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

Human Events ^ | Week of May 12, 2003 | David Freddoso

[Remedy]

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.

Cosmetic Gun Ban

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."

NRA board member Grover Norquist agreed.

"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.

Political Momentum

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."

[RogueIsland]

So, I conclude that although Bush may have been somehwat honest, the perception of some that voted for him is that he was aganist those laws.

Yeah, gotta agree with that. It's basically "well, if you read the fine print, you'll clearly see that you were not entitled to X, despite what the advertisement might have led you to believe".

[Southack]

"Bush has been a disappointment. He has not made any visible or concerted effort to repeal ANY of Klintons garbage, in any area that I can recall."

What are you smoking?!

Pilots are now armed in the cockpit. The Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming is DEAD. The International Criminal Court is DEAD. The U.S. - CCCP ABM Treaty is DEAD. The UN was just BYPASSED to smack down Hussein in Iraq.

You call all of that disappointing?! Just what exactly are you for, if not killing those treaties, bypassing the UN, and arming pilots?

And what, you don't want to hold Congress responsible for killing the Assault Weapon Ban renewal?

Congress gets a "pass" from you but Bush gets your full ire?!

Like we don't have ONE single Senator who will filibuster this bill (including the Dems themselves if they are still fighting Bush's judges)?! What, we don't have a House that will kill this bill? Oh no, in your view this is all up to Bush, and Bush alone, to stop?!

Oh please...

[ZULU]

"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."

Fleischer is a liar and so is Bush if this is their interpretation of what he said during the debates with Gore.

Bush clearly said he would support no new gun laws and support existing gun laws.

Since Schumer-Feinstein expires in 2004, any EXTENSION of the same constitutes a NEW law. Obviously Carl Rove, Bush Jr., and Fleischer need a good lesson in grammar.

As for relying on Congress to kill ANY bill the media supports, McCain-Feingold proved how valid that assumption is.

Schmuer-Feinstein could very well be Bush Jr's "Read my lips - no new taxes" issue. Pandering to Democrats never got a Republican ANYTHING except a loss in the elections.


Bush should read MY lips. Extend Schumer-Feinstein and he loses my vote - and the votes of thousands of other gun rights supporters. And I'm sure he WON'T be getting any vote from Winnie Brady and her crowd, REGARDLESS of what he does.

[hattend]

BTTT

[Blood of Tyrants]

Refusing to sign and forcing Congress to override him would have been bad.

I believe that you have a misunderstanding as to how the process works. You see, the president can do nothing at all about a particular bill and it will automatically become law in ten days (Sundays excepted). No Congressional override is required. The founders made sure that the president could not indefinitely hold up legislation simply by refusing to act.

[hchutch]

Yup. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Sometimes the method to use is less obvious, but will strengthen our side over the long-term. The fact is, Bush knows what the other side is up to, and he takes that into mind when he does things. As a result, barring unforeseen clusterf***s (like Enron), he will succeed far more often than not.

I'll take Bush and Rove getting results over the methods of the purists any day of the week.

[dljordan]

That clever George! He's making a crafty end run isn't he?

[Blood of Tyrants]

What did Rove say? I haven't heard.

[July 4th]

Oh no! Here come the drive-by bayonettings!

[wcbtinman]

Bush lied when he swore an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution..." He has done it at least twice, once on CFR and once with the AWB.

[discostu]

Really? News to me. I'll have to look that one up.

[Poohbah]

I would suggest reading Sir Basil Liddel-Hart's works on strategy, in particular his discussion of the indirect approach. While it's usually in terms of warfare, the application to politics is readily discernable.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Haven't you read the article? The odds are next to nothing that it will even be voted on much less passed.

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.

I think he knows that he can't afford to alienate gun owners and still win.

[Blue Collar Christian]

"Then there are some people who prefer not to say false things, regardless of the outcome."

But they can't get into public office. Sucks, don't it?

[Blood of Tyrants]

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html

[discostu]

Sure enough Article 1 Section 7. Still might not have been good. That's 10 days (Sundays excepted) the Dems would have bitched endlessly about him not signing it. Probably would have blown over by election time, but the noise.

[Blue Collar Christian]

"He lied to those who supported him, or he lied to "soccer moms".

At this point here, the opportunity for him to have lied about this has not yet come. He said he would sign the renewal for all to hear. We Repubs knew that going in, the NRA knew then, and knows now too. If Congress was still dominated by Dems, it would have been a waste of time to veto the renewal, so he avoided that. If it can't make it to his desk with the Repubs in control, so what.

I'm still convinced he's a Christian, unless you can show me where he lied.

[Remedy]

Minnesota, New Mexico, and Colorado - that makes three. Who else?

(see map, page 8) probably in the print edition.

Might be listed here Packing.org Concealed Carry (CCW), Concealed Weapon Permit, ...

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Rhode Island won a court case forcing the Shall Issue law to be followed. It had been previously ignored by local police chiefs who refused to accept applications.

Supposedly, they have to process them now.

[oyez]

"I’ve come around to the point that [I believe] you can’t go regulating a legal enterprise out of business," --H Ford, Jr.

There are locked factory gates all over the country that the Federal Government has made it too expensive for them them to remain open. H. Jr. needs to look around. However, if he really means he would refrain from trying to regulate businesses and industries he dosen't like, then that's a refreshing view from a Democrat.