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
Sorry, the court system doesn't work that way. In the past, whenever it seems certain any law will be overturned, the government simply doesn't appeal whenever they get a unfavorable ruling; and thus the "law" remains valid in the other court districts. There is also the issue of standing, and the fact that the court could let a lower court's ruling stand (refuse to hear the case, which even the court itself has said carries no weight on the issue of Constitutionality of a given law; nevertheless it could allow a "bad" law to stand, as it often has done).
You will have to excuse me from your campaign against the President
I have no "campaign against the President"; I'm just know he's going to lose enough votes to lose re-election if he decides to renew this so-called law. You're the one advocating that he adopt a policy that history has shown will keep a Republican from being elected.
So did Ronald Reagan even though he signed a bill legalizing abortion in California.
Legalizing abortion at the state level has nothing to do with the federal Constitution or the presidential oath of office; thus Reagan's stand on the issue does not disqualify him from the Presidency. But to sign a bill that directly violates an enumerated Constitutional right does violate the presidential oath of office, and therefore anyone who signs such legislation is unqualified for the position.
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
You compromising weasels only have those rights because of the "hard core gun owners". If it weren't for them, you would have happily given up whatever rights the government told you to give up, because you have no fundamental principles. You claim to be an "old Marine", yet you violate your promise to defend the Constitution as easily as you accept such violations from those for whom you vote. By definition, you are either an oath-breaker or a liar.
You can belittle the "hard core gun owners" all you like, but the fact remains that those people aren't going to vote for Bush if he signs a renewal of this so-called law. And since the loss of those votes almost surely means the loss of the election for Bush, if you really want the current president to be re-elected you had better make sure that he doesn't sign this bill.
That's what people said of his father, when he had similar approval ratings after a war that was equally successful.
Can you say Vietnam?
Tell me, if you don't vote for G.W., who will you vote for? Dean?
GB-41's tax cuts failure was a broken promise that angered *everyone* in the Party, and he didn't have the popularity that GB-43 has. Such popularity allows for mistakes, even heinous ones. Not even the slow economy will not be enough to prevent W. from being reelected, and that's an issue that many more voters are concerned with, rightly or wrongly.
I seriously dout that many at DU give a rip about RKBA. Most here support the President on most things....this is not one of them.
Who sez members of Congress won't tack on amendments that WILL change your life as a gunowner?
Do you really want to hear Dan Rather tell you every day of election season how Bush broke his campaign promise just like his father did?
Where were all you guys during the campaign, and how many times does this have to be posted before you get it? During the presidential primary campaign, Bush answered a reporter's question about the AW ban, AND HE SAID HE SUPPORTED IT AND WOULD SIGN A BILL TO RENEW IT IF HE WAS ELECTED. On a later occasion when the subject was raised again, he added that when the law came up for renewal he would also ask for an additional clause prohibiting importation of pre-ban hi-capcity magazines which had been grandfathered in by the original AW law. Those are facts, and no "nuances" added by a spokesman can change them one way or the other.
Some of us, probably a lot of us, either heard or read Bush's statement back then. I still remember it very well because I was stunned to read it. I knew this over 2-1/2 years ago, how could it be that so many FR political junkies missed it? And why is it that some people here keep questioning this well known FACT on every thread regarding the matter? Wishfull thinking can't change what he said in at least two separate instances.
I voted for Bush and will probably do so again in '04. I like Bush and I NOT have conspired to concoct some dark, evil scheme to decieve 2nd amendment supporter's into not voting for him in '04. But I know that unfortunately he did say exactly the same thing concerning the ban that this spokesman is now saying. I am also scared stiff that this issue could very possibly cost him a 2nd term and give us another disasterous Democratic administration to suffer through. The way to keep that from happening is not to deny what he said, it's to let both the White house and all your representation in congress and the Senate know that you strenuously oppose what he intends to do.
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.