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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 361-369 next last
To: annyokie
As you gather information, you are neglecting the only information that matters. The Constitution, which blood has been spilled for repeatedly to keep.
61 posted on 04/19/2003 8:48:47 AM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
Thank you. ; )
62 posted on 04/19/2003 8:50:15 AM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution
What an assinine argument on your way to wiping your back end with the Constitution...

Let me guess...charm school graduate?

63 posted on 04/19/2003 8:52:02 AM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Like I said before, the place to kill this legislation is in the House, where 2nd Amendment issues actually can make or break elctions.
And you know damned good and well that 2nd Amendment issues can make or break Presidential elections too.
2000 showed that all too well or else all of those Dem voters wouldn't have left Gore standing in the breeze with his wet finger and perplexed expression.
You keep trying to pass this off onto the House when they are the very ones who voted for it in the first place! How is anyone supposed to make them rescind something they've already passed. Nothing gets rescinded anymore. To have a sunset provision in that ban was a miracle to start with. It was simply placation!
64 posted on 04/19/2003 8:52:48 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Just trying to understand...
65 posted on 04/19/2003 8:52:49 AM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Yeah, conservatives have been totally duped.

Get a little and lose the rest.

If the Republican Party can't put forward candidates that will defend the Constitution, I'm done holding my nose to vote for whichever candidate simply has a GOP brand.

Unlike Britain and Australia, our rights will be defended at a time and place of our choosing by the true patriots left in this nation, of which there are millions.
66 posted on 04/19/2003 8:53:39 AM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution
I am neglecting nothing. I guess I need to speak to someone other than yourself about this issue since all you seem to do is insult me.
67 posted on 04/19/2003 8:54:18 AM PDT by annyokie (provacative yet educational reading alert)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: wku man; Belial
We simply can not play fast and loose with our freedoms,

So any restriction on your "freedom" is bad?
I think your idea of freedom is actually unrestricted license and that is not a Constitutional guarantee.
As Belial pointed out when do we allow the general public to own "shoulder-held SAM launchers"?
Nevermind that these firearms can bring down an airliner.
Heh! We need our "freedoms"![translated unrestricted license]
I have a hard time attributing that as a Founding Father principle.

68 posted on 04/19/2003 8:54:31 AM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: wku man
Thanks! I am learning a lot here.
69 posted on 04/19/2003 8:54:59 AM PDT by annyokie (provacative yet educational reading alert)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Right_in_Virginia
No, that would make me a politician who cares more about power than about defending our freedoms.
70 posted on 04/19/2003 8:55:33 AM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: FreePaul
I want a Republican president, not just one elected as a Republican.

You have a Republican president.

I want a genuinely Conservative president.

71 posted on 04/19/2003 8:55:51 AM PDT by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: weaponeer
It's not about the right to carry a radid fire assault weapon. (I don't and I wouldn't.)

Interesting. Are you saying it would be wrong to walk around carrying such a weapon?

72 posted on 04/19/2003 8:56:43 AM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
If telling you the truth insults you, then so be it. I'm not here to make friends or win arguments, but to point to the truth. Do with it what you will.
73 posted on 04/19/2003 8:56:58 AM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: two23
"Why is it that the 2nd gets hacked and whittled but if someone went after the 1st, there would be civil HELL to pay?"

Just remember, bro, the 1st Amendment has been hacked already, by our current president, who said he didn't like CFR, but signed it anyway!!!. CFR is nothing short of an unconstitutional infringement on the 1st, and (to the chagrin of those who would like to cast me as a "one issue voter") the reason Bush will not get my vote again. This crap about him supporting the AWB just reaffirms my decision.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

74 posted on 04/19/2003 8:58:04 AM PDT by wku man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Dane
And before you start...I don't want to see another Democrat elected into the Presidency. I'd rather see a Constitution Party member or a Libertarian elected before that ever happens again.
I'd prefer a Republican who understands and upholds the Constitution. I'd prefer a Republican who understands that a Republican is supposed to support a republican form of government. I'd prefer a Republican who acknowledges that rights are inherent in the people and that government is our servant and not our master.
I'll sit home again and trust my Electors and take some, but not much, solice in that.
75 posted on 04/19/2003 8:59:21 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
Someone give me the arguement please

It generaly boils down to the 'infringed' part of 'shall not be infringed'. The question becomes ones of rights vs. privelege or permission.

76 posted on 04/19/2003 8:59:36 AM PDT by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Unfreaking believable !!
77 posted on 04/19/2003 8:59:43 AM PDT by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
It's not about the right to carry a radid fire assault weapon. (I don't and I wouldn't.)

Why don't and why wouldn't you?

Because it's not necessary or practical. I carry one of my 4 Glocks or several other handguns when I need or want to carry concealed. One of several tactical shotguns for home defense. I have a pre-ban AR-15 re-configured into a CAR/M4 configuration that I use for our monthly 3-gun tactical matches. But CARRY them? I think not.

How about you?

78 posted on 04/19/2003 9:01:21 AM PDT by weaponeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Possibly this endorsement will cause our President to re-consider his support for opression of the American People.
79 posted on 04/19/2003 9:01:38 AM PDT by CurlyDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
The President can fend off demo and media attacks that he is a hostage to the gun lobby in an election year and Congressmen can say they protected the 2nd amendment in the 2004 election.

I call this the Bush ex machina defense. The thesis here is that George Bush is so wise, so infinitely perspicacious, that what appears to be betrayal of gun rights is only part of a Keen Master Plan to befuddle his enemies.

This isn't faith; it's hero worship.

80 posted on 04/19/2003 9:04:14 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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