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
1)Pro-Life.
2)National Defense.
GWB has been saying he would re-sign the AWB since he was campaigning back in 2000. He has been asked repeatedly if he would sign it over the months and years, and he has repeatedly said that he will.
In addition, Ashcroft has supported the re-signing of the ban, and intends to enforce the law if passed.
You may think that Bush is playing political games, and doesn't intend to strip us of our rights, but on this one, you are wrong. I have it from a credible source that Bush thinks that the gun owners won't raise much fuss about this, and he thinks that the anti-gun folks will cost him a lot more political capital over this issue. Since most gun owners are not affected by the AWB, and couldn't care less about it, Bush may be right. Better pray that this one never makes it through the house of reps.
The elected officials are no longer afraid of armed revolt over the gun control issue. They have gotten away with un-Constitutional gun laws since 1934, and now seem to think that if they use a gradual implementation, they will continue to get away with it. I can tell you what it's going to take to stop this, but I'd be banned for doing so.
This particular gun owner will. And it will cost him more than my vote. It will cost him all of the votes my time and money would help generate. It will cost him the votes that my time and money will generate for an opponent. I'd hate to "lose" the White House to the likes of the Rats, but if Republicans X 3 can't stop gun control, then the message isn't clear enough yet. I intend to make whatever contribution I can to make it clearer.
What a stupid statement.
Is this all the Constitution is to you? Feel free to give up your own rights........stay the **** away from mine.
We know that his father did not, though he was given that precise advise, and chose to abandon those who had given him his first term as president. If Bush II similarly abandons us, he'll get the same.
This time, though, it won't be limited to just the betrayer at the top. It will be ALL Republican candidates other than those who've demonstrated their steadfastness in the matter- and only those challengers with a provable track record on the issue who can look for support against an entrenched incumbant.
No more lies from the leadership. Like Mr Bush said about the foreign terrorists, either he's with us in this fight, or he's against us.
And I don't have to e-mail the White House. I'll be having dinner with my senator's field representative this Friday, as I respond to their request for assistance with a little public relations problem he's encountered. I'm certain he'll pass the message along. The Congressman does so hate to see his name linked to unsolved murders.
-archy-/-
Actually, it worked out better than the alternative. The result was the Republican revolution in 1994. A very large number of anti-gun members of Congress were eliminated in that battle. If we had voted for Bush again, the result would have been both a compromising, anti-gun president and a radical anti-gun Congress.
According to your own prideful ravings it is you and others like you who are responsible for the 8 years we *all* suffered under Bill Clinton.
No, Bush-Sr is responsible for the first 4 years because he betrayed the gun vote with his import ban, and Dole was responsible for the second 4 years because he betrayed the gun vote on the Brady bill. Voters have no obligation to vote for someone who has betrayed them. If anything, it is the mainstream republicans who caused the last 4 years, because you were warned that Dole wouldn't be electable because of that issue before the primaries. That you refused to listen to reason and nominate a candidate who could perform his Constitutional duty, and instead nominated someone unqualified who would violate the oath of office demonstrates why the 1996 election was lost. The Republican party was more interested to see that Dole "got his turn" than they were interested in principle. Such policies might work for the Democrats, but there are too many voters in the Republican big tent that vote on principle.
It isn't hard to get their vote; all you have to do is just not betray them. Don't ban guns and you get the pro-2A vote. Don't fund abortions and you get the pro-life vote. Don't confiscate people's property and you get the tax activists vote. It isn't hard to win as a Republican; all you have to do is follow the Constitution and don't kill babies. Why do you (or better yet, the candidates) think that is too much to ask?
Do you think President Bush will not listen to reason?
So far, he doesn't seem to be doing so; otherwise he wouldn't have brought the subject up in the first place. The law is going to sunset by itself; all he has to do keep the pro-gun vote is nothing. Yet even that much seems too much to ask.
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?
Some of the party faithful read here. There are many here that are under the illusion that Bush will get the pro-gun votes no matter what he does. Their logic seems to be "Hey; what are they going to do, vote Democrat?". The truth is that Bush is going to lose these votes if he follows the course he appears to be currently advocating. Not only is it important for him to know that, it is important for the Republican party to know that. Even if you don't care at all about Constitutional rights, you need to understand that this issue could cost him the election. Thus, even those that don't care about gun rights should still strongly oppose this legislation, assuming they want Bush to be re-elected. The purpose of the "ranting" is to make sure that Republicans know the issue affects them, even if they don't care about the Constitution. If they can't be pro-gun for principled reasons, they should at least be so for pragmatic ones.
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?
Which is exactly what I'm trying to do. But the people that need to be made to understand is not just the President, but those activists in the Republican party, including our membership here. If they can't support the Constitution because it is the right thing to do, they should support it because the alternative is quite possibly another 4 years under a Democrat when they lose the gun rights votes.
The President may not respond to you personally, but don't think for a minute that he's not paying attention, 'cause he is.
W already knows my views. Don't misunderstand; just because I'm not a Bush-bot doesn't mean I'm a Bush-basher. I have already voted for him three times(twice in Texas, once on the promise to sign CCL legislation vetoed by Richards, and once in reward for that vote). I would like to vote for him again; but I simply can't do that if he violates his oath of office to defend the Constitution.
Just because that Hitler chap mistreated a few Jews is no cause for concern from Christians, right?
Just one more time GOA makes the responsible gun owners look like crazies
One more time GOA has stood on principle, rather than compromise theirs. Of course, they thought the founding fathers to be crazies as well, willing even to kill the British soldiers sent to America as *peacekeepers* to establish the constitution that their descendents would now barter away bit by bit.
Of course, it was thought then that they stood no chance against the mightiest military force in the world. But they prevailed.
-archy-/-
Four years of Jimmy Carter- the last Democrat for whom I voted; my error, as I'd thought one of Hyman Rickover's sub officers should make a pretty good CinC- were similarly harmful and detrimental but opened the door for us to get eight years of Ronald Reagan and four of Bush I...which could have been eight years for Bush as well, had he not betrayed us.
And the eight Clinton years, miserable as they were, could lead to eight now for Bush II, followed by another Republican administration, if he'll just show that he's better than the alternative by rolling back the damage done during those Democratic years and remove the Democratic syncophants and office infrastructure still in place in many federal agencies, even as Democratic congressmen obstruct Bush judicial appointments. Or, he can continue to prove that there's not a nickle's worth of difference between the corrupt Democrats and the Republicans we at least hoped would prove to be better than that.
-archy-/-
Or worse, if the Democrats finally wise up, and run a candidate with a solid gun rights background and the right promises. The question then would be whether or not he'd be believed.
But Clinton knew the beating he took during his last congressional race came from the gun lobby/gun culture, and Al Gore found out the same. If it dawns on them before it does for the Republicans, Bush could be in real serious trouble. Think the 2000 election, with 5 million fewer votes for Bush...and 10 million more for a Democratic dark horse with a hatful of what disillusioned voters want to hear. Hillary could never pull it off, but she's not the most likely Democratic candidate.
-archy-/-
Not all of them have gotten away with it.
-archy-/-
I smell one of Sarah Brady's "Million Commie Mommies"....with a french accent. You must be one of those Carville Cajuns.
Not for Bush no. For those of us who defend the 2nd it is and that damage is being done by these bans is proven right here at FR. The leftist propaganda term "assault weapon" is being used as an argument by liberals as to why we should ban semi-autos. Anything that politicians call an assault weapon should be banned supposedly. This slovenly disregard for our constitution and a blanket attack against all firearms has to end.
Sounds like we need to ban "sniper rifles" after we're done banning "assault rifles".
You have every right to forgo your Constitutional Rights and still leave mine alone. If you don't want to or don't have the guts to fight tyranny that is understandable. Some people have no core of values. However, you have no right to give mine away just because you don't care about yours. Simply because you don't believe in being prepared to defend yourself, family and neighbors why do you think you have the right to take that right from me?
Someone pegged you earlier concerning that you can tell a man's politics by his choice of caliber. I doubt that you have a weapon, but if you do it is bound to be a single shot .22 that hasn't been to the range in years.
Exactly what the British said before they lost this continent.
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.