The administration clearly believes that moderate voters from both parties support the ban. "Who could possibly need such weapons?" is the standard question posed by gun control advocates.

Few people asking that question, however, know much about the banned weapons or the Second amendment itself. The law in question bans many very ordinary types of rifles and ammunition, while limiting magazine capacity for both rifles and pistols that are still legal. Many of the vilified "assault rifles" outlawed by the ban are in fact sporting rifles that are no longer available to hunters and outdoorsmen. Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer.

More importantly, however, the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It’s convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying "That could never happen here, this is America"- but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now.

Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals. Georgetown University professor Robert Levy recently offered this simple explanation:

"Suppose the Second amendment said ‘A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.’ Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?"

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.