Bush has stated he will renew AWB


PDA

jsalcedo
March 4, 2003, 04:35 PM
Bush has said on a few occasions he supports the AWB and will sign a renewal.

This is not a secret

"We do not have the luxury of waiting until 2004 to talk about
renewing the law," said Mr. Barnes. "All Americans must start thinking about it now because the decisions that they make at the polls this November will decide the fate of the ban. Ask yourself: do you really want to return to the days when UZIs and AK-47s were freely available in stores and on our streets? I urge everyone to find out how their lawmakers stand on renewing the assault weapons ban and to speak out now. I also call on President Bush, who promised to renew the law during his campaign, to use his leadership to make that renewal a
reality."


Bush has said that the constitutional right of Americans to own guns must be maintained, but he supports the current ban on automatic weapons, and has called for a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines that may be used with semi-automatic weapons which are legal to own. "

If you enjoyed reading about "Bush has stated he will renew AWB" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Gewehr98
March 4, 2003, 04:50 PM
Facts, man, facts!

If GW did state this, this needs to get out where it can be read by the voting gunowners.

Country Boy
March 4, 2003, 04:53 PM
References??

Maybe I'm just optomistic, but perhaps our President can say he supports the current ban because a) it sunsets, b) the Republican congress would have to pass it before it came to his desk.

"Yeah sure, I'll sign it IF it gets to my desk." *wink, wink*

People can say all they want beforehand. I'll make my judgements on what our President actually does.

jsalcedo
March 4, 2003, 04:59 PM
I'm looking for the actual speech transcripts ATM.

I just wanted to get this info out there asap.

Surely I hope its untrue or just a ploy.

braindead0
March 4, 2003, 05:07 PM
Doesn't he realize that Uzi's and AK-47 are still...oh my lord.. readily available in stores?????

It'd be interesting to see the reference on this one...

Greybeard
March 4, 2003, 08:09 PM
Y'all check out the new tag line. Picked that up from one of the few old journalists that seems to have head screwed on straight. Applicable here??? Put me down for also wanting to see the transcript. When, where?

Don Gwinn
March 4, 2003, 09:45 PM
I don't have a source either, but I remember Bush saying both those things during the campaign. I THINK it was during one of the debates with Gore.

jsalcedo
March 4, 2003, 10:00 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/ISSUES_guns.html

Bush
Assault weapons:

Supports the current ban on assault weapons, and favors a ban on importation of foreign-made, “high-capacity” ammunition clips.

jsalcedo
March 4, 2003, 10:08 PM
Gun Control
While Bush supports some restrictions, in general he supports the basic right to gun ownership. Below are his stance on a few specific gun control issues.

George W. Bush, Des Moines IA GOP Debate, Decemember 13, 1999
Guns for hunting and personal protection: YES

Raise legal age for gun ownership to 21: YES

Mandatory child-safety locks on guns: NO

Right to carry concealed weapon: YES

Ban certain types of ammunition: YES

Sue gun manufacturers for gun violence: NO

Ban on assault weapons: YES

Background checks (for purchasing firearms): YES

Waiting periods (as in the Brady Act): NO

MrAcheson
March 4, 2003, 10:16 PM
If the bill got to Bush's desk in 2004, he would probably sign it to deny the Democrats a rallying point for the Presidential Election. On the other hand, I doubt he wants it to get through Congress.

Meow
March 4, 2003, 11:02 PM
Why does this have to ruin my day? oh i hope..... .... http://www.awbansunset.com/

BerettaNut92
March 4, 2003, 11:18 PM
UZIs and AK47s no but MP5s and AR15s...heck yes! :fire:

Frohickey
March 4, 2003, 11:22 PM
In the 1994 elections, and the 1996 elections, some of the politicians that voted for the AW Ban were voted out of office.

I think that the GOP knows this, and with a slim margin in the Senate and the House, they know that they better bury the AW Ban. The rural Republicans and Democrats would rather that a stake be put through the heart of the AW Ban, but the urban RINOs do not want to hurt the sensitivities of the soccer moms.

I'd settle for a buried AW Ban, but we just have to watch out that the Democrats don't exhume the decaying body if they ever win Congress again.

Thats why a 2nd Amendment case in the SCOTUS is a good thing to have. I mean, a 2nd Amendment case that does not skirt the individual RKBA issue. Then let the chips (and the bodies) fall where they may.

gun-fucious
March 5, 2003, 12:10 AM
mayhaps he says
IF it gets to his desk he will sign it
'cause it ain't gonna get to his desk

voilsb
March 5, 2003, 12:19 AM
this isn't a surprise, but it is unfortunate that he's got such a stance on the ban. the hope really lies with making sure it never gets to his desk.

it would be *beautiful* if SCOTUS would make some rulings in favor of unrestricted (if not unregulated) individual gun ownership

ideally, we'd get an amendment to the constitution requiring all laws to be enumerated with the clauses which make each point in a bill legal.

BenW
March 5, 2003, 11:00 AM
If the bill got to Bush's desk in 2004, he would probably sign it to deny the Democrats a rallying point for the Presidential Election. On the other hand, I doubt he wants it to get through Congress.
I think that assessment is spot on. Does anyone know though, what "certain types" of ammo (besides the ubiquitous "cop killer bullets") he's in favor of banning?

Leatherneck
March 5, 2003, 11:20 AM
What part of this isn't clear, guys?Ban on assault weapons: YES
He saw no harm in supporting it in 1999, and he subsequently got elected. What would make him change his mind? Your wishful thinking? Have you written your congresscritter or the White House? I have/have not but I'm fixin' to change that today.

TC
TFL Survivor

MoNsTeR
March 5, 2003, 12:11 PM
Maybe I'm just optomistic, but perhaps our President can say he supports the current ban because a) it sunsets, b) the Republican congress would have to pass it before it came to his desk.

"Yeah sure, I'll sign it IF it gets to my desk." *wink, wink*
Don't kid yourself. Republicans are tyrants too. Regardless of whether you think they are on your side, they will sell you down the river to get re-elected, or advance higher priority items on their agendas.

When the ban comes up for renewal, it WILL pass.

jsalcedo
March 5, 2003, 04:21 PM
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau Wednesday, March 5, 2003

Feinstein asked Attorney General John Ashcroft at a Senate Judiciary Committee
hearing on Tuesday if the Bush administration would back the renewal.

"The administration supports the current ban," was as far as Ashcroft would go
under repeated questioning from Feinstein and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who
was the House sponsor of the 1994 legislation.

ASHCROFT BACKED EXTENSION

"It is my understanding that the president-elect of the United States has
indicated his clear support for extending the assault weapons ban, and I will be
pleased to move forward with that position," Ashcroft said in response to a
question from Feinstein.


BAN'S UNCERTAIN EFFECT

Ashcroft said National Institute of Justice studies conducted in the 1990s
showed the ban on semiautomatic weapons has had an uncertain effect.

Russ
March 5, 2003, 04:43 PM
If this were to come up after Bush won or lost a second term, there really would be no downside to him not signing the bill. The usual suspects would moan and complain but are always doing that anyway.

I sure hope he doesn't sign it. I doubt he is a shooter so he may have bought the BS that HCI has been pushing about the evil, evil, insidious, leviathon assault rifles!

It's too late for California, NJ and probably Illinois the way it is going. State laws already have put them out of reach. I's sure hate to see California's laws go national.

Vote for DemocRATS on the national level and it will for sure. That's what's happened in CA, NJ, IL and MA. One party rule by fascists.

atek3
March 5, 2003, 06:27 PM
what can you say... Bush, like almost all other politicians is a whore. Thats what being a politician is, instead of selling your body, you cast whatever morals you have out the window and vote however "the people" tell you. In exchange you get fame and power. However unlike democrats some of the republicans aren't stupid. They realize if they alienate gun owners, 2004 and 2006 are going to be HUGE routs.

BogBabe
March 5, 2003, 07:29 PM
"Yeah sure, I'll sign it IF it gets to my desk." *wink, wink*

Does anyone here interpret this to mean he opposes it?!

gryphon
March 5, 2003, 07:45 PM
Without being as "colorful" as some of the other posts here, all I will say is that GW is playing politics. Most of hte time I believe what he says, and the other times I think that he is just saying what he thinks the people want to hear. For a long time we have heard from a Congresional majority that we need to ban guns. Now we are going in the opposite direction a little. We have to go "baby steps" on this because the commie libs have done a decent job on brainwashing the sheeple. We need to undo the brainwashing before we can hope to have anything like the AWB sunset successfully. I think what has been done so far is a good step in the right direction. As long as we keep electing the right people into office and keep making small steps over time, the oendulum will swing our way.

atek3
March 6, 2003, 12:13 AM
"As long as we keep electing the right people into office and keep making small steps over time, the pendulum will swing our way."

A better analogy IMHO would be the pit and the pendulum. politics swing left, lose freedom, swings right, lose freedom, left etc. etc. When was the last time you heard a republican (besides ron paul), call for the nullification of just about every unconstitutional law on the books?
Just think, are we better or worse off since Bush took power? Spending has ramped up faster than any president (except FDR, maybe). Steel Tariffs, the Patriot act, stepping up enforcement on victimless crimes, what more do you want?

atek3

hso
March 6, 2003, 12:36 AM
GWII should not be expected to support individual freedoms when the "public security" can be used as the excuse for reducing the right to privacy and keeping firearms restrictions in place that undermine the RKBA all in the name of protecting the public from the current "monsters in the closet".

SteyrAUG
March 6, 2003, 12:52 AM
Let's take a moment to remember whose father signed the very first Assault Weapon Ban and think about it for a minute.

If the ban is going to be stopped, plain and simple it will have to be done by US motivating our elected representatives to actually REPRESENT us for a change.

If you think just voting Republican is the cure all for all gun legislation you are a fool and a idiot. If you think being a paid NRA member is a guarantee these things won't happen you are a even bigger idiot.

Get over the shock of learning that the Republicans will ban your guns as fast as anyone else and start doing something about it.

The sooner you realize we are "on our own" the sooner you will grasp the signifigance of that situation and act accordingly.

AZTOY
March 6, 2003, 12:57 AM
Attorney General John Ashcroft Reverses Bush Administration Position on Renewing Federal Ban on Assault Weapons

Wednesday March 5, 1:17 pm ET

Ban Will End in September 2004 Without Congressional Action


WASHINGTON, March 5 /PRNewswire/ -- Attorney General John Ashcroft, in testimony before Congress yesterday, for the first time refused to offer support for re-authorizing the federal ban on assault weapons. Ashcroft's comments before the Senate Judiciary Committee represent an apparent reversal of Bush Administration policy as well as Ashcroft's prior statements before the committee.

During his January 2001 confirmation hearing, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked Ashcroft if he would support re-authorizing the law when it sunsets in September 2004. Ashcroft's answer was unequivocal, "It is my understanding that the president-elect of the United States has indicated his clear support for extending the assault weapon ban, and I would be pleased to move forward that position, and to support that as a policy of this president, and as a policy of the Justice Department."

There was no such clarity yesterday, as detailed in news reports, when Ashcroft failed to renew his prior commitment on the part of the Administration. The Attorney General, under repeated questioning, for the first time refused to state that the Administration would support renewing the law. Yet just last week the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported that the White House supported extending the ban. Ashcroft's refusal to voice support for renewal of the ban represents a dramatic shift in the Administration's position.

VPC Public Policy Director Joe Sudbay states, "Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Bush Administration have, once again, placed the deadly agenda of the National Rifle Association and the gun industry over the safety of the American public and law enforcement. Terrorist training manuals seized in Afghanistan have made clear that America's enemies recognize the nexus between our nation's weak gun laws and potential terrorist attacks. That the Attorney General would reveal this change in policy at a Congressional hearing on homeland security only illustrates the depth of the Bush Administration's fealty to the NRA." The NRA has made termination of the ban a priority. During his failed 2000 Senate campaign, Ashcroft was the beneficiary of more than $500,000 in NRA spending.

For more information on Attorney General John Ashcroft's pro-gun, anti- public safety policies, visit the VPC web sites http://www.ashcroftgunwatch.org and http://www.vpc.org .

The Violence Policy Center is a national non-profit educational organization working to stop gun death and injury in America.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030305/dcw043_1.html

Carlos Cabeza
March 6, 2003, 01:16 PM
Good post AZ ! My how easily the politicians change their minds.
The VPC would have everyone scared to death if Americans were'nt such pushovers !:D

jsalcedo
March 6, 2003, 02:21 PM
Heh good news. I hope they don't flip flop again.

Seems kind of a coincidence that they stated
opposition to AWB right in the middle of our
thread.

I wonder if the Bush boys are actually paying attention to gun owners this time?

TexasVet
March 6, 2003, 11:42 PM
GW better remember that Daddy lost literally millions of votes over the first AWB, including mine. Let your reps, senators and the RNC know that we remember.. and hold grudges.

MoNsTeR
March 7, 2003, 09:09 PM
Considering how many millions more votes Bush Sr. lost over "read my lips", and the fact that he still won the Republicrat nomination, any votes he lost over the AWB were 100% inconsequential. In the words of Colorado Governor Bill "Gun Control" Owens, "What are they going to do, vote Democrat?"

Bush Jr., as the incumbent, WILL garner the nomination, so casting your vote for a competing Republicommunist is a protest that will fall on deaf ears. And come election time, you'll only be able to "send a message" to him by voting a different party. But depending on what state you live in, even that is likely to be futile (eg: in 2000, voting for Bush in CA or NY, or voting for Gore in TX).

The proper targets in an anti-AWB campaign are your congresscritters, since they're much more vulnerable in the primaries, and theoretically more responsive to local concerns. The President, OTOH, is a write-off.

MountainPeak
March 7, 2003, 09:16 PM
Yup!

mack
March 7, 2003, 11:51 PM
IIRC - the AWB that is scheduled to sunset in 2004 - was passed under Bill Clinton when the Democrats controlled both House and Senate. As a result, the Democrats lost the House in 1994 and haven't gotten it back since, Clinton even mentioned that it cost them the House in a State of the Union speech in 1995. Also the Gun issue, again per the Democrats themselves, probably cost Gore the presidency - losing some crucial southern states. Nationally - outside of liberal dominated states - the Democrats have been running away from the gun issue.

Because of this, I think the Democrats would be more than happy, come the 2004 election, to have some conservatives in the House kill the re-enactment of the AWB in committee so it never sees the light of day or a full floor vote. This would let them run against the "evil" gun loving Republicans in liberal districts and avoid addressing it in swing or conservative districts. The Republicans for their part should remember that gun owners gave them the House and gun owners helped tip the presidency to Bush. However that said most don't want to see a floor vote on it either as some will be running in swing and liberal districts also - so having to vote against it would not be good for them.

Lastly, the president went on record during the last election saying that he would sign a new AWB if it ended up on his desk but that its passage would not be a priority. That was his attempt to finesse the issue - so he could appeal to the soccer moms as a "compassionate" safe conservative and at the same time give a wink to the gun owners that he wouldn't actively seek its renewal. Thererfore, he also wants it to die before it gets to him.

What this all means is that the Republicans will try to kill this bill in committee in the House. Therefore our efforts to ensure that it dies without re-enactment should, as mentioned above, focus on the House.

Jmurman
March 8, 2003, 05:38 AM
I recall another politician saying "NO New Taxes".....hmmmmm

this same politician gave the the AWB

If you enjoyed reading about "Bush has stated he will renew AWB" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!