More on Bush "Assault Rifle" Ban Position


PDA






Meow
May 9, 2003, 12:51 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86415,00.html


Bush Gives Qualified Support to Assault Weapons Ban Extension

Thursday, May 08, 2003



WASHINGTON — President Bush favors a bill introduced Thursday that would permanently ban assault weapons, but he is awaiting an administration study on how effective the current ban has been, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

The outcome of the study will not affect Bush's support for the bill introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said another Bush spokesman, Scott McClellan.

Nor will the National Rifle Association's opposition to the bill, Fleischer said.

The NRA supported Bush in the 2000 election, pouring more than $1 million into his campaign. Last year, the group's leaders took credit for putting Bush in the White House.

But their opposition to the Feinstein bill pits the group against Bush. Fleischer said Bush didn't care.

"Often, the president will agree, of course, with the National Rifle Association. On this issue, he does not," Fleischer said.

Asked whether Bush believes the 1994 law has been effective, Fleischer said, "There are indeed studies under way that will determine that, and we'll await those studies to make any final conclusions."

McClellan said the study was being conducted by the National Institutes of Justice, an arm of the Department of Justice. It wasn't clear when it will be completed.

Bush backs the bill regardless of the study's findings because he thinks the assault weapons ban is "reasonable," McClellan said.

Fleischer declined to predict whether the Feinstein measure will pass.

But Karl Rove, President Bush's senior political adviser, predicted it will fail, according to a gun-rights activist who saw Rove speak Wednesday in New Hampshire.

The activist, Sam Cohen of Concord, N.H., said in a telephone interview that Rove "said that Bush was sticking to his position, but that Congress would never pass the legislation."

Fleischer was asked about Rove's comments but neither confirmed nor denied them. A Rove spokeswoman did not return calls seeking comment.

The Feinstein bill would also would ban the import of large-capacity ammunition clips. The 1994 law prohibited only the domestic manufacture of large clips.

Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island is the lone Republican sponsor of the bill. "We need the president's help to get the votes," Chafee said.

The Senate sponsors predicted they would get their measure through the Senate, but said the bill faced a tougher road in the House of Representatives.

"The president is going to have to say to some on the extreme, 'You're wrong.' But he's going to have to do more than say it. He's going to have to work for it," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., the lead sponsor of the ban when he served in the House in 1994.

Fleischer was noncommittal about how much energy Bush will expend in getting the measure passed. "You'll be able to judge the president's actions by observing them yourselves," he said.

Feinstein addressed gun-control supporters who complained that her bill is too weak and should instead be modeled on California's assault weapons ban. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., are taking that approach in a House bill they authored.

"We'd like it to be better, but we know if we push it too far, we'll have no bill," Feinstein said.

Advertise on FOXNews.com
Jobs at FOX News Channel. Internships at FOX News Channel.
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to
foxnewsonline@foxnews.com; For FOX News Channel comments write to
comments@foxnews.com
© Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2003 Standard & Poor's
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright 2003 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.

If you enjoyed reading about "More on Bush "Assault Rifle" Ban Position" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kharn
May 9, 2003, 08:47 AM
President Bush favors a bill introduced Thursday that would permanently ban assault weapons, but he is awaiting an administration study on how effective the current ban has been, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

The outcome of the study will not affect Bush's support for the bill introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said another Bush spokesman, Scott McClellan
Interesting, these two quotes seem to contradict each other. When in doubt, I'd listen to Ari instead of McClellan.

Kharn

TallPine
May 9, 2003, 11:03 AM
More on Bush

Any double meanings there ...?

:D

rick_reno
May 9, 2003, 11:27 AM
It looks like they are softening their response to this unconstitutional law. I'd like to think this is the result of the response of gun owners to the intial reports of Bush supporting the ban. He's got two outs now; the "study" - which I'm sure will show this ban did nothing to reduce crime and Congress not letting it go forward. We need to keep up our letter writing/phone calls to our elected representatives - and make sure the NRA understands we don't want this ban extended.

Yanus
May 9, 2003, 11:36 AM
The battle will be won or lost in the House.
Be of good cheer...............

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030509-92627140.htm

Yanus

longeyes
May 9, 2003, 12:49 PM
Bush needs a "study" to justify supporting our right, under the 2A, to have militia-grade weapons? You call this politicking, I call it government by voodoo social science.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 9, 2003, 01:02 PM
Bush has one more out as well - his qualified support is for the current bill. The House bill is a lot more ambitious than the current bill (California style ban for everyone). Bush could easily use the difference to justify a change of heart if the pressure is intense enough.

Yanus is right though - We will win or lose this in the House.

Just read the Washington Times link - great stuff. The White House is obviously feeling the pressure as that story was chock full of "Hey gun nuts, back off - we get the message" overtones.

Rawlings
May 9, 2003, 01:25 PM
Bush is probably trying to cover his own ??? politically. They don't think it'll pass Congress, so he thinks it's okay to support it since that'll gain him some favor amongst the slightly-less-than-a-million moms.

Of course, the whole thing could backfire if something DOES pass Congress, when Bush will be backed into a corner and forced to either sign it and probably lose a hell of a lot of votes from his core constituency, or go back on his promise and veto it.

Kharn
May 9, 2003, 02:20 PM
Longeyes: One of the provisions in the AW ban is that a study must be conducted by the Attorney General (Ashcroft) to determine the effects of the ban and released before the ban sunsets. That is the study referred to, so W is able to use a provision of the ban against itself when the study comes up saying "this law is one of the stupidest ones in existance". And the Democrats cant say a word about it, because they passed the law requiring the study.

Kharn

Mark D
May 9, 2003, 03:39 PM
Of course, the whole thing could backfire if something DOES pass Congress, when Bush will be backed into a corner and forced to either sign it and [b]probably lose a hell of a lot of votes from his core constituency[/b[, or go back on his promise and veto it.

He has already lost a heck of a lot of votes from his core constituency because of his recent comments on the AW ban.

He had the stones to stand up to the U.N. and say, "Your opinion doesn't matter to me." Why can't he show that same resolve with the minority party? Because he has repeatedly chosen to sell your rights down the river.

The stooges with bolt guns and shotguns will be next. Your "Sniper Rifles" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction" will never be allowed in the "New Society". No honest person "needs" a gun that can accurately hit a target from 500 or 100 yards away. Nor does someone "need" a reckless weapon that can "spray" multiple projectiles with each shot.

The writing is on the wall. Goodbye noble Citizen, hello regulated Subject.

longeyes
May 9, 2003, 04:03 PM
Kharn, thanks for that information.

I'm with Mark D in believing that owning guns will be viewed as a social disease in the America that's emerging.

UnknownSailor
May 9, 2003, 04:09 PM
I could have sworn I have seen that the US DOJ has studied this already, and came to the conclusion that the law had no discernable effect on violent crime. This was recently, too.

Seminole
May 9, 2003, 04:14 PM
He had the stones to stand up to the U.N. and say, "Your opinion doesn't matter to me." Why can't he show that same resolve with the minority party?

Because his re-election does not depend on the French or the Germans voting for him. He thinks he does need Democrats and some left-leaning independents to vote for him and since re-election is of a higher priority for him than standing up for constitutional government, he sacrificed the least important of the two. It seems perfectly clear to me.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 9, 2003, 04:15 PM
The law mandated several studies during the ban to get a picture over time. The first study took place under the Clinton Administration in 1996 and wasn't very favorable to the gun control crowd so Clinton blew off further studies and Congress didn't hold him to it.

Brett Bellmore
May 9, 2003, 05:17 PM
Geeze, I don't know why everyone is trying to rationalize that he's looking for an "out", or planning some kind of political judo. Look, he's a gun controller. Signing a renewal of that ban was one of his campaign promises. Along with several other gun control proposals, such as raising the age for owning a handgun. You think he made those campaign promises because he thought he had to, you're fooling yourself. He acted pro-gun in Texas because he thought he had to. Now he doesn't think that anymore.

If the bill crosses his desk he's going to sign it, because he wants the ban made permanent. We should be thankful that this war has kept him too busy to pursue his domestic agenda, because attacking our rights is part of that agenda. Why the heck do you think his appointees fought the armed pilot bill? Why do you suppose the Justice department has been urging the Supreme court to refuse certiori on 2nd amendment cases? He's not on our side!

I voted for him in 2000 as the lesser of several evils, and I'm satisfied that I got what I voted for: An evil. A lesser one than Gore, sure, but still an evil. I'm under no illusion that he's secretly our friend. If we get through his time as President without the 2nd amendment taking anymore damage, it will be in spite of him. And if he appoints a pro-2nd amendment Justice to the Supreme court, let's be clear about this: It will be by mistake.

We have got to stop just taking the candidates the major parties give us, and become more proactive. We've got to SEE TO IT that at least one of the major parties is running a pro-2nd amendment candidate. I don't see much hope of anybody but Bush being the Republican nominee in 2004, barring some huge event, but in 2008 we have got to see to it that our guy is the nominee. We do have the numbers to accomplish that, if we try.

Oh, and Feinstein is right about the study, it's meaningless. If Bush is going to stick with his current support of the ban, the results will either be rigged or spun, or simply ignored. If he decides that he simply can't afford to continue supporting the ban's extension, he might use the study as an excuse. But the truth is that study isn't going to contribute anything to the decision making process, everyone already knows how it will turn out if it's honest. Even the ban's backers knew it would be a dud as a crime fighting measure. The study is just a meaningless prop, nothing more.

Battler
May 9, 2003, 05:58 PM
Communists didn't sit around in their own party and whine, they picked an existing party (Democrats) and moulded it into what they want. Communists with any brains are now making a difference in a party that used to just be a Southern party, anyone still in the "Communist" party is a fool.

Don't abandon Bush/Republicans. Fix Bush/Republicans. Get on them. Yeah, he'll go where the wind blows - but supporting aspects of the party that are pro-gun is a good show of same.

Back up Tom Delay. Having Tom Delay solidly against this is about 100000x as important as Bush. Write HIM a letter, and have your friends do it too. Tell him how you'll fight to back and support him and those (like him) who kill this ban dead.

Write the rest of your congressmen, tell them how you want this bill dead. Make them not only vote for us; but do everything they can to make this freedom-killer not even get to a vote - explain to them that they want nothing of it at all.


BTW - all of the complaints about Bush are perfectly valid. But I'll tell you this and I know I'm right - it would be easier to turn Bush/Repub into a pro-freedom party than it would be to build a new one. Were you planning on putting effort into an alternative? Put it into fixing the Republican party.

Nightfall
May 9, 2003, 06:30 PM
The study required in the original bill has been done, and detailed the pointlessness of the ban. Funnily enough, the NIJ study in it's full form was freely available until the AWB renewal issue came up. :scrutiny: It has since disappeared... but I downloaded it in it's complete form, and can readily send it to anybody who wants it. :D

Bush backs the bill regardless of the study's findings because he thinks the assault weapons ban is "reasonable," McClellan said.

What a fair position to take. "I don't care how stupid and pointless it is, I'm still going to take away these scary looking rifles, etc." Exactly what is the point of a study if you don't give a damn what it says? Just ordered something put out to make your opinion look good, huh? Tread lightly, Mr. President. The next election might not be so kind to you. :fire:

Battler
May 9, 2003, 06:39 PM
The ignorance of the study itself could be used as ammunition FOR us.

They'd ignore the information for doing a conclusion; but we can get them for ignoring it.

One could probably stall the new bill given that the last one was not carried out.

?

Battler.

Shaggy
May 9, 2003, 08:33 PM
Everyone needs to write letters to Bush and to your Congress critters. Here is the letter I faxed to the White House today. Pretty good if I do say so myself.(check the 4th paragraph :D) You can read the one to my reps here if you care to look. http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118648 I sent faxes to the Pres., my Senators and my Rep in the House today.


Dear President Bush,

I am writing this letter to urge you to OPPOSE any new legislation that may reach your desk regarding the so called “Assault Weapons” ban. I am sorely disappointed to hear your comments stating that you support such utter nonsense.

I’m sure you know that this ban has been a farce from the start. It banned semi auto rifles that looked “evil” because they have a bayonet lug and pistol grip on them. These are not assault weapons. They are not machine guns. I like to call them Homeland Defense rifles. It is a farce that criminals use these types of rifles in crimes. A criminal who intends to rob the corner store sure doesn’t carry in a semi auto rifle that is difficult to conceal. They use small handguns which are not normally acquired through legal channels. Banning weapons because of how they look is just plain ridiculous feel good garbage.

More ridiculous is the ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. I find it odd that somehow the police can use a 15 round magazine in a pistol to defend their lives yet as an ordinary Joe I am limited in my defense by 10 rounds. Is a policeman’s life more important than mine?

Mr. President, I am your base voter. I was disappointed that you teamed up with Kennedy to spend my money on education. I’m disappointed that you want to spend more of my money on pills for seniors. I am disappointed that you have not forged ahead on the issue of letting me control my retirement and reforming social security to that end. But even though I have those disappointments, those stances by you have only cost me money. Sir, your support of and your signature on this ridiculous weapons ban will cost me freedom I love. And that Mr. President, will cost you my vote.

I will not vote for any politician who supports gun control. In 1994 over 60 representatives lost their jobs over this issue and this vote. I have always voted Republican since my first vote for Ronald Regan in 1984. We have fought tooth and nail as gun owners to get Republicans to the position they are in. We keep losing our gun rights and for no good reason that I can see. Republicans who have paid good lip service to gun owners over the years now control the House, the Senate and the Presidency. There is no excuse for any bill banning any firearms or magazines for those arms to be passed into law. Let the Clinton ban quietly expire.

The question that I need you to reply to me with is simple.

Are you with us, or against us?

Sincerely,

UnknownSailor
May 9, 2003, 10:20 PM
Nightfall:

Send it to me, and I will host it on my ISP space. I want to post links to this everywhere I see this issue come up, and in quite a few places where it doesn't.

valiant AT whidbey DOT net

Meow
May 9, 2003, 10:44 PM
:confused: I saw at Fox i think that Bush signing the bill would only extend the current one ten more years.
Does anyone know otherwise?

ps LOL TallPine

AZTOY
May 9, 2003, 10:54 PM
I saw at Fox i think that Bush signing the bill would only extend the current one ten more years.
Does anyone know otherwise?


Meow

The Sunset

One of the concessions that was needed in order to get the ban passed in 1994 was a "sunset clause" that set an automatic expiration of the ban 10 years following the enacting of the bill into law. This will occur in September 2004. This is significant, and is sometimes misunderstood. If Congress does nothing, the ban will expire. No repeal or other congressional action is necessary for this to happen.

In order for the ban to continue, legislation must be passed through both houses of Congress and signed by the President.

http://www.awbansunset.com/future.html


If a new bill gets passed there will be no "sunset clause" and we are:cuss: :cuss:

Brett Bellmore
May 9, 2003, 11:07 PM
Nah, they want to make it permanent this time. The only argument among the backers is whether to just make it permanent, or to extend it to virtually ALL semi-automatic firearms while they're at it.

UnknownSailor
May 10, 2003, 02:17 AM
OK, thanks to Nightfall, I have that 1996 DOJ report on the AWB hosted on my ISP webspace. You will need Adobe Acrobat to read it.

link (http://www2.whidbey.net/9diesel/data/aw_final.pdf)

BTR
May 10, 2003, 08:48 AM
The Feinstein bill makes the guns banned by name banned "for all time" BUT the gun banned by "evil features" sunset after 8 years... it also bans the import of hicaps. I don't know if the mag capacity would be set to sunset as well, does anyone know? The other version (in the house?) is much more restrictive.

If you enjoyed reading about "More on Bush "Assault Rifle" Ban Position" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!