My understanding of this issue is that the law was watered down so that it didn't actually ban anything other than a dozen or so specific weapons which were then slightly redesigned and renamed to go around the ban. The whole thing was just poltical theatre by the Clintons to make soccer moms and their hubbys feel safer.
My point here is that you can't always take the voting positions of Pubs at face value because sometimes they need to vote against their real views on a subject and then work behind the scenes to water down the law they voted for as political theatre. Washington is a crazy place, ain't it? I think now Allen sees enough opposition to the "assault" weapons ban that he knows he won't get destroyed politically by the MSM for opposing the ban. Please keep in mind how difficult it is for Republican political leaders when 95% of the big corporate media is attacking them relentlessly day and night. It's very tough for Republicans to win reelection consistently for the Senate except in thoroughly conservative states like Utah, Wyoming, Alaska, and some of the southern states.
You're cutting him way too much slack.
The next leader of the Republican coalition, which is what the 2008 nominee will most certainly be, has to be clear about what he believes.
And he has to be someone who doesn't just pay lip service to conservatism.
All the wonderful words in the world mean nothing if they won't put action behind them.