Posted on 08/01/2004 7:48:27 AM PDT by Stew Padasso
Democrats may use assault weapons ban against Bush, GOP
BY FRANK JAMES
Chicago Tribune
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - When former President Bill Clinton sought to frame differences between Democrats and Republicans in his prime-time convention speech Monday, he made a point of citing the soon-to-expire federal ban on semiautomatic assault weapons.
"Our policy was to put more police on the street and to take assault weapons off the street - and it gave you eight years of declining crime and eight years of declining violence," Clinton said to Democratic cheers. "Their policy is the reverse."
The ex-president's charges demonstrated how some Democrats hope to use the assault weapons issue against President Bush and members of Congress in the campaign.
Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry supports extending the ban, which is due to expire Sept. 13 unless Congress renews it. Such an extension appears to have public support. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in November found that 78 percent of respondents favored keeping the ban.
But while many Democrats would like to cast the issue in good-versus-evil terms, it's more complicated than it appears to be, like many matters of public policy.
For one thing, Bush also has expressed support for extending the assault weapons ban since at least the 2000 campaign, putting him on the same side as his Democratic foes, at least rhetorically. Still, critics say Bush is doing nothing to promote an extension of the ban, enabling him to reap the political benefits of his position without upsetting his gun-rights allies.
"The president supports extending the ban but believes fundamentally that we should be supporting the gun laws that are on the books," said Terry Holt, a Bush campaign spokesman. To that end, the president has budgeted money for additional prosecutors to crack down on gun violators, Holt said.
One aspect of the assault weapons ban troubles pro-gun and gun-control advocates alike: The law, they say, defines prohibited weapons based on superficial, cosmetic characteristics such as collapsible stocks - not on the actual capabilities of the weapons.
That has led to one weapon being considered legal while another, with the same power and accuracy, falls into the illegal category because it has a feature such as a bayonet mount or pistol grip.
"Gun owners were like, `That's ridiculous,'" said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "It's like taking a parking lot that's full of cars, all with the same engine under the hood, and saying, `We're going to ban the cars that have more than one hood ornament on them.' I mean, the engines are all the same."
LaPierre added: "It's done nothing to reduce crime. It was all bogus cosmetics to begin with."
Some gun-control advocates agree with the NRA that the law has been essentially feckless, and they join the pro-gun-rights group in opposing extension of the ban, although for different reasons.
"Our position on the current law is that it has been ineffective because the industry immediately found ways around the ban," said Kristin Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center, a Washington-based gun-control advocacy group.
"We don't support a simple renewal of the ban, because what has happened in the assault-weapon marketplace is that virtually every gun banned in the '94 law has come back in the market in so-called post-ban configuration," she said.
Manufacturers removed the military-style features listed by the ban to make their weapons legal. Instead of a renewal, her group wants a major expansion of the law.
The gun issue has burned Democrats in the recent past, and many in the party believe it contributed to their loss of control of the House in 1994 and to former Vice President Al Gore's defeat on traditionally Democratic turf such as West Virginia in the 2000 presidential race.
That has led Democrats to tread especially carefully on gun control this year. While Kerry and the Democratic Party's platform favor an extension of the assault-weapons ban, neither is calling for a wider ban.
In an effort to underscore the point that their candidate is not anti-gun, the Kerry campaign has publicized his ownership of guns, and he has been photographed while skeet shooting. His campaign ads also have used archival footage of him toting an M-16 in as a young naval officer in a Vietnam jungle.
Yet important groups, including police officers and suburban voters, support limited gun control. The Democrats' strategy of de-emphasizing gun control while supporting the assault weapons ban may be an attempt to signal that the party does not want to seize the guns of law-abiding owners but favors limited restrictions.
The law covers certain semiautomatic weapons that resemble military models. Semiautomatics require a shooter to pull the trigger each time he or she wants to fire a round.
They are distinct from the weapons that combat soldiers use, such as M-16s and Kalashnikovs, that can operate as machine guns, allowing a shooter to spray large volumes of bullets at targets with just one trigger pull. Machine guns were largely banned from sale or private ownership by a 1934 law and later legislation.
Clinton signed the assault weapons ban into law as part of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. It met such resistance at the time that the only way sponsors could garner enough votes was to agree to a provision that would let the law die, or "sunset," after 10 years.
With less than 10 legislative days left before Congress' scheduled end and with little desire in the Republican-led House to extend the ban, chances for the law's survival are slim to none.
The resistance is partly due to some lawmakers' belief in the Second Amendment right to bear arms and partly to fear of the political power of the NRA and its gun-owner members.
"We're watching it, we're working it, we're committed to see it sunset," said LaPierre of the ban.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., expressed frustration at how little attention the issue is getting.
"I've basically seeing even with my own (Democratic) leadership where they want to keep this quiet," McCarthy said in an interview. "They're petrified of the gun issue. Many members on both sides of the aisle are petrified of the gun issue. If this didn't come up, it would be OK with them."
Still, McCarthy said she hopes the ban may yet be saved because she believes it has helped save lives.
"It's my job to get the American people to realize that the assault weapons ban is expiring and they need to start rallying around it," she said.
McCarthy, who spoke on behalf of the ban at the Democratic convention, was elected to Congress in 1996, three years after her husband was killed and her son wounded by a gunman on a New York commuter train.
Some Democrats, including McCarthy, accuse Bush of claiming to support the ban but doing little to urge Congress to renew it.
"We all know that when he makes a phone call, whatever he wants done gets through the House," McCarthy said. "I want to make sure this gets through. He has to feel the pressure."
I hope that they do. Then we will see how far that gets the lying Rat party.
It cost them the election last time.
"The president supports extending the ban but believes fundamentally that we should be supporting the gun laws that are on the books," said Terry Holt, a Bush campaign spokesman.
Should he sign an extension, it will cost Bush the election this time.
And, HOW many crimes are committed with assault weapons each year? The last 12 years? Can they even define what an assault weapon is?
Assault is an action, not a device.
Bush said he'll sign it IF IT REACHES HIS DESK...he didn't say he was going to move heaven and earth to get it there. Brillian political divide-and-conquer strategy by Dubya.
Political games instead of a principled argument. It is the way DC works.
Ugh! You define what the makes the law. Anything produced after the fact that does not have componants that make it illegal, is therefore LEGAL & is not "going around" the law/ban.
Cars cannot have slick tires....that's illegal. My car has street legal Bridgestones...have I found a way around the ban?
God forbid that politicians should engage in politics.
Others believe the ornaments make the weapon.
Frankly, folks with that sort of attitude should be prohibited from owning or possessing any sort of gun.
We could do a universal survey. Go door to door and find out what the folks behind the doors believe, then make a "banned owners list" to be published everywhere so that no one accidentally sells or gives them a gun.
Not an issue this time around.
We are at war
Especially when dealing with something as basic as self defense (2A). It should be a free-for-all, right?
"We are at war"
No kidding? Well lets just forget about the last line of defense then.
Bring it on!
Just saying it simply is not one of the major issues in this election. No real reason to spend any energy one way or another on it.
Heck, we are going against 2 Senators who voted against providing weapons to troops they sent to Afganistan in Iraq! These two have fundamental moral problems.
"We don't support a simple renewal of the ban, because what has happened in the assault-weapon marketplace is that virtually every gun banned in the '94 law has come back in the market in so-called post-ban configuration," she said.
Manufacturers removed the military-style features listed by the ban to make their weapons legal. Instead of a renewal, her group wants a major expansion of the law.
This statement is proof that they don't want to ban military style weapons, because military style weapons as they defined them continue to be illegal. They want to ban ALL weapons.
If only Carolyn McCarthy, the self professed devout Catholic, had voted for the ban on partial birth abortion, she might have some credibility.
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.
