Bush Supports New Extension Of Assault-Weapons Ban

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 4-12-03 | Shannon McCaffrey

[Unwavering Conservative]

Bush Supports New Extension of Assault-Weapons Ban

By Shannon McCaffrey Knight Ridder News Service

    WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is bucking the National Rifle Association and supporting a renewal of the assault-weapons ban, set to expire just before the presidential election.

    "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder.

    Tossing out the ban on semiautomatic weapons is a top priority for the NRA. President Bush said during his presidential campaign that he supported the current ban, but it was less clear whether he would support an extension.

    The White House comment comes just before the NRA's annual convention and as the gun debate overall shows signs of fresh life after several years of near hibernation. Republicans now control the House and the Senate and are using their newfound power to breathe life into the stalled pro-gun rights agenda. This week, they pushed through a bill in the House to give gun makers and dealers sweeping immunity from lawsuits.

    The assault-weapons ban is considered a crown jewel by the gun-control movement, and even though its expiration is more than a year away it is already being watched closely.

    The White House comment surprised those on both sides of the gun issue.

    "That's lousy politics," said Grover Norquist, an NRA board member who leads the conservative pro-Bush group Americans for Tax Reform.

    Joe Sudbay of the Violence Policy Center said it "creates a huge problem for Bush with the NRA."

    "The NRA said they would be working out of the Oval Office when Bush was elected. This creates an interesting situation for them," he said.

    Matt Bennett of Americans for Gun Safety applauded Bush's stance but urged the president to use his political clout to push for Congress to act. If Congress does nothing, the ban could just expire.

    Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, said Bush's support was somewhat irrelevant.

    "Ultimately, I think this issue is going to be decided by the Congress," LaPierre said.

    If it is, the NRA has reason to be optimistic.

    This week's action on the immunity legislation for dealers and gun makers reflects the interest of Republicans to resurrect the pro-gun rights agenda.

    Congress had been poised to act on the bill last fall, but the deadly sniper attacks in the Washington area prompted a delay. The measure has enough co-sponsors in the Senate to pass that chamber unless Democrats dig in their heels and filibuster.

    Supporters of the immunity bill say it shields gun makers from bankruptcy because of frivolous lawsuits that became popular during the Clinton administration.

Lawsuits filed by cities against gun manufacturers -- modeled on similar litigation against the tobacco industry -- have so far been unsuccessful but have kept gun makers tied up in court.

    The active gun debate stands in contrast to several years of inaction.

    Democrats largely abandoned the gun issue in the 2002 midterm election after some determined that it had been an albatross for Democratic presidential hopeful Al Gore in 2000.

    Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., elected to Congress on a gun-control platform after her husband was killed and her son wounded by a deranged gunman on a Long Island commuter train in 1993, acknowledged that some Democrats are nervous about the gun issue nowadays.

    "But it's coming back. I think you're going to see it popping up a lot this session with the Republicans in control," she said

[Shooter 2.5]

I'm going to make sure that every politician in my area knows this Bill has to die an early death.

[CyberCowboy777]

but even if it scared the Republicans - next time both parties might think about what they are doing.,p> Did that work in '92, '96 and '00?

We sent a "signal" in both '92 and '96 and still this issue is alive - guess they did not get the message?

Lets stop going to the same failed game plan and give birth to a real strategy.

[CyberCowboy777]

Painful lessons are not soon forgotten.

And yet they forgot the lesson from '92 and '96.

This ain't working - time for a new plan.

[MatthewViti]

does the term "backbone" mean anything to you?

[ATCNavyRetiree]

Oh right--and I guess you will vote for his opponent hoping that he will support assault weapons??? Talk about frying pan into the fire....

[TLI]

"I think that Bush is playing this one on both sides, saying that he would sign it IF it came across his desk knowing full well that there is little chance of that."

That is my first impression as well, why would he express an opinion that controversial at a time of such high spirits for him and his administration?   I think it is a warning for those who are quick and concerned enough to catch it.  It is his way of saying this issue needs to be focused on and lobbied HARD to insure that he has no opportunity to sign such an extention. 

Also, my instinct sez a good Texas Conservative from Midland / Odessa ain't about to support such a load of hot air, but the Dem's are gonna try to make hay with it.

We gotta make it rain on the Dem's hay!

BAY BAY AWB!

[B Knotts]

Apparently he does not understand the role NRA members had in getting him elected.

I have been a supporter of him, but if Congress passes an extension, and he signs it, well...he can try and find others to support him.

This is a BIG issue for a lot of us, and if he abandons us on it, he can count us out.

[nanny]

We sent a "signal" in both '92 and '96 and still this issue is alive - guess they did not get the message?

What message would that have been? That Ross Perot was a nutcase and when it became apparent he could win, it scared him witless. That brought on the 'George Bush is going to disrupt my daughter's wedding' garbage. If he had stayed in, he would have won.

Now there was also the message that George, Sr. did not want to win the election. It was the most lackluster campaign I have ever seen - until the next one when we run 'Embalmed Bob'. Who are they kidding?

Lets stop going to the same failed game plan and give birth to a real strategy.

And that strategy would be???

Keep on voting Republican so they can give away the country? Use taxpayer's money, calling it foreign aid, to grease the palms so contributors can move jobs overseas? Leave the border open so other contributors can make out like bandits with illegal alien workers while using taxpayers to subsidize those workers? Spend a lot of time and money trying to make Muslims 'love' us? Pass another boondoggle of an ag bill so big agribusiness (who also employ many illegals) can get even more of the taxpayer's money? Allow Mexico in particular, but other countries also, to erode our sovereignty and make demands on our taxpayers for their criminals? Sink down in the mire and play racial politics to get what 'our man' wants? Geesh, all those sound so good to me.

Or would it be go out and get all those 'groups' of people to come into the Republican party so they can then demand laws for their special interests? Not go out and get Americans who want the best for America - but we need to go out and bring in the __________ (fill in the blank) vote. Now that one sounds even better, right?

Of course, we can always vote Republican so that we can sit back and be so happy that our 'side' won the game and we are the winners?? And spend an inordinate amount of time trying to justify and make excuses for every destructive thing 'our man' does? Because after all, we are being destroyed by 'our man' = not like one of those dastardly democrats.

[rastus macgill]

No the statist shoe fits

[nanny]

I wholeheartedly agree! While in the past giving up the White House on "principal" might have been seen as noble, doing so know with our national security at stake is way too risky. The thought of Hillary or Kerry or Edwards or Gore being President is way too horrific

1. Yes, they wouldn't do a thing to maintain the border - or clean this country of illegals,
2. Or let the INS deport known ME illegals
3. They might even spend a lot of money on an advertising exec to learn how to make the Muslim love us,
4. Might chastize the Christians in a purely religious debate - taking the side of the Muslims,
5. They might preach tolerance until we are sick of it,
6. They might then threaten us with prosecution if we are not 'tolerant' enough,
7. They might send their Sec of State to a Muslim meeting to tell them the Christians are bigots,
8. They might even allow more and more ME men into this country for flying lessons
9. They might just make all the airport screeners federal employees and wait a year to check them out (giving the possible miscreants plenty of time to flee?),
10. Arrest private citizens attempting to patrol the border against illegals, terrorists, drug smugglers (of course, doing nothing against the lawbreakers,
11. Might allow someone on the terrorist watch list into the WH with a group so it won't 'embarrass' the others ----
12. Continue to play nice with the leader of Mexico even though they are draining this country and refused to back us in the war
13. Ditto for China
14. They might push amnesty for the millions of illegals now in the country
15. They might spend an enormous amount of time and money 'rearranging' all the law enforcement agencies under one man, who so far, has managed to come up with a really colorful warning system
16. Not exactly security issue, but they might even stoop to racial politics to get rid of a majority leader they didn't like or get a judge nominated they did like

and then again maybe they wouldn't!!

[CyberCowboy777]

Vote for whom you think will do the best job, with compromise or not. I really do not care.

But do not kid me with all the "will teach them a lesson" crap.

You will notice that I have said nothing to those who say they will vote their beliefs. But I will kick all who plays that stupid childish "will show them" attitude.

EVERYONE knew what Bush was - those who vote beliefs voted and will vote for him or did not and will not.

All else is posturing.

[carenot]

EVERYONE knew what Bush was - those who vote beliefs voted and will vote for him or did not and will not.

I did not because I knew him and I will not again.

[CyberCowboy777]

That is my point

[CyberCowboy777]

You are a principled voter and I take no issue with those like you.

I do take issue with those that fain surprise and use it as an occasion to release hot air and posture.

[Unwavering Conservative]

I always feared Dubya would be a President that would severely cut into the Bill Of Rights.

It looks like that fear was based in sound logic.

[Kenno]

I have to say, though, that this is one issue where POC's like myself side with the paleos. This may not get through Congress, but whether it does depends on the Democrats. They might vote in bloc to put the President in the hot seat. Would you want to bet the Constitution on their not finding a sufficient number of RINO's? My understanding is that Snowe and Collins are surprisingly good on the 2nd Amendment, but Voinovich and DeWine have horrible records on it. There are a few Democrats who would probably vote for gun rights, but overall it's a pretty close call. And it doesn't help to have the President on the wrong side; look how many Republican Congressmen fell back on the "Ronald Reagan supports it" excuse back when the original bill was passed.

[jammer]

I would be happier with one of them. Conservatives do better with an enemy they know--especially in Congress. Many things no longer work--appeals to the UN, "coalition" building, anti-war street protests, Hollywood protests. The argument that "he is better than [blank]" won't work any more either.

[jammer]

Good question: Why? In my dictionary, advocating a position you disagree with in order to get a return (reelection) is worse than being a whore. At least whores are up front about it.

[jammer]

If the ban is renewed, I will vote for Al Sharpton. Bush has to compromise. I don't.