Gun Rights on a Roll:Republican Congress Unlikely to Renew Clinton Weapons Ban

Thanks to conservative gains in the 2002 elections, and increasing Democratic reluctance to embrace gun control, gun rights have made significant advances on the state and federal levels over the last two months.

In addition to House passage last month of a bill immunizing gun manufacturers from lawsuits based on criminal misuse of their products (see Human Events rollcall, May 5), several states have passed similar bills or are working on them in their legislatures. Meanwhile, five states have passed laws this year making it easier to carry concealed weapons, and three others have taken legislative steps toward gun rights legislation (see map, page 8).

Of even more concern to gun owners, though—and perhaps more critical to the outcome of the 2004 election—is the looming fight over the federal ban on so-called "assault weapons." Despite President Bush’s recent promise to sign an extension of the ban, 2nd Amendment activists are confident it will die in September 2004, when it automatically sunsets.

The ban, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) in 1994, was given a ten-year expiration date as part of a compromise to secure the votes needed for passage. As a part of President Clinton’s signature "crime bill," the law banned specific guns not because they were more dangerous than other guns, but because they had cosmetic features characteristic of military weapons.

For example, a bayonet mount and a protruding pistol grip are enough under the law to classify a rifle as an "assault weapon" if it accepts detachable magazines. The rules for classifying pistols as "assault weapons" are similarly cosmetic.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer confirmed for Human Events last Wednesday that Bush would sign a bill extending the gun ban. "That is the President’s position, and the stand that he took in the 2000 campaign," said Fleischer.

But Chuck Cunningham, the National Rifle Association’s director of federal affairs, said that a bill renewing "the Clinton gun ban" will not get anywhere near Bush’s pen.

"The difference would be that there’s no Clinton, there’s a Republican President, and the Republicans control both houses of Congress," said Cunningham. "That on its face should be proof of what an uphill battle the other side has."

"I think we’ll have the votes to stop it from being re-enacted or expanded," he said. He also pointed out that the fight on this issue, like federal legislation in 1999 to regulate gun shows out of business, will help strengthen the NRA at the grassroots "by providing a dragon to slay."

"The people who remember how people vote on gun control are the people who hate gun control," said Norquist. "It will remind people that it matters who is in the House and Senate, and it will energize our base."

Other activists and congressional sources agreed that a bill to renew the gun ban would be dead on arrival in the House, and maybe in the Senate.

Meanwhile, Democrats on the both the federal and state level are going out of their way to distance themselves from the gun control lobby.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean—an unabashed liberal on most issues—has made a point in his presidential campaign of his support for gun rights, citing this as evidence he is moderate enough to win a general election.

Rep. Harold Ford (D.-Tenn.), a rising Democratic star, was among 63 Democrats who voted for the NRA-backed bill immunizing gun manufacturers against lawsuits. "I’ve come around to the point that [I believe] you can’t go regulating a legal enterprise out of business," Ford told Human Events. Ford did not forget to point out that he is an avid hunter.

In the Senate, the same bill is co-sponsored by Minority Whip Harry Reid (D.-Nev.), Blanche Lincoln (D.-Ark.) and Byron Dorgan (D.-N.D.), who all face re-election this cycle. Even more surprising is the list of Democrats who have not declared either way on the bill. It includes stalwart liberals such as Pat Leahy (D.-Vt.), Jim Jeffords (I.-Vt.) and even Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D.-S.D.).

Eric Howard, spokesman for the pro-gun-control Brady Campaign, would not comment on rumors that Daschle has warned his group not to expect his support when the bill comes up for a vote. Daschle will very probably face a competitive re-election battle next year against former Republican Rep. John Thune.

Governors in Minnesota, Colorado and New Mexico have all signed laws this year requiring local authorities to issue concealed weapons permits to any sane, law-abiding citizen who applies (see chart). These laws bar local authorities from maintaining de facto gun bans by arbitrarily refusing to issue permits. Democratic Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia also signed a bill pre-empting all local gun control laws.

One or both houses of the state legislatures of Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio have already passed bills making it easier for more people to carry concealed weapons, and New Hampshire, Nevada and Wisconsin are expected to act soon on bills that will ban lawsuits against gun makers in state court.

On the other side of the issue, only one state—Illinois—is expected to pass major anti-gun legislation this term.

Howard tried to put a good face on the Democratic defections. "I don’t think it’s fair to say that everybody’s running from this issue," he said.

Rep. Danny Davis (D.-Ill.), a liberal gun-control champion, was more blunt. "I think that Democrats—or if you want to say people who are thought of as more progressive—have allowed themselves to be out-worked, out-strategized," he said.

Indeed, Republican congressional sources say conservatives can only benefit politically from more votes on gun issues this term.

"The 2nd Amendment is just such a powerful issue," said one House aide. "It’s a great time for it."

Rep. Jeff Flake (R.-Ariz.), a leader on gun rights issues, outlined the dilemma of gun control advocates in keeping Democrats on the reservation. "In 2002, you had the Dingell race," he said, referring to the primary between Democratic Michigan Representatives John Dingell, who supported gun rights, and Lynn Rivers, who did not. Dingell won by an 18-point margin.

"Dingell ran on it and did well, and in a Democratic primary," said Flake. "There’s been a realization on the part of the Democrats that they’re not getting the traction here that they thought they did before, or that they perhaps did before."

Well you supported a guy you weren't happy with and he's actually doing the things he said he'd do and you didn't like. I'm seeing a basic disconnect here.

He CAN'T singlehandedly repeal all past attacks on the Constitution, there's 500-odd idiots in the capital building and he needs to get at least half of them to agree with every single one. Again he's President, not Emperor.

Great don't vote for centrist Republicans, but be warned even if Pat Buchanan won he simply would not be able to do 90% of the stuff on his promise list, or on your bitch list. It's not possible, that's not how our system works.

From what I've read on FR of Michigan's gun laws the gun grabbers seem to be winning elections pretty well there.

Actually, they are getting their ass kicked locally. Michigans poor gun laws are from the 1920's when the Ku Klux Klan were lobbying to deny "them" from defending themselves.

In the last 5 years, we banned gun lawsuits, became a shall issue state, and improved a gun transportation law.

Our Anti-governor ran away from the issue in 2002 and said she was pro-gun and may actually work with us. At best, we could have John Engler again(unreliable, but not anti). We'll see. Debbie Stabusall is very anti but talks pro.

Our AG and Sec of State are both pro-2a. Our AG has helped immensely on reciprocity for CPL holders.

We have a long ways to go. I won't deny that. The anti's had a 75 year head start, but we are gaining out here, and the centrists that vote for anti's are more doing it from their union card than anything else.

I'm wondering if the new H&K stuff would be importable, even if the ban sunsets. GHWB's executive order is what halted the flow of Heckler & Koch's products, IIRC. I don't remember if that was a list of specific weapons or it were worded more broadly. In any event, I'd really like to see a semi-auto version of the G-36 that actually *looks* like the G-36, not that godawful pale gray SL-8 monster.

The President wanted to fulfill a promise to the soccer moms. He can show the centrists he doesn't march in lockstep with his party on every issue. At the same time, it doesn't turn off the base since he knows the ban will never pass Congress and he isn't lobbying for it. When Bush runs for reelection he can say I'm a conservative but I can also peel off the center from the Democrats. And the Democrats can't outflank him on this issue by painting him as a puppet of the NRA. They've been outfoxed again!

Glad Michigan is getting their act together, I'm so pampered in AZ I have a hard time comprehending the laws some of you folks back east put up with.

I think in the end this will play well with the pro-gun centrists. Bush took a position to maintain an existing law that most of your mild gun people probably don't grock in the first place. He didn't push the issue, the press didn't get to lambast him on it for hours on end, and under his watch it's going to quietly die a simple death, and the press still won't be able to lambast him on it 15 months from now. Meanwhile the hardcore gun people will start reaping the benefits just a couple months before election time. Clinton's people have got to be kicking themselves over the timing of this.

Often times the GOP get accused of faking right and running left, paying lip service to their conservative base and then doing exactly what the commies want. This is exactly the opposite, he paid lip service to the commie left and the gun ban is DOA. While the nation is as divided as it is national politicians will have to play both sides to win elections. Very few of the big issues have clear decisive majorities, he's got to find away to get as many people as possible to agree with him or at least think they agree with him. Otherwise in 04 the Dems retake everything and it's 1992 all over again.

"It was a political promise made to soccer moms that he was sure he wouldn't have to deliver on. "

"Poltical promise" eh? Nice euphemism for a lie.

A lie is an intentional misstatement of what has occurred. If I say I am going to give you $20 Monday and don't, I have not lied. I may be dead and can't give you the money. You may be dead. I may forget. A host of reasons--some good, some not so good--why people don't do what they say they will. In this case Bush hasn't even done that. He said he would sign the bill and apparently he will. That he thinks it will never get to his desk does not make him a liar.

If I say I already gave you $20 and know I didn't--that is a lie.

This is not hairsplitting. Politics would be a lot better if language was used correctly.

Don't smoke, don't drink, but I do look past sound bites!

You need a reality check, so I will give you one.

"Armed pilots in the cockpit"
Not really. Only a very small handful of pilots have been allowd to take the class and graduate. There is no more funding for more classes! The beurocrats have fought the pilots being armed at every step, the requirements to apply for the classes are unreasonable and designed to intimidate pilots into not applying!

Kyoto may be "dead" for the moment, but we have not done anything to prevent it coming back to life under another administration.

Same for the International Criminal Court.

ABM treaty may be dead, but was no too pertinent to daily life in the U.S.

U.N was FINALLY bypassed, once.
We have not withdrawn from the U.N., we have not kicked the U.N. out of the U.S!
The U.N.'s programs to erode our soverienty are intact, their efforts to dictate our internal policies are proceeding, they are still trying to establish a U.N. military force and a global tax to pay for it all!

So yes, I am disappointed.
I do hold congress responsible, but they follow Bush's lead, and his lead in this area is fatally flawed.

We elected a president who supposedly was for gun rights, but he supports one of the most egregious, nonsensical gun bans out there.

He stated quite clearly during the 2000 campaign that he would sign a renewal if it came to his desk. It's why I didn't vote for him, although I did later FREEP for him and Cheney. Remember "Get Out of Cheney's House"? That was an easy and cost free choice, because there was no way he was not going to win his home state.

HOWEVER, if by hook or by crook it passes both the House and the Senate, we must make it abundently clear to Bush that 10 million gun owners' votes he loses is far worse than the 20,000 votes he gains from the million moron moms.

Unless the Congress resists the temptation to "close loopholes", which they haven't done in the "renewal" bill's (S. 1034) current encarnation, then it is no longer the same as the current law, and is not merely an extension of it. Bush could say that he can't sign the new version on the grounds that its not the bill he promised to sign. The "loophole" that is closed is the currently perfectly legal importation of magazines manufactured pre-ban. At least according to Fienswine's press release. The release claims that Presdident Bush supports the additional import ban, but I've read nothing traceable to him to indicate that. The text of the bill hasn't made it onto Thomas (thomas.loc.gov) just yet, so the first link above doesn't let you read the text. Maybe Monday. Sponsers are the usual Senate Suspects:

Sen Boxer, Barbara - 5/8/2003 [CA] Sen Chafee, Lincoln D. - 5/8/2003 [RI]
Sen Durbin, Richard J. - 5/8/2003 [IL] Sen Jeffords, James M. - 5/8/2003 [VT]
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. - 5/8/2003 [MA] Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. - 5/8/2003 [NJ]
Sen Reed, John F. - 5/8/2003 [RI] Sen Schumer, Charles E. - 5/8/2003 [NY]

Actually, as this issue comes closer to a vote, my TV is getting loaded with Case Western Reserve U., a hostage situation somewhere else, and one of the networks has a coming docu-drama on the bank heist by the two guys who were wrapped in body armor and just kept shooting things up on the west coast a few years back--LA Bank robbery.

The media background for this battle is being painted red. Just caught some sort of threat at Columbine keeping 2/3 of students home (with official OK). The ghost of wackos past.

Plain as the nose on my face, that the media will have splattered our collective televisions with gun violence and gore, real and imagined, well before and leading up to the vote on this bill.

The only real way to deprive the sheeple of rights is to create a crisis and have them beg you to take away their rights as part of the solution.

Just watch the show as the formula plot develops.

The Bible is quite specific about lying. Maybe he should be reminded of that.

I do not believe that he lied -- I believe that he REALLY DOES SUPPORT this unconstitutional ban. This is the same President who fought tooth and nail to make sure that airline pilots would be unable to use a gun to defend their aircraft and passengers.

I voted for President Bush one, but will not do so again. It's not only this issue, but a whole host of others such as his support for illegal immigration, massive increases in spending, Patriot Act, etc.

He CAN'T singlehandedly repeal all past attacks on the Constitution

No, but he can stop this one!

there's 500-odd idiots in the capital building and he needs to get at least half of them to agree with every single one. Again he's President, not Emperor

His veto power is expressly designed to thwart the will of even 65+% of both House of Congress. All he needs is for about 34% to not actively work against him, and that veto power is virtually unbreakable. Don't underestimate the power of the Office.

But it's not even going to get on his desk, that's the point. He gave himself an out and took this away as an 04 campaign issue and the renewal will die.

Veto power doesn't grant repeal, don't change what the person is demanding of the Office. He wants Bush to repeal all kinds of stuff, that requires 50%+1 in both houses.

If I say "I will do X" with no intent of actually doing so, it is deceitful, and contains an implicit lie about my motivation and intent.

Whether the intent to follow through exists is the determinant.

If someone makes an honest effort to follow through but fails, then no, they weren't being deceitful when they made the promise.

"I still didn't like it."

Me either. The National Republican Committee called me today for a survey on the UN. I answered their questions and then gave the poor girl an earful on this issue, including the fact that if this President stabs me in the back on this legislation not only will I vote Libertarian next time, I'd resign from the party! If enough people believe as I do among the conservative base, the President better make retirement plans.

Many will chastise me as "cutting off my nose to spite my face" but I think there comes a time when a person has to take a firm stand for his core beliefs. I said as much in my letter to the Miami Herald which was recently published.

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.