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
That includes the M16, the AK47, the HK91, and all other military rifles commonly in use today, IMHO.
Other that cutting down on the number of gun owners because of the increased prices? Actually it's the principal, and the slippery slope, if they can ban one class of firearms, why not another. In fact they are tyring to do that too. .50 caliber (or larger) rifles. Now that's pretty arbitary, so latter they might lower that to .30 caliber, if the weapon in question "can accept" a scope or scope mount. (Which means all of them of course). After all, who needs a gun that can shoot someone a couple of hundred yards away, they'll say. Killing bambi is not a sufficient need, ITHO of course (T=Their). Meanwhile if they can ban greater 10 round magazines, why not 6, as HCI originally wanted, or 1 for that matter. If a heat shield makes a shotgun evil, why not a ghost ring sight or a sling? These things don't have to make sense you know, and even the current restrictions don't (How are bayonet lugs, not merely bayonets, dangerous to the public?) The second amendment says "arms" without any qualification. It's part of the Constitution I swore to uphold and defend, and I'll keep on trying to do that as best I can.
No doubt. Emotionalism triumphs over pragmatism amongst the under-educated.
Still, if we are talking about original intent, and even based on the findings in Miller, it would be difficult to argue that an American did not have the right to keep and bear a modern military firearm.
FReegards...
Smart move. The president will prove them liars by lying himself if he kills it. Brilliant strategery!
Not necessarily, and yes. The import ban was originally done by executive order under the "sporting purposes" test of the '68 Gun Control Act. The pistol mag ban, for domestically produced pistols at least, is a direct result of the AWB. I seem to rememeber that the AWB made the executive order a part of the law, that is it banned import of the same weapons, but in any event it had that effect, since they couldn't be sold.
Very cute, but meaningless. The Ban is on sales of newly produced arms, as you know full well. Lots of magazines were made right before the ban, plus they weren't covered by the executive order banning imports, so they could continue to be imported if produced before the ban. Someday though the supply will run dry. I guess a ban that only affects your kids is OK, right?
Exactly. In 99 after Columbine, Feinstein and Schumer pushed through a gun control bill through the Senate, it dies in the House, a fact left out of this press release.
But what the hey the GOA has to keep those contributions coming in.
It does not affect me either. I stocked up on everything to be banned before the bill passed..
However, since the second amendment says a well ordered militia is necesasary, a Federal Law that makes ownership of military type weapons illegal, is the grossest possible afront.
I think that it is more important to train the Republican party to pay attention to gun owners, than it is to have George Bush serve a second term. It is a lesson that should stick for generations. SO9
So now we have to provide "rationales" for demanding that our rights be respected and more importantly for the Rule of Law, that the Constitution be followed. Following the Constitution is not just something for the Courts to do, but rather for everyone in government, including state governments, elected or not. All are required, by the Constitution itself, to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and we should insist that they do just that.
What part of "right of the people" and "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
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.