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
For the Ugly Gun Ban to be renewed, the authorization (a new law, in effect) has to pass both the Republican-controlled Senate and the Republican-controlled (and much more conservative, despite what this press release says) House. If he actually pushes such a bill, that's one thing; if he pays lip service and lets it die, that's another.
It never pays to misunderestimate Dubya. :-)
Oh wait, you mean the BAN doesn't actually BAN anything?
But I must be in violation of the law because I own a Franchi SPAS-12, a weapon listed in the assault weapons ban. What, you're telling me that the Assault Weapons BAN doesn't actually BAN them? Now I'm confused.
"Common Sense" gun control sure doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
As Gun Rights are a Priority with me, this is one of the Top Issues that I voiced concern over then, and do so now.
The Ban must be ended, completely, irrevocably, without argument over it's merits.
It has no merit.
(Not that I really dislike our President, I just wish he was more conservative - he's better than the alternative)
Get [bleep]ed.
If so, do you think any gun manufacturer's will give people a trade-in credit for all of their worthless 10 round mags? I think that would be a great promotional idea, and a good way for weapons makers and gun owners to finally purge all memory of the Clinton years.
Sounds like you might not even know what the law says. If this ban expires without renewal, "automatics" will still be "banned". This law bans semi-automatics because of their evil appearance and because a gun is much too deadly and dangerous for law abiding civilians with 11 "bullets" but not with 10.
I thought he was the best man for the job. Do I agree with everything he does? Nope. And I don't think many here do either- including several Bushbots.
If the ban is extended..."our president" be a one termer
Bush hired the first Attorney General in my lifetime to argue that RKBA is an individual right, so no-one will convince me he is an enemy of the 2A.
He just can't break a major campaign promise like his Daddy did.
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.