Posted on 04/14/2003 7:48:25 PM PDT by pabianice
Bad News for Gun Owners -- White House says it favors keeping unconstitutional gun ban
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Monday, April 14, 2003) -- In a surprise move this past weekend, the Bush administration announced its support for keeping the Clinton-Feinstein gun ban on the books.
The law, which bans common household firearms, is set to expire in September, 2004. But the Knight Ridder news agency had a startling revelation for readers on Saturday.
"The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
The "current law" McClellan was referring to is the ban on semi-automatic firearms and magazines (over 10 rounds) which was introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and then-Representative Chuck Schumer of New York.
The ban narrowly passed in both houses and was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1994.
Most bad legislation lives on forever. But in an effort to corral fence-sitters in Congress, Senator Feinstein inserted a "sunset" provision into the bill. This provision means that the ban expires in ten years -- specifically, in September of 2004.
At the time, the sunset provision didn't seem like much of a victory. But it soon became clear that this provision would be our best hope for repealing the notorious gun grab. Recently, it was beginning to look like gun owners would have a better than average chance of winning.
Until the announcement this past weekend.
The White House's statement means that people will not be able to rely upon a presidential veto if Congress musters enough votes to extend the ban in the near future.
Despite the fact that both the House and Senate are controlled by Republicans, the majority of Congressmen are either fence-sitters or anti-gun.
It is quite possible that the gun grabbers can get 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House to reauthorize the semi-auto ban and make it permanent.
This makes the recent announcement all the more distressing. But Bush's position is not written in stone -- at least not yet.
Because the above quote was not made by the President himself or by his primary spokesman, Ari Fleischer, there is still some "wiggle room" that will allow the President to reverse course and do the right thing.
THAT IS WHY IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT EVERY GUN OWNER WRITE THE PRESIDENT AND URGE HIM TO REMAIN TRUE TO HIS CONSTITUTIONAL OATH OF OFFICE.
George Bush is President today because gun owners went to the polls and voted for him over Al Gore in 2000. Pro-gun voters delivered three key Democratic states -- Tennessee, West Virginia and Arkansas -- and with those states, the victory went to Bush.
This would be a horrible mistake if the President were to turn his back on gun owners and take a page out of the Clinton-Gore playbook.
Perhaps this statement over the weekend was a "trial balloon." We can only hope so. If it was a trial balloon, then we need to "shoot it down" in a hurry.
It is absolutely vital that we succeed in inundating the White House in opposition to this ban. This unconstitutional law must be repealed. Otherwise, it will be used as a precedent to ban even more guns.
Contact the President today. Please visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
In any case, I believe it's better to make your views known to those who rule over us like Roman Emporers than to just sit back and let them think they have a free ride with no accountability.
AGAIN...the DC crew do what they want to do and I get "form letters".
I have made my views known and it is a waste of my time. Good luck in your area though.
That's how a democratic (???) Republic is supposed to work...
Constitutional or Representative Republic! There isn't supposed to be any "democracy" in America!
What a waste of my time this has been too!
Yes, the price of 'pre-ban' weapons is going through the roof, making it impossible for us ordinary folks to own them. Same thing happened to Class 3 stuff when the manufacture and registration of such weapons ended.
For example, I saw an early version of an M-16 for sale at Knob Creek this past weekend with a tag wanting $11,500. Went back about an hour later and saw "SOLD" on it.
Who needs free speech?
"Better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're an idiot than to open it and prove them correct" is the motto, no?
We did our part. Look at the results from 1994 (took the House), 2000 (took the White House and Senate), and 2002 (huge unexpected gains, retook the Jeffords-switched Senate)... and GWB promising the renewal of the AWB is our reward. I won't be thanking him by working for him in 2004 the way I did in 2000, lobbying friends and strangers to vote for him, going to rallies for him, making posters for the rallies I can't attend, making phone calls for him, or driving people to the polls. I'm voting, but GWB won't get my vote for the Presidency if he doesn't show a HUGE turn-around on domestic issues. (For foreign policy, he has been the right man at the right time. I just wish he'd work for my liberty as much as he's worked for Iraqi liberty and domestic security.)
And your local PD can purchase a brand new, CNC machined select fire Bushmaster flattop M4 or M16 clone for about $900. They could add optics, night vision, an IR laser and SureFire tactical light and still spend half of what that clapped out 5 MOA M16 fetched.
The new MG receiver ban and assault weapons ban are far and away the most degrading gun control measures ever adopted, and 75% of American gun owners could care less.
I agree.
Heck, without folks like the Bradys, we'd have to live with a constitution written by a bunch of dead white guys who surely would see things differently, were they alive today. (/sarcasm)
We are blessed to live in a time with so many people of 'vision'. Bradys, and that other woman whose daughter was killed by a drunk driver which gave us MADD. Trading a little liberty for that 'ol sense of security sure beats having to live responsibly.
Tyrants simply sit back scratching their heads and wonder in amazement at what liberties we'll be removing from ouselves next. "Hey, maybe this 'self-government' thing ain't so bad afterall. Come to Papa!"
Sorry i wasted your time by replying to your posts, I thought I might be helpful by mentioning those things.
I understand that theis is intneded to be a Constitutional Republic, but using the term "democratic" to describe it is consistent with that intent. The authors of the Constitution clearly intended to create republic which chooses it's leaders by a modified democratic process, indirect election of Senators and the electoral college notwithstanding. Of course the last thing they intended to create was a pure democracy, which eventually becomes tantamount to anarchy as it inevitably progresses into mob rule.
There is no need to whip a dog that has been conditioned to flinch every time a hand is raised.
I'm getting d@mned tired of having to pour as much energy into monitoring my "friends" as I do watching my enemies.
"Maintaining" the status quo by voting "moderate" compromises has given us creeping losses over time which has made the reading the Constitution an exercise in irony. I'm no longer interested in keeping a moderate in office if it means more of the same. I suspect the recent problems experienced by the Democrats reflect a similar attitude by a very large number of Americans.
The win (or loss) is there for the Republican party depending on whether or not they choose to lead in a conservative direction or follow over-spun polls. A path down the middle is a road to disaster.
You can indeed replace the shell or body of a damaged magazine; one for a high-capacity Glock will run around $40; still pretty steep for a component that costs around $3 to manufacture- including equipment and engineering design costs.
I've found replacement and repair parts for obsolete designs, whether originally of *high capacity* or not, to be more of a problem than coming up with replacement bits for popular weapons still in production, though admittedly, prices habve skyrocketed unreasonably.
But you're quite correct that everything that can be done politically should be done, as well as to consider the next steps to take should that prove to be fruitless. Some congressmen are of course not worth the waste of a stamp in informing them of your opinion; but those who may have an intrerest in testing the winds of constituent opinion should indeed feel a stiff breeze. Every bit helps.
-archy-/-
No, but he may face an alternative offered by Tom Tancredo, unless the border situation is cleaned up. And giving the vote to illegal aliens won't buy Bush their support, even if he does pull it off.
Remember that his father lost to Clinton despite the popularity he'd achieved during the last Gulf War. After all, he figured he didn't really need the support of the 10 million or so votes he lost with his own furtherance of his gun control and firearms import bans. So one voter in five voted for Perot instead.
This time around, it may be Tancredo. Especially in the Southwest.
-archy-/-
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.