OUCH: "White House Favors Renewing Gun Ban"

Gun Owners of America ^ | 4/14/03 | GOA

[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

[Kenno]

This is not smart politics! Gun owners don't just vote, they decide elections.

The only argument I can see for this is as follows: it's a well-known fact that Bush is trying to avoid his father's fate. To do so, he probably needs a growing economy. Having already promised in the 2000 election to sign this travesty of a bill (in order, I guess, to win open primaries against McCain), he may not want the gun issue to escalate into a huge fight right now, losing him the votes of RINO's he needs for his tax cut package.

If this is the case, and I'm hoping it is, he can reverse himself on this issue after the economy is growing nicely. He cannot risk angering gun owners, especially since many of them are union Democrats who support the minimum wage and oppose right-to-work laws, but who vote Republican for the gun issue alone. So make sure you contact the White House about this! Preferably with email and a written letter.

[AeWingnut]

Sorry, I must not have been clear. I have owned guns for 15 years but I still don`t how this law changes my life as a gun owner. If this issue causes you to vote against Bush, I have to wonder if you are responsible enough to either own firearms or vote.

If Bush supports bad unConstitutional Clinton law, how is he any different, as far as gun owners are concerned ?

I can tell a man's politics by the caliber of his weapon.(and vice-versa)
I smell a 22 and maybe some shotguns.

Obviously, you are less vigilant when a moderate republican is in office.

not responsible enough to vote ? I am a land owner, pay taxes and I am registered to vote. Are you suggesting that I can only responsibly vote for tyranny or tyranny light ?

[Kenno]

It sets a precedent for banning other guns. The New Deal laws regarding machine guns claimed to be tax laws, but this law just assumed a right the federal government does not have. Right now, there isn't much momentum for gun control, but that doesn't mean there won't be some time in the future.

[spodefly]

Don't worry. Hillary will let it sunset during her second term in 2014.

[AeWingnut]

incremental tyranny .

The only ones that have to worry when an honest man has a gun is a dishonest man. That's why _______ is for Gun Control .

Preaching to the choir. I enjoyed your post:

Who needs a .50 cal - a .416 will do? Who needs a .416 when a .375 will do? Who needs a .375 when a .338 will do? Who needs a .338 when a .30 will do? Who needs a .30 when a .243 will do? Who needs a .243 when a .223 will do? Who needs a .223 when a .22 will do? Who needs a .22 when a Daisy BB gun will do?

[AeWingnut]

ok,the sky is falling... the sky is falling

Help me out here...how many gun laws have been repealed?

[AeWingnut]

RINOs sicken me.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"Who is Scott McClellan?"

Good observation. I suspect Bush doesn't even know about this. He probably has to many other things going on at the moment?

[Southack]

How many gun laws have been repealed? I suppose about 35 states have repealed their bans on Concealed Carry (CCW) in the last 10 years, followed by at least two federal laws in the last 18 months that repeal the total ban on pilots being armed.

You may have noticed that we have also gotten the House to pass a bill that protects firearms manufactures from frivolous lawsuits by cities, states, and federal organizations. Now we just need to get that one through the Senate (we already have a President who will sign it).

[GunRunner]

Dude, I was being sarcastic. I was referring to how stupid it was to begin with. All the soccer moms in the world think that the Assault Weapons Ban actually banned something, yet it did not. All it did was make schmoes like me have to fork over outrageous prices for pre-ban merchandise. The SPAS cost a little over $400 retail, yet I paid over $750 to get one post ban.

The ridiculousness of the law is that it makes people feel good by calling it a ban, when it does nothing of the sort.

Sorry if I didn't make the joke clear.

[Technogeeb]

Sorry, I must not have been clear. I have owned guns for 15 years but I still don`t how this law changes my life as a gun owner

Gun owners who only own and shoot muzzleloaders wouldn't be affected by a ban on whatever guns you have had for those 15 years. Do you think it would be legitimate for them to advocate a ban on whatever guns you own? Are you so selfish and self-centered that you're willing to enslave your fellow man just because the law doesn't affect you? If so, you sound like the kind of person who would have been more than happy to rat out your neighbors for being Jewish in Nazi germany. Surely you can't really think like that, can you?

This law is unconstitutional. Even if you don't own a single firearm at all that is sufficient reason to oppose its renewal with every grain of political will you can muster.

If this issue causes you to vote against Bush, I have to wonder if you are responsible enough to either own firearms or vote.

If you advocate voting for someone who is clearly in violation of the oath of the presidency just because he happens to be your party's candidate, I DON'T "have to wonder if you are responsible enough" to vote; because you clearly aren't. When the President violates his oath of office and directly betrays the Constitution, that is a far worse crime than any other he might commit. It shows that he is unqualified for the position. Or have you lived under Clinton for so long that you really don't think words, including the words in the Constitution and the words in the oath of office, mean anything anymore?

And even though a lot of people are more principled than you on these kinds of issues, it should be important to you "pragmatic" types as well. The reason is that, regardless of the claims of you and people like you, it DOES matter to a lot of voters. The hard-core gun rights voters are simply not going to vote for an anti-gun candidate. That means that if Bush votes for renewal of this so-called law, he WILL lose those votes, and very likely lose the election, just as his father did in 1992 for the import ban and Dole did in 1996 for his support of the Brady bill. Even if you don't give a damn about the Constitution, a pragmatic republican would try his best to keep Bush from making this mistake just so he won't lose the election. It isn't as if the anti-gun position will get Bush any votes; because the anti-gunners are going to vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what. Allowing Bush to hold this position only loses him votes, and quite likely the election.

[bybybill]

I guess I`m really wrong. To hell with every thing else, if I can`t own, or dream about owning any firearm I want, that`s it, I refuse to vote for the President. Makes no difference what other things the guy stands for, what kind of leader he is, if I can`t have my toy,I`m going to hold my breath and shoot myself in the foot. At least, I am true to my principles. Remember, it is EVERY AMERICANS RIGHT to be stupid.

Just one more time GOA makes the responsible gun owners look like crazies

[RusIvan]

the ban on semi-automatic firearms and magazines (over 10 rounds) +++

I thought it was full auto ban. Semi-auto seems to me is legal now.

[bybybill]

If the law is unconstitutional, take it to court and kill the damn thing. I`m sure you can find enough "clear thinking" fellow wackos that would be as principled as you to fight this out. Me, I`m going to continue to try to enslave my neighbors and will rat out every one I think might be a Jew, even my Jewish mom, to the Nazis.

You will have to excuse me from your campaign against the President. He is a very good man and he has earned this old Marine`s vote. So did Ronald Reagan even though he signed a bill legalizing abortion in California.

The so called hard core gun owners are basicaly nut burgers that are providing the ammo that the Bradys need to take away my guns.

[Sandy]

Who is Scott McClellan?

He's the Deputy Press Secretary. You've probably seen him doing the press briefings in Ari's place on occasion. He was the press secretary for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign, and he also did press work for Bush when Bush was still Governor. His brother is Mark McClellan, head honcho at the FDA.

[FSPress]

So you think renewing the assault weapons ban will help him get re-elected. Did you ever hear of the phrase about dancing with the one who brung you.

[.30Carbine]

If the ban is extended..."our president" be a one termer

I am sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but George W. will win reelection regardless of how many of our rights he tramples. That's just the facts.

The branch to focus on is Judicial. We need to overcome the Dem obstructionists in Congress and get Conservative Judges appointed. I'm not positive that even with a super-majority in Congress Republicans will make this happen, but I contend that it is our only hope for saving the Constitution.

[Sandy]

I thought it was full auto ban.

No, it's not a full auto ban. In fact, the law specifically says semiautomatic.

[CDHart]

It is just one more bite out of the pie we call the Second Amendment. They never take it all at once -- but in increments. Interesting that this announcement was made when everyone was watching the war. Don't forget, his father was the first to use the words "new world order" publicly.

Carolyn