Posted on 05/07/2003 7:41:18 PM PDT by 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."
Did Bush ever promise to support an expanded version of the AWB? Seems being given one might provide him an 'out' to veto it.
Never had one of those numbers, I did use 214-XX-XXXX when I was in the army serving my country and my fellow citizens- how bout you?
Is Bush doing this out of some core constitutional belief of his, or is it a cold political calculation?
and you're going to get it by helping the rats win?
How so?
If Bush is willing to sacrifice a strong stand on the 2nd amendment when he has a 70% approval rating, what makes you think he'll make a strong stand if he is re-elected at 52%?
The "hurry up and wait" bulls!it from the RINOS is getting real old.
The excuse in 1993 was "we can't do anything until we win Congress". So we gave them control of Congress.
Then the excuse was "we can't do anything until after the 1996 election". So we waited while they ran Bob "it's my turn" Dole.
Next, the excuse was "wait until we win the White House". So we gave them the White House.
In 2002, it was "wait until we win back the Senate". So we gave them the Senate.
It's time to put up or shut up.
You got it.
Actually it was malcontents on the right wing who blamed Bush for breaking his promise and they had Perot to go to even though his wife was on the Board of Directors of planned parenthood.
Anyway CFR is completely different than taxes and if the demos say that he should have vetoed CFR, Bush will laugh right back at their face for doing a 180 on a bill they supported and pushed through Congress.
What, a sudden chill? *grin*
I'm not pleased by this- but I see much, much worse if the rats get in. My hope is a strong win, both in the presidency AND in congress will allow us to seat judges who will serve for a long time, and put the courts on our side.
The lefties have been "marching through the instituions" for forty odd years. I want to take a long view, and marginalize them. I want to do the same thing to them that they have done to us. And I don't think we can do it if we lose this election. Demographics are against us- we need to get judges in office, that will set precedents that last for decades.
It's like the education bill, All of the standards are LAW, 75% of the funding isn't and hasn't been in the budget. The Farm Bill everyone cried about, last year was the least funded of the past 15 years because of the accountability written into the bill. Funding is always a projection. It's just like the phantom 5.6 trillion dollar surplus that was only a prediction based on the hhouse of cards Clinton built. Money to be spent in the future require future legislation but the framework and accountability of the legislation doesn't.
That's pretty weak, tex.
If he supports this, he loses my vote, plain and simple. It's bad enough that he wont speak out against this, and state that he is against it. F the politics. I am sick of the PC, and incrementaly murder of our second amendment.
Enough of this BS! He's either with us or against us.
I disagree, though.
The fact that law is vague and really unenforceable makes it difficult to square with the idea that his support springs from some core constitutional belief.
But by supporting the law (both now and in 2000), he gives weight to the idea that the federal government has the right to assume such powers that are specifically denied it by the constitution.
That makes me see it as a purely political calculation, designed only to increase his support amongst moderates at the expense of conservatives.
Please dont cut and paste some thread where ever doomsdayer is predicting the end of our freedoms. Cut and paste a quote from George W. Bush that backs up your claims
"After the Gulf War of 1991, George Bush received a strong 89 percent approval rating"
And what did we get?
It's time to put up or shut up
I've already got my black rifle, and a bunch of other weapons. I want to keep them. I think it's time to slam the rats with a win they can't try to claim was stolen, get a filibuster proof majority, and put the boot in their face.
I'm not up for a "hail mary" pass- I want to grind down the field and crush them.
No, my problem IS with Bush (or any politician) if he doesn't support the 2nd amendment or any of the Bill of Rights for that matter.
It is with the majority of your sissified fellow citizens who are easily frightened and stampeded by dark tales of vicious-looking guns.
What majority is that?
A recent poll showed that a majority of democratic voters supported an individual Right to keep and bear arms. Even the dem leaders realize this, as LIEberman showed in the recent 'debate'.
Also, CCW laws have passed in 35 states, including 2 this year alone that Bush lost in 2000 (New Mexico and Minnesota).
Not to mention that many senior congressmen lost their jobs in 1994 SOLELY on the gun issue.
The idea that the gun issue is a losing one for Republicans is absurd. However, it will eventually be a losing issue if the elites continue passing laws against the gun culture, thus indoctrinating young Americans against the 2nd amendment.
You need to educate them.
Yeah, it's not helping that the RINO leadership is doing nothing to do so.
They will decide that there is no individual right for citizens to possess firearms of any kind and inform the government it has the power to confiscate any and all firearms it desires. What will you do then?
I'll be defending the Constitution, and it won't be from a keyboard anymore.
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.