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

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."

Are we going to let a democrat get elected - which will be far worse than Bush?

I'm done voting for the lesser of two evils.

If a man or woman cannot keep their oath of office to support the Constitution, I will not vote for them.

If a man or woman makes statements or actions that demonstrate they do not believe in individual Rights, I will not vote for them.

For those that whine about "a dem being elected", so be it. If you're going to have someone in office who doesn't support the Constitution, it may as well be someone as obnoxious and unlikeable as possible so that more people will wake up.

Also, if the bastards ever try confiscation here, I'd rather it be sooner than later, before all the old guys who remember Freedom and have some backbone all die off.

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.

3) They expect the issue to fail, and hope that its opponents will forgive them for paying lipservice. This is exact5ly why a number of Democrat Senators voted for the PBA back in the 90s -- because they knew Clinton would veto it, and that this would do him less harm than it would do them to vote against it. In this case, I believe the White House thinks the House will defeat the AW ban, and that it will hurt them less to do so than it would hurt Dubya to veto it -- in fact, there are many House members whose districts will probably reward them for killing this law, while Bush would lose at least some support from the Soccer Moms if he vetoed it. In a close election, that could make the difference.

Is it cynical? Yes. But politics is the art of the possible. If you aren't ready to accept deal making of this sort, you're not ready to play with the grown ups.

If not for the gun issue, Gore would have carried Tennessee, West Virgina, and perhaps some other states also

It is amazing how focused on this one issue you all are.

Oh no, the fact that Gore was anti-coal and an enviro-whacko could never have been a factor in WV. And the fact that Gore was a well known entity in TN and all the scandals surrounding him such as the Buddhist temple never entered voters minds.

You all go back to your one note Johhny mantra, and ignore all the other factors, and you lose credibility and gain derision, IMHO.

This is a time bomb waiting to go off 2 months before an election, by taking this position the administration shields itself from the bombardment of the mainstream press ready to pounce and shout, "Bush hostage to gun lobby".

You make it sound like the "gun lobby" is nothing more than a bunch of drunk militia guys up in Montana.

There are more than 5 million registered members of the "gun lobby" who are members of a pro-gun Rights group, such as the NRA. This is larger than any other group except maybe the AARP. There are also 80 million gun owners (i.e., potential votes) out there.

For any politician to disregard these voters suggests they are either a fool or a tyrant.

Furthermore, if any candidate (especially one with a supposed 70% approval rating) is too weak to stand up to media critisicms, then that candidate should be challenged in the primary by someone who isn't a spineless weakling.

It severely weakens Bush whether he signs it or not, just for saying he supports it.

I disagree. If the bill never makes it out of the House, it won't matter. Oh, there will be a fair amount of frothing around by a small number of outspoken activists (as witness this thread), but most people (including most gun owners) will forgive him for saying he supported a bill that never had a chance of passage. The only way Bush gets in trouble over this is if against the odds the bill does land on his desk -- then he's darned if he does and darned if he doesn't. But I don't think that's how it will play out.

Look at it another way: The process in the House is pretty solidly pro-gun -- pro-gun Speaker, pro-gun Judiciary chairman, anda lot of Representatives who remember what happened to those who supported this bill in 1994. If this bill gets past all those hurdles and is passed by both House and Senate, that means there is such a strong tide of public support for the measure that it would probably be suicidal for the President to veto it.

But I don't think it's going to happen. Let's wait and see how this plays out before we get our knickers in a knot.

It is amazing how focused on this one issue you all are.

I'm pretty focused when it comes to Freedom.

You have no idea how big the gun issue is in some parts of the country.

You all go back to your one note Johhny mantra, and ignore all the other factors, and you lose credibility and gain derision, IMHO.

"Other factors" like a massive increase in the size of the federal gov't, Patriot Act, open borders, huge deficits, CFR, and a sour economy?

In a close election, that could make the difference.

And the votes of 80 million gun owners couldn't make a difference?

Hell, why not just come out as a pro-abort, and he'd really get a lot of succer mom votes then.

If you aren't ready to accept deal making of this sort, you're not ready to play with the grown ups.

I'm not ready to accept ANY deal making when it comes to compromise on the Bill of Rights.

Also, my idea of a "grown up" isn't some worthless statist SOB who doesn't honor his oath to defend the Constitution.

Please explain to me you would accept the Kyoto Treaty, the International Criminal Court, higher taxes, UN control of our foreign policy, partial birth abortion, and a liberal Supreme Court for the next two decades for the right to carry a rapid-fire assault rifle.

Yes.

It's my "line in the sand". Recognise it. It's my price tag to the Republic party and fellow conservatives: back my "special issue" and I will back yours, even the ones that I'm not especially passionate about. Think my special issue is unimportant, and you can forget about my backing on any of your issues.

I am one of those registered members, the NRA, I know that isn't pure enough for you, the GOA is, but they are nuts, like NARAL in their fantacism, IMO.

For any politician to disregard these voters suggests they are either a fool or a tyrant.

For any politician to give a club to his opponets a club to club him over the head with is also insanity, especially when the prospects of this dying in the House are very high, since 2nd amendment issues are a big factor in local congressional races.

What you call weakness, I call smart politics, distancing oneself from the ranting, malcontentism, and the political poison for a Presidential election.

Oh BTW, interesting that your intial response to me was not to my reply #183, which was directly posted towards you. You are very transparent, IMO.

I am one of those registered members, the NRA, I know that isn't pure enough for you, the GOA is, but they are nuts, like NARAL in their fantacism, IMO.

I'm members of both. Just how is the GOA "fanatic"? They support lots of legislative initiatives on the Hill.

For any politician to give a club to his opponets a club to club him over the head with is also insanity

If the media and demoncrats are dumb enough to run a campaign against Bush based on gun control, that would be more a "gift" than a "club".

When the RATS are railing against Bush for the lousy economy, massive budget deficits, and invasions of civil liberties, the GOP will be begging them to talk about the gun issue.

Oh BTW, interesting that your intial response to me was not to my reply #183, which was directly posted towards you. You are very transparent, IMO

LOL! Getting your panties in a wad, dane?

"Other factors" like a massive increase in the size of the federal gov't, Patriot Act, open borders, huge deficits, CFR, and a sour economy

Ah yes the typical malcontent laundry list. Where do I start?

Well I will start that Bush is pushing tax cuts, a demo would be increasing your taxes.

Huh I have been posting an article where conservative activists and a big star in the pro-2nd amendment movement, Grover Norquist, help put the kibosh to a proposal by the Ashcroft Justice Dept., which would give local law enforcement more power in prosecuting illegal immigration. Huh, not a peep from you about that proposal.

Two of America's most prominent conservative leaders and a former Democrat ambassador and Boston mayor have written a letter to President Bush opposing a Justice Department proposal that would permit state and local law enforcement agencies to track down illegal immigrants as a way to fight terrorism.

David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union, Grover Norquist president of Americans for Tax Reform - a top political analyst - and former Boston mayor and ambassador to the Vatican Ray Flynn who heads the Catholic Alliance took the side of police officials and immigrant rights activists in urging the president to prevent the proposal from being implemented.

Police officials across the nation have already criticized the idea, warning that it would endanger their relations with immigrants. especially because they would be reluctant to report crimes fearing they might be exposed to charges of immigration law violations.

According to the New York Times' Eric Schmitt, on Friday the three men wrote to the President complaining that the plan, now being reviewed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, would create a dangerous precedent because it would empower local authorities to become enforcement tools of the federal government.

"If local police are to enforce our immigration laws, will they soon be required to seek out and apprehend those who violate our environmental laws, or the Americans with Disabilities Act as well?" the three men wrote.....

Keene, Norquist Oppose Bush Plan

So you go on with your faxed laundry list from the nuts at the GOA, Mulder. I'm here to expose your agenda.

What is "static" is the purpose in each and every provision of the Constitution.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is that the citizens, AKA the militia, can successfully thwart the ambitions of tyrants who would seek to take over our country or restrict our rights.

The way to thwart such attempts is to have the citizens armed THE SAME AS the armies of such would-be tyrants. It's hard to imagine our wonderful men and women in the military turning against US, but who knows how it would be presented to them--especially with a Clintonesque administration of the future (with the corresponding selections of commanding officers, etc.).

Bottom line: we get the SAME weapons soldiers get. Hint, they aren't packing black powder, single shot rifles as were the army and the citizens of Revolutionary times. The details--the changing specifics--are not static. The purpose is.

CFR

I also see that you haven't noticed that CFR has blown up in the face of democrats. Their supply of soft money(i.e unlimited donations from a small base of rich donors) has dried up, while the Republican, who have basically relied on small donations from average people, for the bulk of their donations, is running a 4 to 1 advantage in the fundraising race.

BTW, I think the most vile part of CFR(the ad bans) will be thrown out by the courts.

Well I will start that Bush is pushing tax cuts, a demo would be increasing your taxes.

Bush is cutting taxes by 1% when he should be cutting them by 30% like Reagan did.

Bush didn't even propose a tax cut during the campaign. It was only after Forbes and Quayle pushed tax cuts, that the Bush team advocated them. But I do give him some credit for implementing them.

As for raising taxes, a dem WILL do that, thanks in part to Bush spending money like a drunken sailor and running massive deficits as a result. It's the good cop/ bad cop paradigm.

What's that got to do with anything? Anyway, Norquist isn't the one leaving our borders wide open. He has no power to enforce, propose, or enact any laws.

I'm here to expose your agenda.

LOL.... expose away.... Although I'll make it simple for you by explaining that my "agenda" is the Constitution and individual Freedom.

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.