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
No, it was not tax cuts; it was Bush's ban on the importation of semi-autos that lost him the gun rights voters. Bush lost some votes in other groups to the betrayal of the "no new taxes" pledge, but considering that he was highly praised in the press for showing the "wisdom" to know when to "compromise", the tax issue lost him fewer votes. After all, all those democratic voters crossed over to vote for him for the tax increase like they're going to cross over to vote for his son for the gun ban renewal, right?
Look at the posts on this thread alone for verification that the pro-2ndA crowd is divided on this issue
The "pro-2ndA" crowd isn't divided; those that are arguing the "vote for Bush anyway" side are only giving lip service to the Constitution; they are not now nor have they ever been part of the gun-rights lobby. Those voters might be gun owners, but we're not just talking about gun owners (40 million citizens, only about half of which vote anyway), we're talking about the hard-core gun rights voters, who WILL NOT vote for Bush if he renews this legislation, but WILL vote for him if he does not (and campaign for him as well).
Tell me, if you don't vote for G.W., who will you vote for? Dean?
This isn't about me; this is about Bush. Of the gun rights voters, some will probably just vote for a third party. Some will choose not to vote in that race. The majority will probably choose to not bother voting at all (not bother going to the polls), because they don't have an acceptable candidate. Asking "who will you vote for?" in an election where both candidates are unsuitable is analogous to asking "who would you vote for?" in an election between Stalin and Hilter? Or Gore or Hillary? It is a false dichotomy. As for me, I'll probably still go to the polls to vote for other conservative candidates (and simply not vote for president), but the majority probably just won't show up unless there is some local or state election that is important to them.
GB-41's tax cuts failure was a broken promise that angered *everyone* in the Party
The Republican party is far less monolithic than you would imagine. Yes, the tax increase (not a "tax cut failure") angered voters, but this isn't the reason he lost the votes of the pro-2A crowd; he lost those votes because of his import ban, in the same way that Dole lost the pro-2A crowd in 1996 because of his support of the Brady bill.
and he didn't have the popularity that GB-43 has. Such popularity allows for mistakes, even heinous ones
The popularity of Bush Sr. after the war was about as high as G.W.'s is now (actually a bit higher, according to the ABC-Post, CBS-Times, and CNN-USA Today-Gallup polls). As the first Bush administration proved, it can fade quickly and it won't necessarily transfer to the voting booth. If someone were to ask me in a poll if I "approved" of the way Bush has handled the Iraqi situation, of course I would say yes. In other presidential areas, I think he has done a fine job as well. But that doesn't give him a black check to violate his oath of office; a betrayal that, if it happens, cannot be ignored. If he signs the renewal, he simply isn't qualified for the position of president.
While this is true, it is something that is "allowed" in spite of the legislation, not required under it. All it would take to ban these would be a decision by the secretary of the treasury; something that will surely happen the next time an anti-gunner gains the post. Just like the 922r "10 parts" rule, it is something put into place to make the legislation more tolerable, but is is nothing more than an administrative ruling that can change as easily as the "sporting use" rule did.
Don't look at me... it is the President who is doing the nose-to-spite-face trick. He is the one who is failing to keep his base happy. He is the one pandering to the Left's interests on domestic issues. He is the one who is failing to be a leader at home. He is the one who is faliing to uphold his Oath of Office by signing such unConstitutional bills as CFR, Patriot, and AWB; leaving the borders open; failing to fight to get his judicial nominations through; refusing to reduce our foreign dependence by drilling ANWR/FL/CA; extending benefits to illegals; increasing the size and scope of the budget and the power of the federal government, etc.
I can hardly be accused of "cutting off my nose" by refusing to vote for someone who does not represent my interests... but thanks for trying.
True.
I wonder if we can make a bargain with the neocons: you let us have our guns, and we'll let you invade whatever countries you want. :-)
He's a bona fide White House spokesman.
Trouble is, if he doesn't do the right thing, most folks on this thread will vote for him anyway.
Insults aside, I think you underestimate the time and money gun-rights supporters provide during elections.
: ^O
LOL! Who let Barbra Streisand in here?
Nothing like a little Ad Hominem to make a good argument stick, especially when combined with such a witty analogy.
My extension is bigger than yours, anyway.
Do you think President Bush will not listen to reason? Is it easier for you to post a lengthy rant on Free Republic than to write a reasonable letter to the President, and urge others of like mind to do the same? Would it take any more energy or time to rouse your friends to write than what it takes to enrage them to retaliate? Why not use your powers of persuasion now, before any damage is done? The President may not respond to you personally, but don't think for a minute that he's not paying attention, 'cause he is.
Email: president@whitehouse.gov
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.