Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Feinstein and Schumer Welcome President Bush's Support of Assault Weapons Ban
senate.gov ^ | April 16, 2003 | Democrats Feinstein and Schumer

Posted on 04/19/2003 7:02:08 AM PDT by TLBSHOW

Feinstein and Schumer Welcome President Bush's Support of Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization

- Seek to Work with President to Swiftly Reauthorize Ban, Close Clip-Importation Loophole - April 16, 2003

Washington, DC - U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) welcomed the announcement that President George W. Bush supports the reauthorization of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which is set to expire in 2004.

In an article published this weekend, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law."

Senators Feinstein and Schumer, authors of the original assault weapons legislation in the Senate and House of Representatives, will introduce legislation to reauthorize the ban shortly after Congress returns from recess. The legislation would:

Reauthorize the prohibition on manufacture, transfer, and possession military-style assault weapons, while protecting hunting rifles and other firearms. Close the clip-importation loophole, which prohibits the sale of domestically produced high-capacity ammunition magazines, but allows foreign companies to continue to bring them into the country by the millions.

Preserve the right of police officers and other law enforcement officials to use and obtain newly manufactured semi-automatic assault weapons.

In a letter to President Bush, the Senators wrote: "As the original authors of the Assault Weapons Ban in the Senate and the House, we strongly believe that military-style assault weapons have no place on America's streets and should be banned. In 1994, we fought hard to win passage of the original ban, and shortly after Congress returns from the spring recess we plan to introduce legislation that would reauthorize it.

This is why we were pleased to see that your spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated your support for the ban and its reauthorization this weekend when he said, 'The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law.'

We welcome your support and look forward to working with you to gain swift passage of this legislation. The current ban is due to expire in September 2004 and in order to continue to keep these weapons off the streets, it is imperative that the reauthorization bill becomes law.

As part of the reauthorization, we also plan to include language to close a loophole in the 1994 law, which prohibits the domestic manufacture of high-capacity ammunition magazines, but allows foreign companies to continue sending them to this country by the millions. A measure that would have closed this loophole passed the House and Senate in 1999 by wide margins, but got bottled up in a larger conference due to an unrelated provision. You indicated your support for closing this loophole during the 2000 presidential campaign, and now, with your help, we can prevent the manufacture and importation of all high-capacity clips and drums.

Once again, thank you for your leadership on this matter. With your assistance, we will be able to pass legislation to continue the ban and help make America's streets safer."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: assaultweaponsban; awb; bang; feinstein; presidentbush; reauthorization; schumer; support
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 361-369 next last
To: TLBSHOW
agreed, which committees will hear this? Will hasert say he has time? Did hasert vote for the ban? Fisk is a doctor, that is bad for gun rights in general, (see AMA)
101 posted on 04/19/2003 9:20:12 AM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Has anyone heard from MOAB lately? Hilloree, The Mother Of All Bitches?
102 posted on 04/19/2003 9:20:27 AM PDT by gulfcoast6 (Faith is daring the soul to go beyond what the eyes can see.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
Sometimes one has to wonder if Bush wants to be like his father. Kill a few votes here, a few there and next thing you know, you lose. The Lott affair, open borders, gun affairs, Islam is peace and on and on.

I would honestly say, it's more than a *few* votes here.

103 posted on 04/19/2003 9:22:33 AM PDT by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: verity
It is a refreshing departure from the traditional knee jerk responses of the tunnel-vision crowd.
It's refreshing to see, by your words, exactly how you feel about the whole subject.
Knee-jerk...tunnel vision...no parsing needed there.
104 posted on 04/19/2003 9:23:26 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
... what was the most powerful weapon available to man when the 2nd Amendment was crafted?

Heavy artillery, rockets. Many americans had their own privately owned artillery at the time, both naval and land based.

105 posted on 04/19/2003 9:23:29 AM PDT by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: wku man
There's no rational person in the RKBA community that says we should be able to own NBC weapons, or shoulder-fired missiles. The purpose of the 2d Amendment is that the citizenry will always have the right to militia weapons, with which to resist any tyrannical government that comes down the pike.

I hear and appreciate your distinction. In our militarized age of cruise missiles, Bradley tanks B2 bombers and F series fighter jets what kind of resitance are you going to offer at your doorstep with an automatic weapon? By the time you get to use it the war is over.

106 posted on 04/19/2003 9:23:29 AM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Belial
The long rifles made in Kentucky and Pennsylvania were far superior in accuracy, range, and rate of fire to the Brown Bess Musket carried by the British.

The founding fathers intended the citizens to have absolute parity with any standing army.
107 posted on 04/19/2003 9:24:10 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
"Trying to put this in perspective though, what was the most powerful weapon available to man when the 2nd Amendment was crafted?"

It was the same firearm available to the American people as it was available to the potential oppressors, the government.
108 posted on 04/19/2003 9:24:30 AM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Well, I'm just a "knee-jerk, rabid, wacko, troll, DU disruptor, one issue gun nut", so I guess I don't have a sense of humor either! (lol)

Yeah, bro, sometimes it's hard to keep the faith. Thanks for the humor break.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

109 posted on 04/19/2003 9:24:49 AM PDT by wku man (Today is Patriots' Day...remember what happened 228 years ago today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Is someone mad that a skunk showed up at the malcontent garden party?

No, I'm just concerned for your immortal soul. After all, one of God's Commandments is "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." I might be wrong, but I suspect that includes George Bush.

110 posted on 04/19/2003 9:25:17 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
Trying to put this in perspective though, what was the most powerful weapon available to man when the 2nd Amendment was crafted?

Boy, could that start another whole thread? LOL.

Maybe the Brown Bess musket, maybe the Kentucky Rifle, or mortars, or field guns, who knows? Who cares? The Crossbow was thought at the time to be a weapon so powerful that it would end all wars. Same with the Bronze sword in Roman times. Same with nukes. The point was that the Founding Fathers intended that the People always have the ability to challenge and remove the Government forces in times of tyranny. A lot of people say that no longer applies. I believe it does.

Just as an aside, last night our little rinky-dink local pistol club held it's first ever night/lo-light shooting match. Most of us had never done any shooting with tactical flashlight, night sites, etc. We had two local police instructors give a little class at dusk on techniques and tips. It was a blast. We had a lot of fun, learned a lot, and the police officers stated that they were happy to have law abiding citizens (most of us CHL holders) be a little more proficient in low light shooting. We're now trying to set up a recurring schedule for night shoots with our local cops.

Get some trainning and do some shooting. Maybe it will become more clear.

111 posted on 04/19/2003 9:25:49 AM PDT by weaponeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
Partial birth abortion otoh, brings out the liberal's ideologues who see restrictions on that heinous act of murder to be a first step in a march to eliminate abortions altogether. It's not the ideologues who will decide the next election!

I was listening to 1100 WTAM, Clevland this morning and the host was talking about the Laci Petersen muder and a caller came on and stated that that Scott Petersen should only be charged with one murder, since it is legal to get a partial birth abortion.

I was dumbfounded.

112 posted on 04/19/2003 9:26:01 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
I agree. Sometimes Rove makes mistakes.
113 posted on 04/19/2003 9:27:55 AM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: weaponeer
Alrighty...thanks for explaining.
114 posted on 04/19/2003 9:27:59 AM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: gulfcoast6
She has been a busy commie rat this month......

http://clinton.senate.gov/cgi-bin/nph-dpc1s?dir=~clinton/news/2003&head=news/2003/01/searchhead&foot=searchfoot&sort=-date&cols=0,65,35&map=/usr/ftp/member/ny/clinton/general

April 1, 2003
Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on University of Michigan Case Before The Supreme Court

Last month, I filed an amicus brief with my colleagues in the Senate to support the University of Michigan's use of affirmative action.

http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/news/2003/2003401A06.html

April 15, 2003
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's Statement in
Response to President Bush’s Economic Speech

Our country cannot afford to lose one more job, and I continue to believe that this Administration's tax plan will do much more harm than good.

http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/news/2003/2003415951.html




115 posted on 04/19/2003 9:29:03 AM PDT by TLBSHOW (The gift is to see the truth.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
No, I'm just concerned for your immortal soul. After all, one of God's Commandments is "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." I might be wrong, but I suspect that includes George Bush

You are wrong, but what the hey throw out ad hominems and keep the malcontnet party going instead of discussing the machinations of this legislation in the legislative branch.

116 posted on 04/19/2003 9:29:18 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: wku man
I can and I have made shoulder fired missiles in my workshop.
When I move to a new place where there is more room to play, I will make them again.

I can make them steerable to some degree, but not yet real "smart" ones.

Even Stalin let Kytushin play with his rockets.
117 posted on 04/19/2003 9:29:25 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Feinstein and Schumer Welcome President Bush's Support of Assault Weapons Ban

Don't anyone let the tatics of diversion, fog over the title of this thread.....It' real, right from that commies website....

118 posted on 04/19/2003 9:29:37 AM PDT by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: templar
TM: ... what was the most powerful weapon available to man when the 2nd Amendment was crafted?
Templar: Heavy artillery, rockets. Many americans had their own privately owned artillery at the time, both naval and land based.

Which makes me wonder how we justify the demarcation of civilian vs military ownership of any weapons of mass destruction. You say the most advanced weaponry of the day of the Founding Fathers was available to the average citizens.
or am I misreading your logic here?
Somehow the 2nd Ammendment gets trashed when we make any distinction, doesn't it? After all how can I defend against a tank without a proper weapon?

119 posted on 04/19/2003 9:30:40 AM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Keeper of the Turf
The point is: What is the difference? They both spend our money obscenely, they both add more and more people to the gov't payroll (taxpayer's backs), they both protect their "brothers & sisters" from prosecution for criminal acts.

What will it take to make you aware that there is no difference between these two political parties.

Wait, there is a difference: The dems will spend our money in one fell swoop, while the republicrats take a couple of swoops.

FReegards
120 posted on 04/19/2003 9:30:45 AM PDT by poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 361-369 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson