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."

[TLBSHOW]

I didn't think you would as your all talk without any sense.

[Sabertooth]

What I find amusing about this debate is the fact that there is no bill being presented for Bush to sign. This reminds me of the 245I debates.

Then you are incorrectly recalling the particulars.

A Homeland Security bill did reach Bush's desk, without the Section 245(i) privision that he sought, and he stated at the time of the signing that he regretted its absence.

We have the majority in both houses and a renewal of the AWB will require Tom Delay to schedule it for debate and then again for a vote. Then we will need to see Bill Frist do the same. Shumer and Whinestine can cry all they want. This will never see the POTUS desk .

That would be preferrable, but what should the President do if the AWB extension does reach his desk?

[TLBSHOW]

I see you learned well on how to cut and paste.

[justshe]

What is 'telling' is that if you read enough threads....you can see the same 'cut and pastes' over and over and over and over. Somebody should start charting the 'cut and pastes'.....I'm betting it is getting damn close to the legal definition of 'spamming'. :-)

[TigersEye]

We have the majority in both houses and a renewal of the AWB will require Tom Delay to schedule it for debate and then again for a vote. Then we will need to see Bill Frist do the same. Shumer and Whinestine can cry all they want. This will never see the POTUS desk

Given the courage and resolve they've shown over filibustering of judicial nominees I'm not going to place any bets based on our majority status. But we can certainly try to apply some pressure on them in the meantime.

[TLBSHOW]

Is it now? I think not. But as one that does not have the gift as you don't, its easy to see your thought process.

[jt8d]

Yeah, sure... and "compassionate conservatism" is good for our liberties too. Talk to the Aussies, or the English, or the Canadians... I could go all the way back into history, but why bother clouding the issue with facts?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Huh? Bush won despite Rove's idiocy. And I suspect this is more of Rove's lunacy. Look at all the money and time Bush squandered on California instead of locking up Florida and a few very very close states like New Mexico. Rove put Powell and Rice on the ticket and Bush tried to make an appeal for black votes and did even worse than Bob Dole did, getting only 8% of the black vote. And after this performance, Rove is supposed to be good at political calculations? Bush won despite Rove's blunders. Rove should be dismissed and replaced with a competent national campaign advisor. Bush had better think twice if he thinks he can sign this and win any moderate votes because of it. He will certainly lose part of his base support with no swing voters likely to vote on this issue. Furthermore, Bush has already paid the full political price for gun rights and he is expected to be pro-gun so stopping the AWB is not a true political liability for him. Bush had better remember who voted the Republican landslide of '94 into office (pissed off gunowners).

This is (IMHO) really good political analysis, friend GWB. Everybody treats Karl Rove like he's the reincarnation of Lee Atwater, but let's face it -- Karl ain't no Lee Atwater.

The GOP desperately needs Lee Atwater -- needed him badly in 2000, but they'll need him again in 2004. There's a place for dirty street-fighters who can assess a situation, identify strengths and weaknesses, and go in for the Kill without remorse.

Sadly for Conservatives everywhere (of which Karl Rove is not), God apparently decided that, as the old saying goes, "Heaven had more need of Atwater" than do we the Living who remain. He was called Home on March 29, 1991, the result of an inoperable brain cancer (early-tech Cell Phones may bear some of the blame), some few months after his Colson-esque conversion to devout Christianity.

Not to sound pessimistic, but this example (as with John Calvin's death at the relatively young age of 54) re-inforces my doubt towards the Post-Millenial vision of Reconstructing Society into a "Millenial Golden Age" prior to the return of Jesus Christ. The Post-Millenials are going to have a hard go of it if God continues to recall the Best and Brightest home to Heaven, to enjoy their Just Reward.

As another old saw has it... Only the Good die young.

For those of us who remain, my sense is rather more Amillenial -- we run the Race, we fight the Good Fight, but in the end...

God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

A Post-Millenial (futuristic optimist) would say, "Yeah, that's how things were". A Pre-Millenial (futuristic pessimist) would say, "Yeah, that's how things will be".

As an Amillenialist (dare I say, an eschatological realist?), I'd say... "Brother, that's just how things are."

Anyway... RIP Lee Atwater (the last of the truly brilliant GOP street-fighters); we hardly knew ye.

[the lone wolf]

Where else are we going to go?

If the AWB is signed into law, I'm going fishing on election day.

I will NOT vote for ANYONE who restricts my God-given, constitution-confirmed rights, no matter what excuse they give.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

And, unfortunately, Rove's right. Where else are we gonna go?

Maybe we'll just go hunting instead of going to the poll.

[MJY1288]

"A Homeland Security bill did reach Bush's desk, without the Section 245(i)"

Thank You for proving my point

" but what should the President do if the AWB extension does reach his desk?"

Either veto it or Pocket Veto it. But I will continue to be amused over all the "If Bush Signs this... That's it, I'll vote for a guaranteed loser" crowd.

You must admit that the chances of the AWB renewal getting the support of the majority in both the house and the senate and then making it out of Conference when we control what will be debated and voted on the floor of both houses, has little chance of reaching the POTUS desk?

[TigersEye]

Maybe we'll just go hunting instead of going to the poll.

I might stay home and clean my assault rifle.

[jt8d]

Doan worry, be happy! After all, we conservatives are making such wonderful gains all across the land!

[MJY1288]

I just can't see Tom Delay going over what he would like to see the House of Represenatives to take up during this legislative session and saying to himself.... "hey Lookie here, Diane Fienstien and Chuck Shumer would really appreciate it if I would schedule this AWB Renewal proposal for debate. I Think I should make this priority #1 considering all their help with George W. Bush's judicial nominations"

If you believe this will happen, I have a bridge to sell you

[CatAtomic]

How you naysaying loonies can cry "foul" when GW clearly stated his position prior to election is beyond me. Just what the hell is this "betrayed", poor poor pitiful me crappola?!

If you don't like the policy then make your points against it, but don't playact like you've been sold out or broad-sided!

[justshe]

Jim Robinson commented on this issue on another thread awhile back...and I'm going to post his comments here. He says is WAY better than I could.

---

I believe wholeheartedly in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I live and breath for restoring them and our Liberty and for dumping the socialist liberal RATs out of their controlling positions in government. That's why I am passionately opposed to allowing any Democrat from gaining or holding office.

I see the Democrats and their socialist platforms as the enemy of freedom, enemy of Liberty and enemy of the Constitution (not too mention just flatout corrupt and their party platform, ie, socialism, slave taxism, gun control, government sanctioned and enforced homosexualism and abortion, etc., as purely evil).

I see dumping the RATS and not allowing them into government in controlling numbers as the first step (note: "first step") in restoring constitutional government. Those who are bent on dumping the Republicans are simply going to reinstall Democrats in their place and forestall any chance of constitutional restoration. What good can that possibly bring?

Here's the roadmap:

• First step: Dump the RATs.
• Elect Republicans.
• Build a controlling supermajority.
• Appoint and confirm conservative judges.
• Repeat at all levels of government.
• As majorities build: dump the least conservative of the Republicans and replace with with more conservative candidates.
• One by one, build cases against existing unconstitutional law and or prior Supreme Court decisions and bring to the newly conservative courts to strike down or reverse.
• Lobby the conservative congress to repeal existing unconstitutional laws.
• Lobby the congress to begin dismantling the socialist welfare state and the police state.
• Build cases for repealing all unconstitutional gun control laws and lobby congress and or the Supreme Court to get it done.
• Repeat for each area where federal government has overstepped its constitutional bounds.
• Repeat above at state and local levels.
• Build a case for amendments to repeal the 16th amendment and abolish the income tax, the IRS, FICA, the SSA, medicare, etc.
• Build a case for an amendment to repeal the 17th amendment and bring to congress and to the people.
• Ensure that the second, fourth, fifth, ninth and tenth amendments are fully restored and enforced.
• Restore state and local government control (ie, the people) over crime, social, welfare, education and environmental issues.
• Enjoy and diligently defend the Liberty newly restored and secured for ourselves and our posterity.

Repeat as necessary.

1,175 posted on 04/17/2003 3:36 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

[tpaine]

.you can see the same 'cut and pastes' over and over and over and over. Somebody should start charting the 'cut and pastes'.....I'm betting it is getting damn close to the legal definition of 'spamming'. :-)
284 -she-


Roscoe --- Ohhh roscooe...
Your expertise is needed here.

When you see the same 'cut and pastes' over and over and over and over, and over and over and over and over and over and over, -- is it getting damn close to the legal definition of 'spamming'?

[BenR2]

So you despise Bush. What is your workable plan? Take the stage and enlighten us. The mic is yours.

////
What is so complicated about his reversing himself (admitting a mistake) and coming out four-square against the AWB extension.

Please don't make it all complicated. It isn't.

[tpaine]

Yep, and right after that post, same thread, ims, he made another:

_ "Yes, I support the Second Amendment. And I make no bones about its purpose or to whom it applies. It was not put in place so Bill and Hillary Clinton could go duck hunting with a shotgun or so Barbara Steisand could carry a derringer in her purse to stave off overzealous fans. It's there because the founders wanted to ensure that we the people (ie, individuals) should remain armed to defend ourselves from a government gone bad.
As far as I'm concerned, we should be allowed to park fully operational Sherman tanks in our garages and commute via fighter planes (if we wish).
Now, personal nukes capable of taking out large cities.... hmmmm.... I don't know if I want to trust some of the crazier antiwar libs with those.

1,219 posted on 04/17/2003 5:04 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

[Sabertooth]

Thank You for proving my point

No. Your point was that you noticed some similarity between the current situation and the 245(i) debates. Even if we stipulate that we don't know where the President stands on an AWB extension, that wasn't the case with Section 245(i). Bush supported the Amnesty extension.

Your point is something other than proven. Sort of like your point about John Q. Public and the mainstream media.

Either veto it or Pocket Veto it.

What is your opinion of the political ramifications of either, with regard to 2004?

Either veto it or Pocket Veto it. But I will continue to be amused over all the "If Bush Signs this... That's it, I'll vote for a guaranteed loser" crowd.

When Bush 41 signed the tax increase, I voted for a guaranteed loser: Bush 41.

It wasn't amusing, but I blame no one but him for losing a key part of his constituency.

You must admit that the chances of the AWB renewal getting the support of the majority in both the house and the senate and then making it out of Conference when we control what will be debated and voted on the floor of both houses, has little chance of reaching the POTUS desk?

I would hope so, but I think it's an open question.

The more Republicans there are that act like 2A issues are something to be feared, the more likely it is that the RINOs will waiver, and the more likely it is that the President will find the extension on his desk.

Projecting weakness is a bad strategy.