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."

[ez]

Do you understand?

I understand your myopia. Soccer moms who voted for Bush would NOT vote for him a second time if he broke his promise to support existing gun laws.

[Tahoe3002]

two23 = Second Battalion, 23rd Marines?
I was, many years ago, in C/1/23, Corpus Christi, Texas.

Seen quite a bit of 23rd Marines on FOX.
Semper Fi, USMC 1970-1981

[ThirstyMan]

So you liken me to some anti-Semitic loon because you disagree with my look on a future Civil War.

No I liken you to those who so clearly see a conspiracy emerging where there is no evidence of any such thing. The fact that I chose a conspiracy example with Jewish content is not me suggesting that you are anti-Semitic.

Polticians who don't stand by the Constitution will one day push the American people too far....Then, it will be time for the bullet box.

You plainly scare me. Again I support my President and my Attorney General.

I'm sorry if the thought of armed Americans scares you. You're hoplophobia is something you will have to learn to deal with.

Armed Americans of a balanced keel don't scare me one bit. I am glad that they own and know how to use weapons. However, armed conspiracy "loons" who envision themselves to be pure virtuousity as they stockpile assault weapons --- these folk scare me.

You may prefer the slavery of yourself or your children, but I, and millions like me bon't. May your chains rest lightly upon you

I don't see you as a person who will do anything to save me and my family by pointing an assault rifle at someone. Your scenario has delusional traits.

[TLBSHOW]

It does not make sense to anyone but liberals.....

[wku man]

You're right. I'd like to see them put those Merkavas to good use and kill every Pali terrorist scumbag SOB that dares point a rifle in the wrong direction.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[wku man]

You're right. I'd like to see them put those Merkavas to good use and kill every Pali terrorist scumbag SOB that dares point a rifle in the wrong direction.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[wku man]

Double post...sorry, y'all.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[Lx]

Exactly, voting in a dem isn't going to get us anything but more restrictions or if they have their way, outright bans on any weapon.

Bush reversed his stand on arming pilots so who knows? I'll still vote for him but I won't be pleased about the renewal of this ban. I still remember Patrick Purdey and the carnage he caused that led to this bill, or was that for California's version of it?

I do know that they scammed a bunch of SKS owners, yeah sure, register your weapons, they're legal, we'll never use the registration to confiscate your weapons and then BAM, SKS's were illegal and if you owned one you were supposed to turn it in.

[TLBSHOW]

Which is why letting President Bush know now just what we think of his supporting this banning.

As one never knows if this could change his mind and he may decide getting along with and supporting the liberal rats is a bad idea. Which it is of course. Since they would just as soon turn around and slam him but good at any minute.

Keep Republicans feet to the fire.

[BushIsALiberal]

"What if he doesn't reverse his stand? Are we going to let a democrat get elected - which will be far worse than Bush?"

Yes, as the alternative is far worse. Want gun owners to be taken for granted by the GOP the way blacks are by the Democreeps?

[BenR2]

And the anthem of the AK-47 drama queens whines on.

/////
You just answered her with an ad hominem reply. You did not address the substance of her argument.

To wit: You have de facto admitted that she has bested you in logical debate.

[ThirstyMan]

In point of historical fact you are more likely to get offed by some environmental wacko than a member of a self annointed militia.

Perhaps. I'm just not sure what weaponry the "ew's" use, are you? I need this information so I can watch out for them, if what you say is true. [since we have plenty of them around here]
I contend that operating in both the militia and the ew's is a common, yet very dangerous self-righteousness. This self-righteous attitude parades itself as pure and indisputable virtue willing to go to extreme lengths to impose its will on all of us. Both of these extreme groups are far off kilter.

McVeigh was not a member of any such group, BTW

Not technically perhaps. He was the angry militia type who feared the gov't, which is why he chose to attack the Murrah Federal Bldg on the day he did.

You mention the Will of the People, well the founding fathers put the second amendment in the Constitution so that the people would always be able to work their will on the government, if the government stopped listening on their own.

We need armed protection against the very governmental powers that we put into office. If so we're making very bad ballot box choices, aren't we? It appears you are saying we must instill a fear in our elected officials of the possibility of an armed revolt by the citizens?
Sorry, I just don't see how your model plays out and really am unclear how we know when we are supposed to start shooting. Do you know when we start shooting? If so can you tell me?

This sort of thing has never happened, it's not likely to happen...

I'm glad to hear you say this. I can't imagine that day myself.

[TLBSHOW]

put the pressure on Bush.........

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/letters.asp

[Lazamataz]

Since that's true, it's reasonable to question whether citizens require semi-automatics.

Hey, as long as we are being gungrabbing anti-second-amendment scumbags, I'll go ya one better: Why does any citizen require anything but a single shot nerf-gun?

G-d I hate gun-hating Republican weenies.

[two23]

"two23 = Second Battalion, 23rd Marines?"

No, Remington Model 7, Bolt Action, .223, with a 40 mm Bushnell Dusk-to-Dawn scope, to take out those pesky clay pigeons and rebel pumpkins in the earthen banks at the range.

"USMC 1970-1981"

Much respect and gratitude for your service; thanks!

[TLBSHOW]

bump

[Tahoe3002]

No wonder i didn't get it....I would have thought 5.56.
I shot the M-16 lots; fired Expert with it eight consecutive years. But my first USMC rifle was the M14. The Drill Instructor kept referring to it as 7.62. I asked him what does that equate to in "caliber"? He did not know, but he came back the next morning and told me, .308. That I could understand. Well, last year, thirty one years after first shooting one, I bought a Springfield M1A, Loaded version. Hot diggity! Love that rifle. (Check out a site: Battlerifles.com)

[two23]

Check Freepmail

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

I completely agree with you that many if not most soldiers, Marines and pilots would either refuse to kill US civilians or would be sympathetic to their cause. I was merely answering the basic criticism that governments with tanks, jets and nuclear weapons can instantaneously squash rebels armed only with small arms, rockets and grenades.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

I honestly believe the margin to be slim. Most soccer moms who voted for Bush are likely Conservative-leaning and share his views on abortion and other key issues and would be much more concerned with the shape of the US economy than with "breaking" a promise about black rifles.

The soccer moms who vote heavily on the gun-control issue and who voted for Gore because he tongue-sucked his wife on national TV will not be voting for Bush even were he to ban all guns outright.

There is no upside to Bush's maintaining this "promise". He is doing so because he must honestly believe black guns are evil and have no place in modern America. And I don't see how that squares with the Constitution or with his perception as nominating jurists who have a stricter interpretation of the Constitution. I mean, Ashcroft appears to be pro-RKBA to a greater extent, but what comes from Bush's mouth is not so impressive.

I will vote for him anyway as I have no choice. Any Democrat would be worse on RKBA.