Posted on 11/25/2003 2:11:18 PM PST by Dan from Michigan
Support Mounting for Stronger Assault-Weapons Ban
11/20/2003
Feature Story
by Dick Dahl
On Nov. 6, Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry attacked rival Howard Dean on the Vermont governor's questionable history on gun control. Specifically, Kerry claimed that Dean's current position in support of continuing the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban stands at odds with positions he'd taken in opposition to the ban (as well as the Brady Law waiting period for gun purchasers) while he was a governor receiving top marks from the National Rifle Association.
Suddenly, the silence surrounding the issue of gun control in the Democratic presidential primary had ended -- and the ongoing effort to ban assault weapons enjoyed a jolt of attention, which backers of the ban think can only be a good thing. "I think that what these candidates are doing is elevating the issue," said Joe Sudbay, public policy director for the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C., "and that's exactly what we need."
The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban is scheduled to sunset next September. Without new legislation to extend that law -- or replace it with the stronger law that many people believe is needed -- gun makers will once again be free to sell a fearsome array of semi-automatic weaponry whose only purpose is to terrorize. Not that such guns aren't being sold now, as the Bushmaster XM15 that was used to strike fear in metropolitan Washington, D.C. last fall makes evident. The Bushmaster XM15 is a legal gun that was adopted in cosmetic ways to get around the law.
To critics of the ban, the Bushmaster provides a perfect example of why the law needs to be strengthened through enactment of the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003." That law, sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Reps. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and John Conyers (D-MI) would simply tighten up the definition of "assault weapon" and eliminate the many loopholes that weaken the current law.
A competing bill, sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Charles Schumer (D-NY), would continue the flawed law on the apparent premise that a weak law is better than no law. But plenty of organizations have stepped forward to say that they'd rather work for a stronger law.
Bryan Miller, director of CeaseFire PA, a Philadelphia coalition of organizations that are concerned about gun violence, recently attended a national meeting sponsored by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence United With the Million Mom March and co-hosted by States United to Protect Gun Violence, and he came away struck by a sense of unity on the issue. "The state groups are unanimously, strongly supporting the Lautenberg and McCarthy-Conyers bills," he said. "We're all united behind the strong legislation because we're not satisfied with the way the current law has failed to do what it was intended to do."
In the wake of the 1994 law, many manufacturers turned to their stock of now banned weapons, made minor changes to satisfy the law, and then openly marketed these guns as "post-ban" firearms. The current law prohibits the manufacture of semiautomatic firearms with detachable magazines if they contain any two of five defined assault-weapon characteristics: a folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet lug, a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher.
In the case of the Bushmaster XM15, the gun qualified as a legal, detachable-magazine firearm because it includes only one feature from the list, a pistol grip. And even though the stock looks like it telescopes, it is rigid, suggesting that the manufacturer sought the look of an illegal assault weapon.
To Miller, this kind of cynical behavior by the gun industry is especially painful because his younger brother, an FBI agent, was killed in 1994 by a man using a gun called a Cobray MAC-10 that would be banned. "The company stopped making it when the ban came into place," Miller said. "They changed it cosmetically, brought it out again as the MAC 11, and they advertised it as, `The MAC is back.'"
In seeking to run out the clock and revert to the days when a gun maker could make an assault weapon without any governmental interference, the gun lobby has an interest in keeping the issue as quiet as possible. But at a time when politicians like to talk about their support of "gun rights," support of "assault weapons" is something they wouldn't so easily embrace. This is why Sudbay and others believe that "elevating the issue" makes the prospect of a sunset less likely, the prospect of a toughened ban greater.
Lending support to the idea that the ban should be strengthened was a recent poll by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), which found that people favored the stronger ban more than continuation of the existing ban. The survey, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation International in early September, found that 62 percent of the more than 1,000 Americans surveyed said that they favored renewing the ban, including 47 percent who said they "strongly" favor renewal. The survey also found that 63 percent favored strengthening the ban by preventing the gun industry from manufacturing commercial models of military-style assault weapons.
Susan Peschin, CFA's Firearms Project director and author of a report based on the survey, said that one of the most surprising outcomes to her was the strong support for the ban from gun owners. "We found not only that a majority of gun owners support renewing the ban, but support measures to strengthen the ban," she said. "Also, we were pleasantly surprised to see that almost three-quarters of those who were polled supported President Bush encouraging Congress to renew the ban."
Bush has stated that he supports continuation of the ban, but he's said little else about it. His position, though apparently not steadfast, has thus raised questions of the degree to which his position may be straining his support from the National Rifle Association. Peschin, for one, believes that what's going on with Bush and the NRA on assault weapons is "a political maneuver." "I think there's an unstated agreement between the two that the NRA will fight hard to make sure that Congress never brings this up for a vote so that Bush never has to deal with signing it. So he gets the political capital from shrugging his shoulders and saying, `Well, I said I'd support it. Too bad it didn't come to my desk.'"
Gun-violence-prevention activists, meanwhile, are optimistic that they'll soon see the day when a bill -- preferably a strong bill -- makes it to the President's desk.
"Many of us actually feel very good about the direction things are going on assault weapons," said Miller. "We're acquiring more sponsors in both houses." (On Nov. 17, the McCarthy-Conyers bill in the House had 106 co-sponsors and the Lautenberg bill in the Senate had six.) "The interest, or buzz, in Washington is around the McCarthy-Conyers and Lautenberg bills; not the other bill. We're very happy that more and more grassroots activists are getting involved in this. So we actually feel like we're acquiring some very positive momentum. We know it's a very hard road, but there's really a lot of enthusiasm out there."
Sudbay sees the same thing happening. "I think there's much more grassroots activity at the state level on this than anything I've seen in years."
I seem to recall none other than der Arkanfuhrer hisself blaming the NRA for the Democrats' woes back in 2000. The gun issue was certainly in play - particularly in states such as Tennessee (Gore's "home") and West Virginia (heavily union-aligned voting history). Both of those states should've been easy for Gore to pick up - but for the pro-gun voters.
Merry Turkey Day Risk ! Be thankful for what we still have......for now !
Stay Safe !
DING! DING! DING!
You're the winner. This is exactly what will happen. I spoke to Arlen Specter last Saturday at a Town Hall type meeting. In answer to a previous question he said that he was against a renewal or extension of the ban and would vote against it.
I pinned him down a bit more. I reminded him that the first ban was part of a larger package that was deemed to be urgent and asked if this came up as part of a package that 'had' to pass, would he sign it on to it? HE SAID YES. I then said, "...more important than the rights that you just acknowledged that we had...". AGAIN HE SAID YES! Fighting terrorism is more important.
So, all of you who think this doesn't have a chance, THINK AGAIN.
He made some more damning statements, but he made it clear to me how they intend to get this passed.
Once again highlighting the difference between a spell checker and a editor/proofreader.
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.