Bush in Tight Spot With N.R.A. Over Gun Legislation

The New York Times ^ | 05/08/03 | ERIC LICHTBLAU

[Pokey78]

WASHINGTON, May 7 — President Bush and the National Rifle Association, long regarded as staunch allies, find themselves unlikely adversaries over one of the most significant pieces of gun-control legislation in the last decade, a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons.

At issue is a measure to be introduced by Senate Democrats on Thursday to continue the ban. Groundbreaking 1994 legislation outlawing the sale and possession of such firearms will expire next year unless Congress extends it, and many gun-rights groups have made it their top priority to fight it. Even some advocates of gun control say the prohibition has been largely ineffective because of its loopholes.

Despite those concerns, the White House says Mr. Bush supports the extension of the current law — a position that has put him in opposition to the N.R.A. and left many gun owners angry and dumbfounded.

"This is a president who has been so good on the Second Amendment that it's just unbelievable to gun owners that he would really sign the ban," said Grover G. Norquist, a leading conservative and an N.R.A. board member who opposes the weapons ban. "I don't think it's sunk in for a lot of people yet."

Advocates on both sides of the issue say the White House appears to have made a bold political calculation: that the risk of alienating a core constituency is outweighed by appearing independent of the gun lobby, sticking to a campaign promise and supporting a measure that has broad popular appeal. The president has claimed the middle road — supporting an extension of the current ban but not endorsing the stronger measures that gun-control supporters say would outlaw many "copycat" assault weapons. That position has forced Democrats in the Senate to reject plans for a more ambitious weapons ban.

Mr. Bush's position "cuts against the N.R.A.'s position," said Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation, "and it will put the president — for one of the first times since he signed the campaign finance reform bill — at odds with his own political base."

"He's built up enough positive political capital in other areas that it won't be fatal," Mr. Franc added, but the issue could hurt Mr. Bush in Middle America, considered critical to his re-election chances in 2004.

The assault-weapons issue puts the president in a precarious political spot. When Mr. Bush was campaigning for president in 2000, a top N.R.A. official boasted that the group's relationship with Mr. Bush was so "unbelievably friendly" that the N.R.A. could practically claim a seat at the White House. The N.R.A. has been a major donor to Mr. Bush, and the gun lobby and the Bush administration have been in lock step on most major gun issues, including the current push to limit lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft has been a particularly close ally of the gun lobby, pushing an expanded view of gun rights under the Second Amendment and initiating law enforcement changes sought by the N.R.A.

But White House officials said the assault-weapons ban was one case in which the president and the N.R.A. did not see eye to eye.

"There are times when we agree and there are times when we disagree," said Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman. "The president makes decisions based on what he believes is the right policy for Americans." Mr. McClellan added that the ban was put in place as a way of deterring crime and that Mr. Bush "felt it was reasonable."

The White House position has heartened gun-control advocates. Matt Bennett, a spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety, which supports an extension of the weapons ban, said, "I think Bush realizes that, number one, this is the right thing to do, number two, he promised to do this in the 2000 campaign, and number three, he knows that it's good politics and this is an extremely popular measure."

The N.R.A. has maintained a polite civility toward the White House over the issue, even though it insists the ban is a violation of the Second Amendment that deprives hunters and sportsmen of many high-powered rifles.

Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A's chief lobbyist, said in an interview that while the defeat of the assault-weapons ban would be one of the N.R.A's top priorities, the group's focus would be on convincing members of Congress to vote against it so that it never reaches Mr. Bush's desk. "Do we agree with the administration's position on this? No, we don't, but the real fight is going to be not at that level, but in Congress," he said.

A bill will be introduced in the Senate on Thursday by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, that would extend the ban for 10 years in much the same form it exists today. House Democrats expect to introduce a toughened version of the bill next week. That version, rejected by Senate Democrats as too politically risky, would significantly expand the class of banned weapons.

Mr. Schumer said he believed Mr. Bush's support could be critical in what he predicted would be a hard-fought campaign to renew the assault-weapons measure, which bans 19 types of firearms and others that meet certain criteria.

"We hope the president will not just say he supports the ban but will work to get it passed," Mr. Schumer said in an interview. "This will be a good measure of the compassion in his compassionate conservatism."

Senate Democrats ultimately decided that a stronger version of the ban would not pass muster with the White House and thus stood little chance of gaining passage, officials said. As a result, the Senate proposal will not specifically ban the Bushmaster rifle type that was used in last year's Washington-area sniper attacks. The House version would, because it includes a broader definition of an assault rifle, officials said.

"I would like to strengthen the bill" beyond what will be introduced in the Senate on Thursday, Senator Feinstein said today. "But I don't want to lose the bill, and important to that is the president's support."

Mr. Schumer said that even with the White House's public support, "I am worried that the anti-gun-control forces in the administration will conspire to kill this measure in the dead of night without a vote."

He noted that Mr. Ashcroft gave a noncommittal response two months ago when he was asked before the Senate several times whether he would support the reauthorization of the assault-weapons ban.

Mr. Ashcroft noted that Justice Department studies had found that the ban's impact on gun violence was "uncertain," and he said more study was needed.

The question of the gun ban's impact over the last nine years will be a crucial point of debate on the legislation.

A report due to be released in the next few days by the Violence Policy Center — a liberal Washington group that supports an expansion of the ban — examined the killings of 211 law enforcement officers from 1998 to 2001 and found that one in five were done with assault weapons, often copycat models that did not fall under the 1994 ban.

"Unfortunately, the firearms industry has been very successful at evading the ban," Kristen Rand, the group's legislative director, said. "Assault weapons remain a huge public safety problem."

Gun-rights groups insist that the assault-weapons ban has had little or no impact in fighting crime, and they maintain that their opponents are wrong to depict high-powered rifles as the weapon of choice for gangs and rampage killers.

"None of these weapons are used for crimes, and the Democrats know that," Mr. Norquist said.

For many gun owners, the issue is visceral, and Mr. Bush's stance has made the debate even more emotional.

"There are a lot of gun owners who worked hard to put President Bush in office, and there are a lot of gun owners who feel betrayed by him," said Angel Shamaya, an Arizona gun owner who runs a Web site called "keepandbeararms.com."

[dead]

The baby killing vote is a lock for the Dems.

Even gun-toting, tax-hating pro-choice voters will not stray from the baby-killing reservation.

That's why Clinton could bomb countries, support the death penalty and welfare reform and dabble in his hobby of abusing and raping women.

His sole political third rail was abortion. He never gave a single inch in favor of the victims. And the feminists and the race pimps and the alleged pacifists would vote for him twenty more times, as long as they're allowed to dismember babies in the womb.

[MJY1288]

We know this, but he will cut and paste things form the NYT's next. It appears the "Gifted One" can't see the forest for the trees

[Kevin Curry]

What are you going to do?

Support and defend the Constitution, from all enemies foreign and domestic.

How? By spewing words and throwing a tantrum? What are you going to do?

[Joe Hadenuf]

Hopefully, that shut him up.

[dogbyte12]

Your a lair. The gift must not be questioned. He talks to Ann Coulter through a psychic.

[FairOpinion]

"What does this have to do with the AWB ban?"

---

It shows that Bush does support the right to keep and bear arms for individuals. The Bush Administration REVERSED the long standing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment of previous Administrations. The point is that Bush IS a friend of NRA and gun owners.

I think with his current position, he is sending a signal that people and the NRA should focus on Congress, where the bill will be voted on, instead of counting on Bush to veto it, which would be political suicide for him. Can you imagine the attack ads about how Bush is killing children, and thwarts the will of the people, by vetoing this legislation?! What good would it do, if Bush vetoes it, then loses the election and Kerry or Hillary reinstates it?

I think he is right and instead of blaming Bush, people should work on Congress and make sure they won't pass it. Here is something for the Republicans to filibuster, if need be.

[MJY1288]

There is always the "Mouse" :-)

[tpaine]

Ashcroft took his oath to defend the constitution. -- Not gungrabbing 'laws'.

[Long Cut]

If I may make a few observations on this fractious, emotional issue?

I do NOT believe that the President actually WANTS to sign an extension of this onerous legislation. That is what (I believe) is his core belief.

However, his political calculation is that to come out and oppose it would cost him valuable middle-class Sukker Mommie votes, votes that he and his (highly-paid, highly trained and experienced) political advisors have advised him he needs.

Thus, it is my conclusion that he has decided to let Congressman DeLay and his men kill it in the House, by simply letting it "die on the vine". He then needs not sign it and take any heat. In other words, for a change, Republicans in Congress give HIM cover.

At this point, someone on the thread is thinking (or screaming at his monitor), "That's what we thought about CFR, Cut, you Navy puke! Whaddup wid DAT?"

The answer, my FRiends, is as simple as it is brutal. CFR, in fact, WAS AS DEAD AS DINOSAUR DROPPINGS! It only recieved new life after a single, extreme event, namely ENRON's collapse and the subsequent revelations rescusitated it. Such events as that are completely unpredictable, but they DO have the impact on the public to drive politicians to do things they had not intended.

The same COULD happen to the AW ban, if some mutant shoots up a school or church a few weeks prior to the law's scheduled expiration. Such an extreme, bloody, and spectacular event would not only assure passage of the extension, but would also see it toughened, in ways Schumer and DiFly can only dream of.

So, what's the bottom line? Simply that we have to tread VERY lightly here...AND, we ALL need to stick together!

The namecalling and deadcatting which occurs on these threads helps no one but the Dims, and serves to assure our weakness. I ask those of you who, like myself, wish this ban to sunset, to be patient and let the game be played out. Those of you, also like me, who defend the President against all comers ALSO need to be patient...our FRiends have legitemite fears, and need to be comforted and strengthened, not abused.

You see, should the "doomsday scenario" of extreme events occur as I have stated above, we will ALL need to voice LOUD, CONTINUOUS, and UNIFIED support for a sunset. Let those in the White house know that we ALL wish it to go away, and if it does, then the President can count on ALL of us. Threats of voting for Dims, or mad talk of "making wills and peace" will most certainly NOT help our cause, much as they may FEEEEL good to say.

Let us observe, and react, with cold, ruthless logic; and do it as one, rather than let emotional heat shatter us, the better for defeat.

Just my two bits. FWIW.

[Dan from Michigan]

why in hell did they vote for him in the first place?

Because the other guy was worse, and who led the way? GUNOWNERS. We got the votes to win Missouri, Tennessee, West VA, New Hampshire, Arizona, Nevada, Arkansas, Florida, Ohio, and made it close in Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, and Penn(and maybe Oregon, although that's more regional on guns).

Now gun owners aren't the only ones to win it for Bush, but he would not be there if it wasn't for gunowners, and the LEAST he can do is not sign whatever piece of crap comes out there.

And yes, I did vote for Bush.

[MJY1288]

Oh I forgot, Ms. Cleo has found a new customer I guess

[Fred Mertz]

Ashcroft took his oath to defend the constitution.

J. Edgar Ashcroft? You must have him confused with someone who cares about individual liberties.

[RKV]

I don't see it as political suicide at all. Its time to stand up and be counted. As noted above, plenty of gun owners voted for Gore, we need to work to take them away from the RATs not try and convince the tofu eating Birkinstock crowd who will NEVER vote REP.

[Cacique]

Bump

[Dan from Michigan]

Maybe if Bush I didn't break his promise and also enact his own gun grab, we wouldn't have had 8 years of Klintler.

[Mulder]

How? By spewing words and throwing a tantrum? What are you going to do?

That's four times you've asked that question.

Why do you care?

You should be more concerned with what your gov't is planning to do.

[dogbyte12]

Well ya see Fred... Ashcroft is in NY right now meeting with Kofi Annan, to discuss the best real estate to use to introduce the UN re-education camps.

They are flying out tomorrow in a black helicopter along with the original one worlder Bush the elder to start a camp in upper state NY.

All christian gun owners will be rounded up and placed there while Mike Farrell re-educates them about the truth.

Didn't you get the memo?

[Dane]

Maybe if Bush I didn't break his promise and also enact his own gun grab, we wouldn't have had 8 years of Klintler.

Who would you'd rather have as President between 92-96, Bush 41 or the tag team duo called the Clintons?

[Sabertooth]

He's running for re-election. Would you rather have John F Kerry or John Edwards signing every piece of anti-gun legislation that crosses his desk??

Here's a better question: would you?

President Bush 41 was looking at coasting to re-election when he signed the big tax increase. Shrewd political calculation, that.

It isn't always a good political idea to pretend to seem like the Democrats, even if the RNC whiz kids think it is.

Gun control cut against the Democrats in 2000, and Bush is more popular now than three years ago. There is no reason to believe that shafting the GOP's 2nd Amendment constituency would result in a net electoral gain for President Bush.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Nice to see the konservatives so concerned about the constitution and our second amendment.