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

senate.gov ^ | April 16, 2003 | Democrats Feinstein and Schumer

[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."

[Joe Hadenuf]

But you see, it will probably never come to that.

So we are back to the commies attempting to ban semi automatic rifles.

[bruoz]

"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?"

The only weapon that is banned from civilians by law are "assault weapons" manufactured after 13 SEP 1993. Artillery, mines, anti-tank missiles, mortors, etc. are classified by the feds as destructive devices which can and are possessed by individuals that have registered them and paid the $200.00 making or transfer tax.

[CroftonFreeper]

I think its a political calculation. Its another issue that cant be used against him in 04. The "extreme minority" of people who give a rats ass about assault weapons are but a miniscule part of the electorate. Probably dont add up to 1/10 of 1%. Gun owners , like myself,will still vote for Bush. To do otherwise is simply foolish in my humble opinion.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Did all that stockpiled weaponry at Waco do David Koresh any good? My point is along those lines.

Your comparing a hand full of religious nuts in a secluded farmhouse to 50 million plus armed people all over this great nation.

Thanks for the laugh.....Your analogies are humorous. I mean it, thanks...

[Fred Mertz]

I think the reality of this issue is quietly sinking into the bots' minds.

OTOH, the Dims recognize this as a wedge issue to split the Pubbies support for Bush.

[templar]

Somehow the 2nd Ammendment gets trashed when we make any distinction, doesn't it?

It does. There is a greater issue here than generally gets considered.

If we allow the government, or any one branch of the government, to effectively modify or change any part of the Constitution we have given it the AUTHORITY to modify and change ANY part fo the Constitution at will. This makes the government an unaccountable entity in and of itself, and the people become subjects of that government, not its citizens, creators, and authors. The Constitution, and the meaning of the Constitutuion, can only be legally changed and modified by the process of ammendment. Ammendment, in effect, is modification by the whole of the people who created it in the first place, not by whomever is in political and judicial power at the time.

There are difficulties awaiting America, in the future, over this issue.

IMO. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, just a common citizen.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

No. He was trapped. He was also a fool. And I don't think he had half the stuff they claimed he did.

The BATF ran out of ammo. They were just standing there like the morons they are.

If he was half as evil as so many people make him out to be, he and his friends could have walked out, shot the scumbag BATFers and taken their vehicles and made a run for Mexico.

He still believed in the law. He called the police himself.

But that is all beside the issue.

You were asking about a popular uprising. The government's approach is to control areas. They aren't going to Nuke cities, there wouldn't be a mass battle.

All that would be required of the citizenry to stop the government is to remain ungovernable. That would be very easy for a well armed populace.

Give it some thought.

I am not advocating revolution. At this point, if the country went into the toilet, I'd probably go to Costa Rica and forget about this place.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Have the socialists so destroyed our education system that nobody remembers that anymore?

They know exactly what is up. Many are just American/freedom hating AHs with anti American agendas and others have their heads so far up their little political parties rear-ends, they are completely blinded......

[Jarhead_22]

Issues such as the assault weapons ban brings out all our ideologues. They see this as only the first step toward disarmament of the populace -- a Constitutional violation.

This isn't even close to the "first step" toward eventual total disarmament. It's only the latest in long series of steps. If you don't believe that total civilian disarmament is the goal, you haven't been paying attention.

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.

Please quote for me, if you will, the portion of the US Constitution that protects "the right of the people to shred and murder babies" from infringement.

Is the difference between a Constitutional right and a practice clear to you yet?

[weaponeer]

I am proud to declare that you are not my ally.

Hey! Neat! Will you declare that you're not my ally, either?

Thanks, that would feel SO good.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

I know. It was a rhetorical question.

[Joe Hadenuf]

This isn't even close to the "first step" toward eventual total disarmament. It's only the latest in long series of steps. If you don't believe that total civilian disarmament is the goal, you haven't been paying attention.

Thank you for that, as it's inordinately clear to those that are PAYING ATTENTION..

[jeremiah]

I seriously doubt the founding fathers had the internet in mind, while writing the first amendment.

[ThirstyMan]

There is no useless weapon in warfare as long as there are people willing to figure out how to use it effectively. It's the will that counts, the weapons only determine the overall body count on each side and how long it takes one to win.

Agreed. Especially irt the will. Assuming an overwhelming attack, a shock and awe campaign if you will, the goal is to break the will of the defenders by presenting them with an overwhelming offense against which a defense would be futile: certain death. It works.

Some will forever trust in their relatively small fry weapons to preserve our Democracy. Fine, do your part if it ever comes to that. I don't see it that way anymore.
I don't beguile myself into thinking that everyone on my street owning an AK-47 will preserve this great Country.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Do you really think it's a good idea for anyone to be able to buy a machine gun?

There are and have been illegal for many years. This isn't even an issue.

Another Feinstein and Schumer supporter?

[Lancey Howard]

[Betty Jane]

David Koresh and the Davidians were trapped inside their compound. If there were to be a full blown national uprising, the government would lose.

Here's a scenario if the feds think about disarming the American people.

There are 80-100 million gun owners in the country. If only one percent were to do anything, that leaves 80,000 or so armed people fighting against tyranny. These people know who the enemy is, where he lives, and works. The government, on the other hand, would have to slog through all the paper work.

The freedom fighters won't be sitting on the porch waiting for a knock on the door. They'll be taking out the bad guys one by one. Some of the fed's soldiers on freedom may desert and go to the other side.

[Jhoffa_]

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

Awww..

Isn't "bi-partisanship" wonderful?

[ThirstyMan]

Issues such as the assault weapons ban brings out all our ideologues. They see this as only the first step toward disarmament of the populace -- a Constitutional violation.

"This isn't even close to the "first step" toward eventual total disarmament. It's only the latest in long series of steps. If you don't believe that total civilian disarmament is the goal, you haven't been paying attention."

Pardon me that I have to write and scoot off. But if you'd share with me what you see as those actual "first steps" when I get back I'll then know if I haven't been "paying attention". As of right now I don't.

[wku man]

Just like Burt Gummer said in the original Tremors..."just a few common household chemicals in the right proportions." Won't be long, though, 'til the Commielibs are trying to take them away, too.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!