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
Or the libertarians use "statist"?
*Yawn*
Will you? Because as far as I'm concerned that's what you can have if the republican controlled house, senate and president sign another assault weapons ban.
Yep!!
Now I still say what this country needs is a strong third party - it would keep the politicians on their toes. Yes, we might have a democrat next time ( I doubt it), but even if it scared the Republicans - next time both parties might think about what they are doing. We did once have a third party - it was the independent-minded voters. They considered themselves as one politic bent or the other but voted their conscience. We had what was called "Yellow Dog Democrats" who would only vote for democrats - but many democrats voted for Republicans for President and vice versa. The politicians have successfully gotten voters to line up behind them like Friday night football teams and many refuse to give a thought to actually exercising their vote.
Yes President Bush has apparently effectively waged a war against Iraq and the Al-Queda - but I have been very concerned about his effectiveness (whether by design or not) on the domestic front.
Perhaps if we had a democrat in the WH - at least our Republican lawmakers would be willing to stand up and fight a little for what they know is right.
I've seen this 'sad' opinon before. WHY? - IMO, it isn't true at all.
If the GOP fielded a true constitutional conservative, he would win hands down. -- They won't, cause the GOP is controled by Rino's.
I think he needs to play these games a bit more cautiously - he could simply have said: I have no opinion on this law. That would have been more prudent than saying he supported it.
This type of political 'prudence' is destroying our free republic.
third thing: I really doubt the GOP congress will renew this law.
If they find it politically possible, they will. Bet on it.
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.