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."
So you feel it is ok to give up some of your Rights so that others may be left alone? How much of that type of barter before your Rights are gone altogether?
Sorry, I vote for neither option. No UN. No anti-Self Defense legislation. If a candidate cannot respect my Rights, then they WILL NOT get my vote. Nor anyone else's that I can get to see reason.
And signing a PBA ban, sign a bill protecting gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits, promoting a tax cut(which a demo would never do), promting drilling in ANWAR,etc.etc.etc.
I know you would rather rant and not look at the whole picture, especially the legislative machinations of the process.
BTW, I thought you were never going to post to me again?
I'll ask succinctly, and I hope to get a succinct answer...Is this legislation good or bad?
It's been a while. I thought things may have changed. I guess not. Sorry about that...
We FReepers have a history of some failures:
Bill Clinton elected (twice!>
failure to have him removed when impeached
much legislation
If Bush signs a re-authorization, I'm going back to the Libertarians. Yes, it means a Demo being elected. So be it. Let's get it over and tell Claire that it's time.
Yep, I am a one issue malcontent. It's called the Constitution. I already know your feelings on this issue from previous posts.
Bad, but I can understand the administrations position. 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".
Like I said before, the place to kill this legislation is in the House, where 2nd Amendment issues actually can make or break elctions.
The fact that Feinstein and Schumer are welcoming ANYTHING by Bush should tell GW that he is on the wrong side in this issue. The other other problem is - GW took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Asssault Weaons Ban is a direct assault on the Constitution.
For all the positives GW has shown since being elected, he is going to alienate many 2nd Amendment defenders as well as strict Constitutional conservatives. I sure hope this isn't the start of a year of pandering to build votes. If so, I won't vote for him next time.
I wouldn't accept them. They would happen anyway. It's not about the right to carry a radid fire assault weapon. (I don't and I wouldn't.) It's about FREEDOM. Something too few people understand around here.
The rest of the things you mention may come and go but my right to keep and bear arms is as dear to me as my life.
NO! How about if someone told the press they could not use electronic keyboards, but had to control the speed of delivery of news, by having to use a manual type-writer and one finger only? How about if before the press could publish in a newspaper, they had to pay a fee, submit fingerprints and under-go a backround check and and while travelling had to keep the type writer in the back seat and the paper in the trunk? (sound absurd? well it is)
"This laying of moral blame for violent crime at the feet of the law-abiding, and the implicit absolution of violent criminals for their misdeeds, naturally infuriates honest gun owners."
I abhore porn, liberal newspapers and Archie Comics, but for me to want them banned would mean I have no respect for the 1st Amendment. Why is it that the 2nd gets hacked and whittled but if someone went after the 1st, there would be civil HELL to pay?
"The Bill of Rights is the list of the fundamental, inalienable rights, endowed in man by his Creator, that define what it means to be a free and independent people, the rights which must exist to ensure that government governs only with the consent of the people."
Why don't and why wouldn't you?
You are absolutely correct, ma'am, and in most ways the changes haven't been for the better. Again, the principles of freedom we were founded upon never change, though. Regardless of what we've become, and what we will become in the future, we are still "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (if they'd left it 'property', it would've solved a whole lotta problems!)".
"As for the rules changing, what about the Instant Replay before making a call in football? Why is there sudden death in pro-football, but not in college games? Again, I am not being a wise-guy."
I don't think for a second you're being a wise guy...it's a very good question. Rule changes in sports are always debated, and no matter what the oputcome, some fans are always disappointed. So what good are the rules then? That's open to debate.
The difference is that football is a sport, not our Constitution. If the instant replay rule is changed, it affects the way a game is played. It directly affects the relatively few players and owners, but to everyone else it's just water cooler and sports page discussion. If the AWB is extended, especially now, when the stage is better set than at any other time in my memory to start rolling back ridiculous gun laws, everyone's rights have been affected in a way that that we'll likely never be able to correct. The momentum of the left toward total registration/confiscation of firearms will be bolstered. We simply can not play fast and loose with our freedoms, as the NFL plays fast and loose with the rules.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
You're all too aware of the incremental approaches of the Socialists (you've even used that as an argument against me basically calling me what I abhor) yet you shrug this off with your "but" position.
You know this is bad legislation and you know it is going to lose GWB votes if he renews the ban, but you and others are willing to hand over our political birthright for a mere four years in a game of political expediency!
I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand that way of thinking.
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.