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."
Hastert voted against the Ugly Gun Ban and against Brady. He has a lifetime rating of "A" from the NRA. Frist was not in Congress when the UGB and the BB were being debated, but he has received an "A" rating from the NRA in 2000. But forget Frist -- this battle will be won or lost in the House. If Hastert can't keep it off the floor, and can't keep it from being passed if it gets to the floor, the Senate will be a lost cause.
Wow! There's a question for you.
That would be the House Judiciary Committee. James Sensenbrenner is the chair. He voted FOR Brady, but against the Ugly Gun Ban. He has a lifetime rating of "A" from the NRA. So the vote on Brady is deplorable, but he was on the right side on this issue, and we need to make sure he stays there.
Basically, we've got two pretty good filters on this: Sensenbrenner can prevent the bill from being voted on by the Judiciary Committee, and if it does get out of Committee, Hastert can prevent it from being voted on by the whole House. It comes up for renewal in Sept 2004, which is both good and bad: It's bad because it's just before the election, and that can be used to hammer people politically (although that cuts both ways, of course). It's good because September is usually when Congress is tied up in knots trying to pass the budget, and is also eager to get home to campaign. So it won't be hard for Hastert to claim there just isn't time for a floor debate on this issue, so sorry guys.
There are and have been illegal for many years. This isn't even an issue.
Maybe where you live. Here in Texas I can buy a machine gun legally. All I have to do is have the Chief of Police sign the BATF form (he will), pay the $200 tax, and whatever the seller wants for the gun. When the paperwork is returned, I get the gun. Slow, but doable.
I agree with you. Why should Bush spend his political capitol and break a campaign promise on something that can be killed in the House? Remember, more than 50 House members lost their jobs after passing gun laws.
That's why the House has been R for the last ten years.
Bush will give lip service to the ban and it will never reach his desk.
1934: NFA: Requires registration of cannons > .50 cal, short rifles and shotguns, silencers, and machine guns.
1968 GCA: Prohibits felons from owning or buying firearms, bans mail sales of firearms, institutes 4473 transfer forms, setting up registration for all guns.
1986 "Firearms owners 'protection' act": Bans future manufacture of machine guns, making the '34 registration a de facto ban. Allows gun dealers to sell at gun shows, opening the so-called gun show "loophole" now the subject of clamor to close.
1993: Brady: Instituted a temporary waiting period for all handgun purchases, which has since sunset and been replaced by the NICS check presently required for ALL dealer transactions.
Lautenburg Amendment: bans guns from MISDEMEANOR domestic violence convicts, and those with retraining orders who haven't been convicted of ANY crime.
1994 Assualt Weapons ban: Bans manufacture of normal cap magazines, and semiauto firearms with certain cosmetic features such as pistol grips, folding stocks, flash suppressors. Even though they are funtionally identical or nearly identical to others which are legal. Old firearms and magazines are grandfathered in.
1996? The ATF administratively "reinterprets" some law or another and decides that "striker" and "street-sweeper" revovling-cylinder shotguns with >10 round capacity are "destructive devices" and have to be registered as do machine guns.
Now on the table: Bans of ALL normal cap. magazines, ALL "assault weapons", small, inexpensive ("junk" , "Ni**ertown Saturday Night Special") handguns, .50 cal rifles and handguns, other "sniper" rifles, bans of all semiautomatic handguns, ballistic imagery of ALL newly manufactured firearms ( = registration of all such firearms), requirement to submit all presently owned firearms for ballistic imagery ( = registration of ALL guns), annual taxation of all presently-owned guns, licensing for all handguns, registration of all guns (outright, not backdoor) ... and there are probably more I can't think of right now.
Now, are you still so sure there isn't a slippery slope and we aren't already more than half way down it? Please see England and Australia for a lesson what the next steps are, and where we are going.
The gun issue is a WINNING one for the GOP as your post goes on to state.
If not for the gun issue, Gore would have carried Tennessee, West Virgina, and perhaps some other states also. In 1994, powerful democratic congressmen lost their seats because of the gun issue. Even democrats are realizing this, such as Warner of VA and Richardson of NM, who just signed a CCW bill out there.
For any Republican to support this ban, it means one of the following:
1) They have no core beliefs and base their decisions solely on political caluculations. Furthermore, they are wrong about these calculations.
2) They do not believe in individual Rights.
It's one or other.
Can you site a SINGLE case where any American gun owner "destroyed a restuarant"?
Today's guns are no more dangerous than those of the 18th century, when you factor in medical science.
All of those assets require crews and materiel (fuel, oil, spare parts, etc...) to operate them. Without supply lines to deliver those materials, those assets will be totally use to any tyrant.
Not to mention the fact that many of the operators of those assets will throw down on the side of the Bill of Rights.
You speak for quite a few Patriots there.
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.