Posted on 04/12/2003 12:34:04 PM PDT by 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
Oh, happy days!
This is a good way to lose tough states like Michigan, Ohio, Penn, New Hampshire, Tennesee, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Florida, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico.
It's time to Freep Bush into backing down on this. Any extension of the gun grab will be unacceptable and will be treated accordingly.
No, what I see is WEASELING.
Assumption is the mother of all f'ups.
RINOs, as George I was, in concert with a liberal Congress, are much more dangerous than up-front liberals.
But it doesn't really matter. As I said above, this sort of crap will make the whiners of "he's better than [blank]" irrelevant.
However, STAYING HOME is the WORST DECISION possible.
Whatever happens, PLEASE go to the polls and vote. If you must, leave the president spot blank or vote for someone besides W, but please do not punish the rest of the candidates there who ARE pro-2a, and had nothing to do with this.
The Congress, Senate, State Rep, State Senate, and County and local seats are just as important as the other seats and is the basis of the farm club. If we do not have a solid farm club, we will NOT have a pool of talent to choose from.
This forces wavering Republicans to toe the party line. There are some Congressmen who might be tempted to cast a meaningless vote for the AW ban, thinking that Bush would be highly likely to veto it. The Congressman picks up votes from the soccer moms, but loses little ground with his true blue gun owner constituency, since the law sunsets and everything is fine.
Bush says to them "Oh yes I'll go ahead and sign it." Now the Congresspukes know that this is a major gun-rights vote and that they can expect us gun owners to be plenty riled up if they don't vote it down.
Bush is saying, in effect, I need those soccer mom votes more than you guys do. Individual Congressional races are less important than a Presidential election. Bush does not want to have to run next year on an AW-ban veto even though he does not approve of it, I am sure.
The Republican congressmen need to take a hit for the team, although it isn;t even that much of a hit. They can even benefit from this as it will help energize their base. Bush on the other hand has nothing to gain by having this bill come to his desk.
-ccm
I'm involved in politics myself. I know exactly how the game is played. It's Klintonian as well. It's the same game he did with McStain/Feingold and it can EASILY backfire. It's also called taking a democrat issue away from the dem opponent in case another Columbine happens.
In his Klintonian stance to try and 'moderate' himself, this statement is going out to gun activists all across the country, and including swing states.
Bush does not want to have to run next year on an AW-ban veto even though he does not approve of it, I am sure.
Well, he also doesn't want to be shown out to be for freedom control either after the gunowners went to bat for him. There are a LOT more gun owners that vote single issue than gun grabbers. If he wants the soccer mom vote, go on education issues where Bush is more liberal.
If I was in his position, I would not want a shadow of a doubt on two issues. Guns and Abortion. Republicans can not win nationwide with Right to Life and Gun Rights Groups covering their flanks. Besides the money, those are the activists. Those are the people that are the ground troops.
And with states with high union and high gun populations that overlap, any doubt can swing independent union voters to the dems.
Bush should have either kept his trap shut here, or said no deals.
Repeating certain words over and over makes them true, dont'cha know.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
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.