Posted on 05/13/2003 3:01:15 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
Delay Sees Assault Gun Ban Expiring in Congress
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House Majority Leader Tom Delay, a proudly pro-gun Texas Republican, predicted on Tuesday the House will allow a 1994 assault weapons ban to expire next year.
"The votes in the House are not there to reauthorize (renew) it," DeLay told reporters.
DeLay's opposition to the ban puts him at odds with President Bush, who wants it to be extended although he generally opposes the expansion of gun laws.
The ban, approved during the Clinton administration, applies to military-style semi-automatic assault weapons like the Uzi and the AK-47 that have high ammunition capacity and are capable of rapid fire at close range.
A group of mostly Democratic senators last week opened a drive to get the extension passed in the U.S. Senate, and called on Bush to help, particularly in the House where pro-gun sentiments are stronger and DeLay wields considerable control over the agenda.
After the 1999 Columbine high school shootings in Colorado, the Senate passed several tough new gun measures. DeLay was instrumental in blocking them in the House.
Senate Democrats want to renew the current ban with only one change -- a ban on importing large-capacity ammunition clips. Their manufacture is already prohibited in the United States. Some House Democrats have outlined more far-reaching legislation that would expand the ban to other guns.
"The House Republicans are so out of touch that they are to the right of even President Bush on guns. Most Americans want fewer assault weapons on the streets, but the House Republicans want to bring banned assault weapons back," said New Jersey Democrat Sen. Frank Lautenberg.
Bush's support for the ban puts him at odds with the National Rifle Association, the powerful gun lobby that is usually his ally.
Another top NRA priority, a bill giving gun makers and sellers sweeping protection against lawsuits, recently passed the House and is pending in the Senate.
Several Senate Democrats Tuesday said they were determined to do everything they could to block the lawsuit bill, or at least amend it to narrow its scope
You know, that's a very good question.(Not sarcasm). To explain it as best I can.
1. Assault Weapons differ from Assault Rifles. Assault Rifles are legal with a class III license(most states allow them with BATF Tax). Assault Rifles are by military definition able to be fired full auto or semi auto.
2. Assault WEAPONS can vary depending on the state you are in. They may include 50+ year old M1 Garands in some states like Jersey. The US house dems are trying to redefine 'assault weapons' to include thouse. In California, they cover almost anything.
3. Certain cosmetic features are what define the current definition of 'assault weapon'. One thread showed a picture of two AR-15 clones. One was an 'assault weapon'. One wasn't. Flash suppressor, folding stock, or bayonet mount and pistol grips are three of the characteristics. I believe firearms with two of those are banned. The other definition is 11 round or higher magazines. 10 rounds is the limit.
Hopefully, I didn't confuse you even more. If I was king, my definition of an 'assault weapon' would be any weapon used by a person during an assault, including fist.
The simplist answer of an assault weapon - whatever the government defines as an assault weapon.
Absolutely.
This way the AWB can die and the DemoncRATS can't blame Dubya for it in '04.
That's excactly what will happen if Hillary wins.
Can you imagine the expense tab that this crew is running up? And all to be paid by Texas working people as part of their taxes to fund these parasites,
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.