Delay Sees Assault Gun Ban Expiring in Congress

Reuters ^ | May 13, 2003 | Joanne Kenen

[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

[lawdude]

Here is pastrami info.

To make pastrami, you start by making corned beef. Corned beef is a beef brisket soaked in brine (with some sugar and spices). According to "The Joy of Cooking," corned beef "has nothing to do with corn but got its name...when a granular salt the size of a kernel of wheat -- corn to a Briton -- was used to process it." By smoking corned beef, you turn it into pastrami! Smoking adds flavor to the meat.

[discostu]

Now I'm gettin hungry, you guys are mean.

[Normal4me]

Thanks for the info. Now lets keep Pastrami from being banned! ;-)

ummmmmm.....pastrami

/homer

[husky ed]

Please excuse my ignorance, but what EXACTLY is an assault weapon??

Turkish Bolt Action

And just about anything else they want to call "Assault Weapon".

[Jhoffa_]

DeLay's opposition to the ban puts him at odds with President Bush..

Ohhhh.. I don't know about that.

Somehow I can't imagine Dubya writing nasty things on DeLay's lawn in kerosine or anything just because the bill that will alienate his base and forever brand him as a 2A sellout never makes it to his desk.

In fact, I can imagine a phone call to the effect of:

Dubya: "Hey, Tom.. Thanks man, you saved me allot of grief on that assault weapons thing. You took lightning rod duty on that one and I want you to know that I appreciate it."

DeLay: "No problem.. happy to do it. Hey, don't forget to let me know how the consolation call to Di-fi goes."

Dubya: "LOL! Yeah, that one should earn me an oscar for sure! (begin mocking tone)'Well Di-Fi, you know I did the best I could for you dear' LOL! LOL! See ya Tom, have a good evening man."

DeLay: "LOL! Yeah, that'll be a classic.. And you too George, regards to Laura. Night. "

[SauronOfMordor]

One interesting section in the new legislation bans

(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.

The feds could add ANY firearm, of ANY type, to the banned list by simply having somebody at some federal agency buy one. And almost ALL types of handguns, shotguns, and rifles have already been procured for use by military or law enforcement at one time or other. This clause effectively bans ALL firearms at the discretion of some future Janet Reno.

[discostu]

So we can defend ourselves from the government, which is the point of the first half of the Bill of Rights. Might I recommend the Federalist Papers, they explain the why's and wherefore's of pretty much everything in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The 2nd Ammendment isn't about hunting.

[GhostofWCooper]

"what exactly is an Assault Weapon?"

That's a very good question. It seems to be a any semi-automatic rifle or semi-automatic pistol that is scary looking.. You know, with doodads and handles or little sling swivels and stuff. The definition continues to evolve. Within a year or two, it could mean anything more powerful than a BB gun.

[.38sw]

Is this satire? The second amendment ain't about deer hunting, nor duck hunting, nor any other sporting purpose. It is about preservation of our freedom, and defense of self, home and country. it's not up to politicians to tell us what kind of firearms we *may* own. We don't need their permission.

I hope you meant your post to be satirical.

[SauronOfMordor]

I don't understand the incessant need for semi automatic weapons. They're not needed for hunting (You don't deserve to be in the NRA if you need a m16 to kill a deer) and their only function is to kill people.

The main benefit of having a semi-auto weapon is if you have to deal with multiple targets at the same time. Like if you are defending your home during a riot or "civil unrest", or if you have a gang of muggers. The Korean shopowners who had semi-auto weapons during the LA riots made it thru with their stores intact. The unarmed ones were burned out.

[Yo-Yo]

Hunting isn't the reason the 2nd amendment was added to the bill of rights.

Member since 5-13-2003, welcome to FR

[PuNcH]

I don't understand the incessant need for semi automatic weapons. They're not needed for hunting (You don't deserve to be in the NRA if you need a m16 to kill a deer)

Hey the 2nd Amendment isnt needed for hunting either. And why would you use the underpowered M16 (mousegun) to kill a deer when a typical hunting rifle is so much more powerful?

[Petronski]

[Exhausted sigh.] Yes, I know. Pastrami is made from beef. But you said you can't make ham from a cow, and I was just making an observation about how some pastrami resembles ham, yet is still kosher.

[husky ed]

That's why I showed a pic of a bolt action and a M1.

These people didn't want to just ban AR-15's and AK-47's. They wanted to ban every gun in the country. And the AWB was just the start.

[Jhoffa_]

That's your first post?

I suspect you're a re-tread.

(But, I know better than to argue the point.. )

[PuNcH]

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.

In other words they're machineguns...except they are not.

The ban itself is a piece of propaganda and it has to go.

[GhostofWCooper]

If you knew the reason for the 2nd Amendment, you would know that all military weapons are covered by it. If the US government was operated by honorable men, who respected and kept true to their oathes, there would never be ANY REASON for it to fear the armed citizen. Since it isn't, and the Founders knew it wouldn't be, they put some teeth in the Bill of Rights.
This scares some soccer moms and other squeamish little statists, so they chisel away at the 2nd continually. This scares the Freedom loving independent types, and thus the debate continues.

It also continues because the supreme court apparently cannot read.

[asneditor]

So you are siding against the constitution?