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 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 361-369 next last
To: Dane
I'm here to be the skunk in your perpetual, malcontent garden party.

Are you stalking me now?

201 posted on 04/19/2003 12:38:19 PM PDT by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Are you stalking me now?

Wow you are paranoid aren't you?

Watch out for those skunks, they are chem trailing causing, build-a-burger, NWO, trilateral commission loving, commie pinko, John Birch hating bastards.

202 posted on 04/19/2003 12:43:23 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Exactly!
203 posted on 04/19/2003 12:44:57 PM PDT by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
The Constitutional aspect is the biggest problem I have with it. The other is incrementalism. My shotgun is next, or right now if you look at what's going on in Illinois.

We own a LOT of guns, but no assualt rifles

1. Unless you have a Class III NFA, you can't have any assault RIFLES(Full auto).
2. Assault WEAPONS - What's an assault weapon? You might own one and not know it...or what is a "non" AW weapon now by congressional definition, can be one when Schumer, DiFI, and company are done with it.

204 posted on 04/19/2003 12:45:52 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("I have two guns. One for each of ya." - Doc Holliday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
It's not the ideologues who will decide the next election!

Actually, you are wrong for two reasons.

1. If the ideologues stay home, the other guy wins.
2. In my state, most of the middle owns a gun, carries a union card, and lives in places like Macomb or Monroe County. If they see Bush turn anti-gun or raise taxes, they will vote for the union label.

205 posted on 04/19/2003 12:49:01 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("I have two guns. One for each of ya." - Doc Holliday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
But is a static interpretation of all after more than 200 years reasonable?

Absolutely. Else, it will be twisted through time and subverted.

If part of the constitution is no longer relevant, than it is time to amend it.

206 posted on 04/19/2003 12:50:56 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("I have two guns. One for each of ya." - Doc Holliday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Watch out for those skunks, they are chem trailing causing, build-a-burger, NWO, trilateral commission loving, commie pinko, John Birch hating bastards.

I'm prepared for skunks or other 'problem animals', much to the disappointment of statist politicians.

207 posted on 04/19/2003 12:52:22 PM PDT by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Right_in_Virginia
the right to carry a rapid-fire assault rifle.

The Schumer, Feinstein plan has nothing to do with assault rifles, or anything rapid fire.

208 posted on 04/19/2003 12:52:58 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("I have two guns. One for each of ya." - Doc Holliday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dane
And signing a PBA ban, sign a bill protecting gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits

He hasn't signed though yet, although I'm fairly sure he did say he would sign both of those. If he does, I'll be the first to praise him.

209 posted on 04/19/2003 12:54:27 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("I have two guns. One for each of ya." - Doc Holliday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
"If they see Bush turn anti-gun or raise taxes, they will vote for the union label."

They'd vote for John Kerry? I seriously doubt it....Hillary maybe heh? HA!!!

210 posted on 04/19/2003 12:55:09 PM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan; Fred Mertz
Treason in the U.S. Senate; Republicans Vote for Gun Control
-- Sen. Smith and Enzi stand alone in defending 2nd Amendment
by Gun Owners of America

(Friday, May 14, 1999) -- With anti-gun Democrats on the offensive, Republicans yesterday retreated and gave up significant 2nd Amendment ground. On two separate occasions, scores of Republicans crossed party lines to support gun control proposals. And on a third vote, several Republicans crossed over to give anti-gun Senators Schumer and Feinstein a victory in their efforts to ban the importation of high-capacity magazines. The words "shall not be infringed"-- the unmistakably clear language of the 2nd Amendment-- were repeatedly ignored.

Bob Smith & Mike Enzi Stand Alone in Opposing Gun Bans and Registration; Alone in Opposing Chuck Schumer


http://www.gunowners.org/a051499.htm


Republicans Cave in and Help Feinstein Ban Self-defense Ammunition Clips

211 posted on 04/19/2003 12:55:37 PM PDT by TLBSHOW (The gift is to see the truth.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Belial
I seriously doubt the founding fathers had modern weaponry in mind when they wrote the second amendmant

Read Federalist 46.

212 posted on 04/19/2003 12:55:57 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("I have two guns. One for each of ya." - Doc Holliday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
If you want to understand the 2nd Amendment, read Federalist 29 and 46. Also the Anti-Federalist Papers are good to read as well, if nothing else, for the mentality of the country back then.

Also most of the state constitutions as well has their own "2nd amendments"(1963)

In Michigan
"Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state".

213 posted on 04/19/2003 1:00:43 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("I have two guns. One for each of ya." - Doc Holliday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
I'm prepared for skunks or other 'problem animals', much to the disappointment of statist politicians

This has to be a FR record. The ultimate Libertarian slur "statist"(i.e goobermint lackey, Jack Booted thug, NWO boot licker)" was used 207 replies into this thread.

Oh well, when in deep trouble, go back to the ole stand by.

214 posted on 04/19/2003 1:01:38 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
Thanks, Fred. Happy Easter to you and yours as well.
215 posted on 04/19/2003 1:02:47 PM PDT by Sal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: All
We'll...looks like we've made it past the denial phase.
216 posted on 04/19/2003 1:05:25 PM PDT by wardaddy (Hootie to head EEOC...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Dane
It's a day for records then, because for the first time in about five years I agree with you on something.

You certainly are a skunk.
217 posted on 04/19/2003 1:05:30 PM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Belial
...or public access to weapons capable of efficiently destroying an entire restaurant.

Is that like a fully loaded garbage truck going fifty miles per hour and driving through the picture window??

perhaps you are referring to a volkswagon carrying a 50 gallon drum loaded with deisel and soap?

Oh, I know, you must be referring to someone with a .357 wheel gun with a standard six inch barral and a bag of quick load clips??

Perhaps a few sticks of dynamite purloined from the nearest heavy construction demolition site?? Oh, I konw, it is the crystal water company's 5 gallon glass water jug filled with av gas and a rag inserted in the top...

I remember now, it is a browning hi power like the one used in Ruby's cafe to systematically kill the customers..

No no no, it was the standard hunting rifle used by that loon on the tower in texas...

Or perhaps like the revolver that the loon had in Grass Valley Ca that took out 5-7 people, nasty assault weapon, that revolver.

What exactly is this weapon that efficiently destroys everone in the restaurant that is evil and now banned, so no one can get their hands on one in the United States??

Certainly, you are not referring to the semi automatic firearms, that, barring lever action and bolt action, are the way most firearms that are modern operate in the world today. You know, the ones that become dangerous because they have a bayonet lug, a flash suppressor (rather than a legal flash hider!!), and are "capable" of holding more than a given number of rounds in a magazine (hint:carry more mags when invading a restaurant) and lastly, -gasp- have a pistol...yes PISTOL grip to place the trigger hand on while supporting the rifle.

Are those ones what you are unwilling to unleash back onto the unsuspecting public via crazies whose sole intent is to render mayhem and destruction to restaurants worldwide? -Barring, or course an armed citizenry to take them out cleanly and efficiently should they be so stupid?

218 posted on 04/19/2003 1:06:20 PM PDT by going hot (Happiness is a momma deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
He hasn't signed though yet, although I'm fairly sure he did say he would sign both of those. If he does, I'll be the first to praise him

He would sign them both. The PBA will get through the Senate, not sure about the bill that would protect firearms manufactuer's from frivolous lawsuits will pass the Senate, since there are some RINO's who may balk.

But what the hey, your allies on this site wish to chuck Bush over the cliff for a demo, who would never sign any kind of these type of bills.

Ah principle, it is so liberating while promoting the democrat party cause.(/sarcasm)

219 posted on 04/19/2003 1:09:41 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
1991 - George HW Bush bans imports of some so called AW's under exec order the "Sporting Purposes" clause in 1968.

Klinton did the same thing 98 or 99?

220 posted on 04/19/2003 1:11:01 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("I have two guns. One for each of ya." - Doc Holliday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 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