Gun-control supporters split over strategy to extend assault weapons ban

People who want to keep assault weapons off the streets are divided over the best way to extend the ban on those guns, which is set to expire two months before the 2004 elections.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday will introduce an extension of the assault weapons ban that she helped enact in 1994. The Bush administration has announced its support for continuing the prohibition on military-style assault weapons.

The issue promises to become mixed up with election-year politics, just as the original ban -- passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Clinton -- helped fuel the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.

Many gun-control advocates who are normally allied with Feinstein are backing a more sweeping measure that Democrats in the House also will introduce Thursday.

The bill by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is modeled on California law, which supporters of gun control point to as much more effective than the federal law on assault weapons in combating gun makers' efforts to evade the ban.

The difference is in the definition of an assault weapon. The current law and Feinstein's bill cast a narrower net than does the House Democrats' proposal.

Gun-rights groups said they will try to defeat both bills. "Empirical evidence shows this gun ban has had zero effect on reducing crime," said Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association.

The place where this bill to extend the AWB is most likely to be stopped in in the House of Representatives. Write your Congress critters today. A handwritten note is the best way to contact them or even a call to the home district office. The House of Representatives is where this AWB extension can and must be stopped.

"I voted my conscience for a third party candidate. What I got was four more years of Bill Clinton."

I voted third-party in '96, as well. I like Bush, and I give him high marks on many things. However, I will be watching this debate closely. I think Bush's press staff's announcement that he would sign a renewal of the ban was one of two things: 1) testing the waters; (2) a gaffe made by an underling that would make Bush look bad if he had to come back and denounce the announcement. There is a third possibility, but I shudder to think he intended it: he really likes the ban and wants to make it permanent. If that's the case, then we have some real worries ahead of us as to the future of any of our freedoms. Bush has so much potential for being a truly great president, and a staunch defender of liberty. God, I hope political correctness does not blind him to his duty to preserve and protect and defend the constitution. As of now, I will certainly vote for him in 2004. However, I will wait to see what develops, and what other issues may come to the fore.

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.