posted 04-21-2003 12:16 AM            

Posted By: SCRIBE
Date: Sunday, 20 April 2003, 5:05 p.m.

Bad News for Gun Owners
-- White House says it favors keeping unconstitutional gun ban

Source: http://www.gunowners.org/a041403.htm

(Monday, April 14, 2003) -- In a surprise move this past weekend, the Bush administration announced its support for keeping the Clinton-Feinstein gun ban on the books.

The law, which bans common household firearms, is set to expire in September, 2004. But the Knight Ridder news agency had a startling revelation for readers on Saturday.

"The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

The "current law" McClellan was referring to is the ban on semi-automatic firearms and magazines (over 10 rounds) which was introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and then-Representative Chuck Schumer of New York.

The ban narrowly passed in both houses and was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

Most bad legislation lives on forever. But in an effort to corral fence-sitters in Congress, Senator Feinstein inserted a "sunset" provision into the bill. This provision means that the ban expires in ten years -- specifically, in September of 2004.

At the time, the sunset provision didn't seem like much of a victory. But it soon became clear that this provision would be our best hope for repealing the notorious gun grab. Recently, it was beginning to look like gun owners would have a better than average chance of winning.

Until the announcement this past weekend.

The White House's statement means that people will not be able to rely upon a presidential veto if Congress musters enough votes to extend the ban in the near future.

Despite the fact that both the House and Senate are controlled by Republicans, the majority of Congressmen are either fence-sitters or anti-gun.

It is quite possible that the gun grabbers can get 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House to reauthorize the semi-auto ban and make it permanent.

This makes the recent announcement all the more distressing. But Bush's position is not written in stone -- at least not yet.

Because the above quote was not made by the President himself or by his primary spokesman, Ari Fleischer, there is still some "wiggle room" that will allow the President to reverse course and do the right thing.

THAT IS WHY IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT EVERY GUN OWNER WRITE THE PRESIDENT AND URGE HIM TO REMAIN TRUE TO HIS CONSTITUTIONAL OATH OF OFFICE.

George Bush is President today because gun owners went to the polls and voted for him over Al Gore in 2000. Pro-gun voters delivered three key Democratic states -- Tennessee, West Virginia and Arkansas -- and with those states, the victory went to Bush.

This would be a horrible mistake if the President were to turn his back on gun owners and take a page out of the Clinton-Gore playbook. Perhaps this statement over the weekend was a "trial balloon." We can only hope so. If it was a trial balloon, then we need to "shoot it down" in a hurry.

posted 04-22-2003 12:48 PM            

By Congressman Ron Paul
April 22, 2003
http://www.gooff.com/NM/templates/Breaking_News.asp?articleid=878&zoneid=2

The Bush administration recently surprised and angered many pro-gun conservatives by announcing its support for an assault weapons ban passed in 1994. The law contained a ten-year sunset provision, and is set to expire in 2004 unless reauthorized by Congress. A spokesman for the administration stated flatly that the President “supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law.”

Perhaps this should have surprised no one. President Bush already stated his support for the ban during the 2000 campaign. The irony is that he did so even as the Democratic Party was abandoning gun control as a losing issue. In fact, many attribute Gore’s loss to his lack of support among gun owners. The events of September 11th also dealt a serious blow to the gun control movement, as millions of Americans realized they could not rely on government to protect them against terrorism. Gun sales have predictably increased.

Given this trend in the American electorate away from support for gun control, the administration’s position may well cost votes in 2004. The mistaken political premise is that while Republicans generally support gun rights, so-called “assault weapons” are different and must be controlled. The administration clearly believes that moderate voters from both parties support the ban. “Who could possibly need such weapons?” is the standard question posed by gun control advocates.

Few people asking that question, however, know much about the banned weapons or the Second amendment itself. The law in question bans many very ordinary types of rifles and ammunition, while limiting magazine capacity for both rifles and pistols that are still legal. Many of the vilified “assault rifles” outlawed by the ban are in fact sporting rifles that are no longer available to hunters and outdoorsmen. Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer.

More importantly, however, the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It’s convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying “That could never happen here, this is America”- but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now.

Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals. Georgetown University professor Robert Levy recently offered this simple explanation:

posted 05-08-2003 07:04 PM            

Posted on Thu, May. 08, 2003

Bush, NRA at odds on gun ban
By Eric Lichtblau
The New York Times

PRESIDENT BUSH


GROVER NORQUIST

President Bush and the National Rifle Association, long regarded as staunch allies, now find themselves unlikely adversaries over one of the most significant pieces of gun-control legislation in the past decade.

At issue is legislation to be introduced by Senate Democrats today to continue the nationwide ban on semiautomatic assault weapons. A groundbreaking 1994 measure outlawing the sale and possession of such firearms will expire next year unless Congress extends it, and many gun-rights groups have made it their top priority to end the ban. Even some advocates of gun control say the prohibition has been largely ineffective because of its loopholes.

Despite those concerns, however, the White House says that Bush supports extension of the ban -- a position that has put him in opposition to the NRA and has left many gun owners angry and dumbfounded.

"This is a president who has been so good on the Second Amendment that it's just unbelievable to gun owners that he would really sign the ban," said Grover Norquist, a leading conservative and an NRA board member who opposes the weapons ban. "I don't think it's sunk in for a lot of people yet."

Advocates on both sides of the issue say the White House appears to have made a bold political calculation: That the risk of alienating a core constituency is outweighed by appearing independent of the gun lobby, sticking to a campaign promise and supporting a measure that has broad popular appeal.

The president has claimed the middle road -- supporting an extension of the ban but not endorsing the stronger measures that gun-control supporters say would outlaw many "copycat" assault weapons. That position has caused Democrats in the Senate to reject plans for a more ambitious weapons ban.

Bush's position "cuts against the NRA's position, and it will put the president -- for one of the first times since he signed the campaign finance reform bill -- at odds with his own political base," said Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"He's built up enough positive political capital in other areas that it won't be fatal," but the issue could hurt Bush in Middle America states that have strong gun-rights sentiments and are considered crucial to his re-election in 2004, Franc said.

The issue puts the president in a precarious political spot.

When Bush was campaigning for president in 2000, a top NRA official boasted that the group's relationship with Bush was so "unbelievably friendly" that the NRA could practically claim a seat at the White House.

The NRA has been a major donor to Bush, and the gun lobby and the Bush administration have been in lock step on most major gun issues, including an ongoing drive to limit lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

The Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft has been a particularly close ally of the gun lobby, pushing an expanded view of gun rights under the Second Amendment and initiating law enforcement changes sought by the NRA.

But White House officials said the assault weapons ban is one case where the president and the NRA do not see eye to eye.

"There are times when we agree, and there are times when we disagree," said Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman. "The president makes decisions based on what he believes is the right policy for Americans." McClellan added that the ban was implemented as a way to deter crime and that Bush "felt it was reasonable."

The White House position has heartened gun-control advocates. Matt Bennett, a spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety, which supports an extension of the ban, said: "I think Bush realizes that, number one, this is the right thing to do, number two, he promised to do this in the 2000 campaign, and number three, he knows that it's good politics and this is an extremely popular measure."

The NRA has maintained a polite civility toward the White House over the issue, even though it insists that the ban is a violation of the Second Amendment that deprives hunters and sporting enthusiasts of many high-powered rifles.

Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said the NRA's focus will be on persuading members of Congress to vote against an extension of the ban so that it never reaches Bush's desk.

"Do we agree with the administration's position on this? No, we don't, but the real fight is going to be not at that level, but in Congress," he said.

A bill will be introduced in the Senate today by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., that would extend the ban for another 10 years. House Democrats expect to introduce next week a toughened version of the bill -- rejected by Senate Democrats as too politically risky -- that would significantly expand the class of banned weapons.

posted 05-10-2003 02:16 PM            

Granted, Bush is using politics I don't agree with here, trying appeal to the moderates by not letting Clinton's assault ban legislation die via the sunset clause...I see the thinking here…He knows he’s got his conservative base, he’s just trying to gain some moderates and liberals. Personally, I don’t think he needs to do this, but I’m pretty sure this is the motivation behind this.

posted 05-10-2003 05:28 PM            

You are making excuses for them because of your bias.

Yes, dems are also to blame.

Anything to prop up Bush...right Fastwalker?

posted 05-11-2003 02:36 PM            

so he wins there to...

posted 05-11-2003 07:59 PM            

"and that's all I got to say 'bout that"

posted 05-13-2003 07:26 AM            

He makes a political calculation. He says he would sign the legislation if it reached his desk, and thereby retains the votes of moderates and independents and even some liberals who think Bush is now hard on guns. All the while, he retains his conservative base (who would not even contemplate voting for someone else and risking that a liberal who would destroy America could get into office).

So by taking this posture, Bush picks up cross-over votes, retains his base, all the while realizing that the legislation is probably going to die in the House and the Senate anyway....

posted 05-15-2003 10:04 AM            

Rep. Paul Letter to Pres. Bush Re: Semi-auto Ban
April 30, 2003

Dear Colleague:

Two weeks ago, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan declared the following statement in regards to the semi-auto ban: "The President supports the current law, and he SUPPORTS REAUTHORIZATION of the current law." Yet, in 1995, a majority of the House of Representatives, including most of your bosses, voted to repeal the assault weapons ban! Please co-sign this letter with me to send a strong message to the President that the House of Representatives does NOT support the reauthorization of this ban and instead welcome its end. If you are interested in co-signing the attached letter, please have your staff contact either Anamarie Pratt or Norman Singleton at 5-2831.

Sincerely,
Ron Paul
*****************************

April 30, 2003

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing to request the administration oppose reauthorization of the Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer ban on certain semi-automatic weapons. This ban infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens and serves no legitimate purpose. Mr. President, please defend the Second Amendment and publicly state your strong opposition to any reauthorization of the ban.

We were thoroughly dismayed by the statement of your spokesman, Scott McClellan, that you support the reauthorization of the 1994 ban on scores of semi-automatic weapons and on magazines with greater than ten round capacity. As you know, the ban was part of President Clinton's prized crime bill, the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994," which passed Congress by a very slim majority. In fact, it is highly unlikely that the semi-auto ban would have passed both chambers without the sunset clause.

It is interesting to note that Senator Feinstein and then-Representative Schumer were the original sponsors of the ban, and in 1995 the House of Representatives actually voted to repeal the ban! The semi-auto ban was a major part of a fanatical anti-gun agenda to ban legitimate firearms, which was repudiated in the elections of 1994 and 2000. It is now time for us to stand up against this unconstitutional gun-grabbing and help our nation in this time of great need by allowing law-abiding citizens to use the weapon of their choice.

The semi-auto ban is useless in preventing violent crime. Contrary to the propaganda of gun control supporters, only a very small percentage of crimes were committed with so-called assault weapons. If you want to lower crime, then make sure the federal courts are not hamstringing state and local governments from putting (and keeping) the guilty offenders in prison. Furthermore, at a time of increased threats of terrorism, sniper attacks, and other forms of violent crime, the last thing the federal government should do is continue preventing citizens from protecting themselves with the weapons they find most effective for their cause. Whether it be for self-defense, target practice, hunting or other lawful purposes, the federal government is prohibited by the Second Amendment from telling people what types of arms they can, and cannot, "keep and bear."

It is important to note that the term "assault" rifle is really a misnomer as a true assault rifle is a selective fire weapon capable of switching from fully automatic to semi-automatic and back with the flip of a lever. In addition to that, the charge that the assault rifle holds more rounds than a "legitimate" hunting rifle is a twisting of the facts, as 10, 20 and 30 round magazines for "legitimate" hunting rifles have been on the market for decades. These rifles banned in 1994 are little different than the semi-automatic hunting rifles that have been on the market since World War II. For what purpose are we now banning such fine weapons?

We are sure we need not remind you that a large and active part of our constituency supports the right to keep and bear arms. It will be a slap in the face to these millions of law-abiding gun owners if this White House and Congress support renewal of the semi-auto ban.

Mr. President, we are asking that you listen to the will of the people, that you keep your oath to defend the Constitution and do what is right. Support the sunset clause and let the American citizens buy and use what was rightfully theirs.

Sincerely,

CC:
Speaker Dennis Hastert
Hon. Tom Delay
Hon. Bill First
Hon. Mitch McConnell

posted 05-15-2003 11:12 AM            

I'll bet he will SIGN...SIGN...SIGN.

Plus "Our lady of Peace Act"

Both