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."
My problem with that is that you would then be punishing the good republicans that ARE pro-gun. If a good Republican like Mike Rogers votes against this ban, it passes anyway, and W signs it, why should he get punished by a dumb decision made at the top of the ticket?
Punish the individual, but not everyone. Hell, there may even be a freeper on the ticket. A conservative pro-gunner too for that matter. Last election, I helped one out(not even knowing he was a freeper)
My sinators are beyond worthless. One helped write the AW ban. The other talks pro-gun and votes anti.
I talked to my congressman in person though. He's solid.
Yeah, but there's the rub. In our increasingly stupid, perverse and lazy society, half of the eligible voters don't even bother (2000 elections). Of that half that did, the Pubbie-Rat split was 50-50. Of those who voted for Bush, seemingly half don't seem to care one bit about our RKBA, which is the only guarantee we have against tyranny. And hell, even the RKBA crowd is apparently divided between those who are willing to ban "ugly guns", just as long as they don't come for their Winchester .30-30s and Remmington Mod 700s.
It's divide and conquer, simply put. I even think this whole "neo-con" and "paleo-con" divide, which has developed since 2000, is just a way for the Commielibs to dilute the conservative base. I once heard it said that Pubbies play chess, while the Rats play guerilla warfare. Yep, sounds like that to me.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Thanks, man! I do my best.
Sorry, but yes.
Try this experiment to get a better understanding of how things truly work. . Decide that you wish th obtain a maching gun (or RPG or whatever). Go out and buy one on the Black market (I understand they are supposedly available in some circles). You have excercized your freedom without asking the governments permission, or following any government prescribed methods, to do so. Now go downtown in NYC, LA, D.C., or any other big city and carry it around openly. You are excercizing your liberty, your right to keep and bear, and with no government regulation or consideration involved up to this point.
Do this, you will soon find the difference between liberty and freedom.
Or you could also excercize your freely made decisiion to obtain a manchine gun and follow the legally installed restraints society has placed on you. There will be absolutely nothing in thought or deed involved here. You will have lost some of your liberty, but you will still have your machine gun and be able to keep and bear it within the restraint on your liberty. You will have discovered that you still have the freedom to purchase and own one legally, but not the liberty of societal non-restraint on how and where you do it. Your right to keep and bear is still upheld and uninfringed (you have excersized it by completing this excersize), but the method in which you may exercize this right is regulated.
Again, don't argue some fantasy world stuff, just go out and do these things to get an understanding of how the real world works. BTW, I suggest you divest yorself of any personal and family responsibilities, financial obligations, etc. before attempting or accomplishing the first scenario.
Of course it isn't an infringement. It was insttiuted by the Republican hero Ronald Reagan. Infringements of Rights by Republicans are perfectly acceptable, as posts in this and similar political threads indicate.
seriously though, the Firearms Ownership Protection Act, which bans newly manufactured (may '86) machine guns for private ownership, is under the governments right to regulate interstate commerce. I think that any firearm, along with all of it's components and ammo, manufactured for use strictly within a State would be exempt from this. Practically, this is impossible, but it could be an interesting court challenge to prosecution for local possession of locally manufactured weapons under this law for anyone willing to risk 10 years in prison if he loses. If one could figure out how to obtain every component locally (including such things as primers, powder, etc if in any commercially available caliber).
It is my "line-in-the-sand" and I believe millions of politicos do not understand or believe how deep this sentiment runs in America.
How would this be accomplished in practical terms? By the time this is passed (or postponed slightly) the candidates will already be in place and there wouldn't be time to find and successfully promote anyone else. I tend to take a pragmatic view of these sort of things; There won't be anyone else to vote for and they know it.
Well, in theory, I agree - but you know, with this, kowtowing to the Muslims, homeland insecurity, the immigration problem, on and on - really.
What we have now on the plus side is a war - on the minus side is a bad economy, overrun with illegals and this is with encouragement of the president, being bought out by China (he made MFN), - I am still with you - but boy, it may get harder to decide which is the lesser of two evils, or the evil of two lessers.
By the way, I am 63 and have never voted for a Democrat - on a national level. WE in Texas, have often had to vote democratic for our locals. It has changed some.
By George (sorry!!), I think you've got it!!
Everything he has/hasn't done to protect the rights of citizens in this country has always been 'explained' by some on here. Some of the twists and turns have just really been humorous. Especially, trying to explain why passing the democrats legislation is really being a good Republican - because we stole their thunder???
You're calling a lot of people on this thread fools. Along with significant percentages of the Republican party. Although I wouldn't use the word 'fool' I won't argue against this point.
I'm off to Easter brunch now, gunbanner.
If you're referring to me as the gunbanner (you posted to two people) you're way off base. I'm the one that suggested a possible, if highly difficult, way around one of the Republican gun bans. You're the one who argues in favor that ban being unassailable.
That hardly puts me in the category of a gunbanner.
(I don't know if the equiptment used would be a valid legal argument, no court cases I'm aware of would suggest this, and it might set new precedent regarding the reach of the interstate commerce clause. If anyone is aware of any case law that might be used in this approach by either side, I would appreciate a citation for study)
I'm off to Church now for a while. Happy Easter to all. May all of God's blessings and may Eternal life be yours. He is Risen and death is defeated.
That's the hope I have. However, I've always been impressed by the regularity of some criminal syncronizing a major act of violent mayhem with the gun grabbers need for an emotional appeal to pass some piece of legislation.
Wonder if this will occur again when the AW ban renewal is being debated?
Regular people wouldn't even know what was going on until it was halfway over.
And I suppose the Jews control the world financial markets.
Come on!
I have no idea why you think your above stated scenario is even plausible. Do you have any confidence in the will of the people as the seat of governing force here in the United States? You fear a runaway military government and see the possession of an assault rifle as security against such, don't you?
Well, this leads to some very weird scenarios, as you've explained and appears to reveal your way overinflated trust in the power of the dinky assault rifle in the hands of a self appointed do-gooder, as the power that preserves our Democracy.
Sorry I dont share this view. If anything, I view the possession of heavy-duty assault weaponry by such groups organized to "protect" our liberties, as a more likely threat to me than the BATF, the FBI or any other suspected police department.
So we have these militia types, saying they are trying to "protect" me and you by arming themselves to the hilt. They're preserving our "rights"? They don't represent me. They represent their particular pov and then resort to violence. Who appointed these angry, insecure, paranoid terroristic Timothy McVeighs? Why should I trust in them?
I don't want them getting caches of assault rifles and imagining themselves virtuous. They don't protect me nor do they represent me. No Way! I fully support our President and our Attorney General and see the preservation of our Democracy as rather seated in the godly faith of the everyday citizen.
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.