BANG!
If the 'rats tack on an AWB extension, the 'rats plus enough RINOs pass it, and Bush signs it, he's finished. He will lose his reelection just like his daddy.
Posted on 02/23/2004 9:54:05 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 — Backers of a bipartisan bill that would shield firearms dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits are pushing for a vote this week in the Senate, injecting the volatile issue of gun control into this year's presidential and Congressional elections.
The bill, which would grant legal immunity to gun makers and dealers so long as they did not sell defective weapons or violate any law, has the support of the White House and 55 sponsors in the Senate, including the Democratic and Republican leaders. It has already passed the House and could come up for consideration in the Senate as early as Wednesday.
"The American people are on the side of what we're doing," said Senator Larry E. Craig, Republican of Idaho, the bill's chief sponsor. He said he had the 60 votes needed for passage, adding, "When the dust settles in the Senate, you will have a substantial number of Democrats voting for this."
But the dust may take time to settle, because other senators are pushing to tack two other gun-related measures onto the bill — a move that could complicate its chances for passage. Some opponents, meanwhile, led by Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, are vowing a filibuster.
"Things are very fluid," said Tony Orza, chief lobbyist for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, an advocacy group. "We're looking to a fierce fight."
The two other gun measures also have bipartisan backing, and President Bush favors both. But their fate in the Senate is unclear. The first, sponsored by Senators Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, would renew the assault weapons ban, a 1994 law that bans 19 types of semiautomatic weapons, for another 10 years.
The second, backed by Senator Reed and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, would close the so-called gun-show loophole by requiring unlicensed gun dealers to conduct instant background checks on customers at gun shows.
Attaching those measures to the immunity bill would create a kind of legislative Catch-22: Will backers of the weapons ban and gun-show checks vote for immunity to get the other two measures passed? Will immunity backers vote for the bill if it includes the other two measures?
"It's a tricky situation," Senator Feinstein said. Of the immunity bill, she said, "I'd really like to just oppose it."
Among those in an especially tricky spot is Senator Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader. He is facing a tough re-election campaign in South Dakota, a rural state where his constituents strongly favor gun owners' rights. He has come out strongly in favor of immunity.
But some of Mr. Daschle's fellow Democrats, including Mrs. Feinstein, have been pressing him to support extending the assault weapons ban and closing the gun-show loophole. On Monday, after days of insisting through a spokesman that he was undecided, Mr. Daschle issued a statement saying that he would support both the ban and the background checks at gun shows.
Since 1998, 33 municipalities and one state, New York, have filed suits against gun makers accusing them of being responsible for criminal shootings. So far, the plaintiffs have not won any cases. But the manufacturers say they need legal immunity because even one large jury award could put them out of business.
Opponents of immunity, including mayors and city police chiefs, say the threat of legal action forces manufacturers to make guns safer. They say the bill would result in the dismissal of valid civil suits, including one by families of the victims of the sniper attacks in the Washington area.
"The only reason gun manufacturers are attempting to make guns safer or develop systems like childproof locks is in response to the significant liability issue," said William J. Bratton, the Los Angeles police chief. "They're not doing it out of the goodness of their heart."
Yet even some opponents of the measure say it is likely to pass.
"Immunity is moving," said one advocate of gun control, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to appear to be publicly conceding defeat. "We would love to see it go down, but we're pragmatists."
The debate will inevitably put a spotlight on gun control in the presidential race. Unlike Mr. Bush, the two leading Democratic contenders, Senators John Edwards and John Kerry, oppose immunity. But the three appear to agree on the other issues.
A spokeswoman for the White House, Claire Buchan, said the president favored a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban, and supported "changing federal law to give gun show sponsors special access" to a computer database to conduct background checks. That puts Mr. Bush at odds with some of his fellow Republicans, including Mr. Craig, and the National Rifle Association.
The issue also puts Democrats in a tough spot. Their liberal base tends to support tight restrictions on gun ownership. But surveys show that a majority of union members, also a core Democratic constituency, are also gun owners.
Many Democrats have not forgotten that 1994, the year the assault weapons ban passed, was also the year they lost control of the House of Representatives. Tom Foley of Washington, then the speaker of the House, lost his race that year after the National Rifle Association ran an advertising campaign against him.
"There are Democrats all over America cringing because they don't want to go down that path again," said Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the rifle association. "They know it's a political dead end."
This year, some Democrats, including Senators Kerry and Edwards, are adopting what Americans for Gun Safety, a gun control advocacy group, is calling a "rights and responsibilities" strategy. Mr. Kerry has made a point of telling reporters that he has been a hunter since he was 12. Mr. Edwards emphasizes his upbringing in the rural South.
Is he related to the Author of "Ten Days that Shook the World".
If the 'rats tack on an AWB extension, the 'rats plus enough RINOs pass it, and Bush signs it, he's finished. He will lose his reelection just like his daddy.
I don't think so. Bush will still be recognized and touted as the "lesser of two evils" and all the people he screwed will still vote for him because they don't want to "throw their votes away" or "elect a Democrat". It's a winning situation for the Democrats to vote for protecting gun manufacturers if they can get an AWB extension since they lose nothing (the Courts are going to put a stop to it anyway) and they get their gun control law passed again with the (usual) help of the Republicans. It's also a winner for the Republicans since they can brag about protecting gun manufacturers. Similar situation to the '86 machine gun ban Reagan signed.
If September 11, 2001 didn't happen, I would definitely agree. Since it did, his prospects are better. I'm resolved to holding my nose one more time and voting for the pubbie only because the rat must be thwarted this time.
Any donations go to folks who believe in the Constitution.
LOL
More than a few states were decided by "chump change".
IIRC, Nader effected the electoral college results in New Hampshire and Florida against Gore, and in a similar manner the votes for Buchanan took electoral college votes away from Bush in four states including New Mexico.
I suspect you're right. We need to make it clear now what the consequences of those actions will be. If we adopt a "wait and see" attitude, it will soon be too late.
Remember when everyone counted on SCOTUS to kill Campaign Finance Reform? Exactly why would you rely on the courts to do anything in our favor?
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.