GWB's Second Amendment Record


PDA






Bartholomew Roberts
June 7, 2004, 03:37 PM
We all know what Kerry's record has been - 100% ratings from VPC and the Brady Bunch, 100% from radical anti-hunting groups that oppose all forms of hunting, voting to ban .30-30 ammo, etc.

It seems a lot of us have forgotten exactly what this administration has done (both pro and con) on the issue - so I thought I would post this as a reminder. The pro, neutral and con headings reflect my own personal opinions. Feel free to mentally rearrange them to reflect your own views on the Second Amendment.

PRO:

1. UN Small Arms Restrictions blocked by US (http://www.iansa.org/oldsite/calendar/2001UN/confnews/change_tone.htm)

2. Attorney General declares Second Amendment is individual right (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_020507.html) - reverses 35 years of previous Justice Department doctrine on the matter.

3. Attorney General refuses to allow legitimate purchase of NICS data to be used for fishing expedition (http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/press/release.asp?Record=368) - Ashcroft stops grabbers from sifting through NICS data of legitimate purchasers to look for "terrorists".

4. Ashcroft changes NICS data holding from 90 days to 1 day (http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/press/release.asp?Record=368) - NICS data on legitimate purchases will now be purged from the system in a single day as the law intended rather than being held onto for 90 days per Clinton policy

5. Bush supports and will sign lawsuit preemption bill (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/18/president.2000/bush.guns/)

6. Bush ends taxpayer funding of useless HUD gun buybacks (http://speakout.com/activism/apstories/9981-1.html)

7. Signs bill closing loophole that prevented cargo pilots from being armed (http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/CC-BushSignsCargoPilots031215.html)

8. Signed the appropriations bill containing the Tiahrt Amendment (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200401270928.asp) that protects gunowner privacy by making item #4 the law of the land.

9. Gets chance to have several things he claims to support (lawsuit preemption, gunshow background checks, semi-auto ban) on a single bill. Sends letter to Congress asking them to consider only lawsuit preemption.

NEUTRAL:

1. Claims to be against original bill arming air line pilots but signs bill authorizing it.

2. Partially repeals Clinton ban on import of some semi-auto firearm parts (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=599575#post599575) instituted in Summer of 2000 to allow import of parts for repair purposes. Doesn't repeal any Executive Orders relating to guns instituted by previous Presidents.

CON:

1. Continues his support (stated in 2000) of the notoriously useless semi-auto ban.

2. Signed the bill banning non-existent plastic guns (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1038057/posts) into law.

If you enjoyed reading about "GWB's Second Amendment Record" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
wingedmonkey
June 7, 2004, 03:51 PM
Proof that the pros of re-electing President Bush out weigh the cons when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Compare the records then vote.

www.vasportsmen.org

www.sportsmenforkerry.com

boofus
June 7, 2004, 04:37 PM
Not to mention he signed into law the Texas CHL and he has at least 1 pistol (Saddam's) in the oval office. Plus Tricky Dick Cheney has a large gun collection including MGs. I don't think he will be pushing to ban individual ownership of NFA items any time soon, unlike kerry who is likely to try to ban anything having to do with guns.

My litmus test comes Sept 13. Congress probably has enough socialist scum and backstabbing RINOs to pass feinswine's new ban. It'll be up to the president whether to sign it or veto. If W lets the ban disappear he'll get my vote. Otherwise it's voting Libertarian or voting from the rooftops. :scrutiny:

GEM
June 7, 2004, 04:44 PM
By no means has he been proactive on the RKBA's key points or bills introduced to signficantly enhance it.

The crunch will come at AWB time. If it is renewed with his signature, then he has signficantly hurt the RKBA and the piddlely crap quoted is irrelevant.

SodiumBenzoate
June 7, 2004, 04:55 PM
I sincerely believe the only chance GWB has for re-election lies with the NRA.

ssr
June 7, 2004, 05:01 PM
I don't know if he will win or lose come election time, but I will say that I believe if the AWBan is renewed, he will lose.

rick_reno
June 7, 2004, 05:15 PM
I don't the AWB signed/unsigned and expired will make any difference in the election this year. It gets lots of coverage here, but you folks need to get away from your keyboards and out into the real world every now and then. At the local (N. Idaho) shooting range where I volunteer as a range master, I'll bring the AWB up with shooters and overwhelmingly either get the blank stare (they haven't heard about it) or they don't care. I get at least 5 to 1 in the "don't care, doesn't bother me" camp.

It's important to remember when looking at GWB and the 2nd Amendment that he's had a "Republican" Congress for at least two years. The acomplishments noted are like spitting in the ocean - they don't mean anything. Spend some time and ponder what you would have liked them to acomplish - and work backwards from that.

cheygriz
June 7, 2004, 05:43 PM
Either President Bush or Senator Kerry will be president next year. There are no other choices.

The record is clear. Bush is lukewarm on RKBA. Kerry is FANATICALLY anti-gun.

Is there a choice for gun owners? I'll take lukewarm Pro over fanatically anti any day!

flatrock
June 7, 2004, 05:53 PM
I don't the AWB signed/unsigned and expired will make any difference in the election this year.

That's what a lot of people said 10 years ago. The original law caused the Democrats to lose control of the House for the first time in 60 years.

There are a considerable number of people for whom second ammendmet rights are a major determining factor in deciding who to vote for.

This election looks like it will be a close one, which scares the crap out of me, because Kerry is about as bad a choice as the Dems could give us.

I'm betting that the White House is working pretty hard behind the scenes to make sure the AWB reauthorization never reaches Bush's desk.

Desertdog
June 7, 2004, 06:03 PM
The 1993 law reinforced the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA), which prohibited the creation of a registry of gun owners. FOPA mandated that no "system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established."
Why doesn't this stop the PRK, and other states, from mandating the registration of all firearms??:barf:

Bartholomew Roberts
June 7, 2004, 06:05 PM
To all those who noted Republican control of Congress and asked why more hasn't been accomplished, I would point out that "control" is at best a relative term.

For two years, Bush lost control after Jim Jeffords switched and removed what narrow lead Republicans had in the Senate. The Republicans gained control back by winning 51 seats. That is "control" of the Senate in the same sense that driving with your hand on the gas pedal and your feet on the steering wheel is "control" of a car.

In the House, Publicola has already noted that the GOA D and F rated members of the House (the vast majority of whom are Democrats) number only 10 less than the remaining GOA A,B and C rated candidates. Once again, not a lot of opportunity to advance pro-gun legislation.

To me this is like giving the knight a nerf sword and then complaining that he hasn't yet slain the dragon. It is also why we really need to consolidate control in the House and push for pro-gun Senators in the Senate. We have a good chance to change both those numbers around this election - four anti-gun Senators are retiring and several others are in close races.

If the semi-auto ban sunsets, this President will have done more for gun owners than any President in the last 50 years has.

Why doesn't this stop the PRK, and other states, from mandating the registration of all firearms??

It only prohibits the Federal government from those activities. The states can still do whatever they like, especially since the Second hasn't been incorporated under the 14th yet.

txgho1911
June 7, 2004, 06:26 PM
Who's to say GWB wins this election and turns around to launch some public history lessons. Pushes congress to repeal the bad and lame gun laws passed last century. States restrictions on RKBA are preempted.
He will have to nominate 2-3x the fed and supreme court judges from the high rate of heart attacks and strokes. 3 or 4 govenors and 3 mayors resign (Daley, Bloomberg).
Slim chance of something like this. To many federal workers would be out of a job. Same story for TSA. Wheres the extension for this dept and arming pilots.
I wouldn't mind seeing a candidate who would want full restoration.
Anyone come to mind? Maybe for 2008.

Spelling count?

boofus
June 7, 2004, 06:48 PM
Ron Paul or Aaron Russo in 2008! :D

Michigander
June 7, 2004, 06:50 PM
GWB is certainly the lesser of the two evils.

Too bad I don't want evil at all.

fix
June 7, 2004, 07:00 PM
Michigander,

Want in one hand and :cuss: in the other. Let us know what happens.

BTR
June 7, 2004, 07:10 PM
He declared he didn't want any antigun riders to the lawsuit bill. That is something important.

Third_Rail
June 7, 2004, 07:13 PM
Good to see a thread like this!

I know who my vote is going to... like it'll matter, being in MA and all. I'm suuure Bush has even a chance of winning this state. :rolleyes:

LAR-15
June 7, 2004, 07:44 PM
You forgot to mention his support for the AWB has been verbal alone.

I've yet to see him standing with Schumer and holding up a Tec-9 or AB-10.

Michigander
June 7, 2004, 07:44 PM
Want in one hand and :cuss: in the other. Let us know what happens.

So I'm going to end up with evil either way. Hmm.

Then voting for Badnarik is not wasted after all.

LAR-15
June 7, 2004, 07:50 PM
Vote your principles.

THAT vote is NEVER wasted!

Bartholomew Roberts
June 7, 2004, 08:23 PM
I would prefer this discussion remain about GWB's Second Amendment policies. There is already a thread discussing John Kerry's.

I would appreciate it if we could keep this thread on-topic. There are no shortage of threads where you can discuss Libertarian/Republican issues. The main purpose behind this thread is to educate voters on what GWB has and hasn't done.

Thumper
June 7, 2004, 10:30 PM
He declared he didn't want any antigun riders to the lawsuit bill. That is something important.

At the time that memo was released (after cloture), the "antigun riders" in question were the AWB and closure of the imaginary gunshow loophole.

That was pretty strong, IMHO.

Publicola
June 8, 2004, 01:58 AM
BR,

#1 - I'll grant you that one.

#2 - Ashcroft didn't give the victory most think. He didn't say that the 2nd amendment was an individual Right, he said the second amendment was an individual right subject to government restrictions.

He merely changed the direction of the attack, not the attack itself.

#3 I'll grant that one

#4 I'll grant that one as well.

#5 I'll grant that.

#6 I'll grant that

#7 I'll grant that

#8 I'll grant that

#9 He said he did not want any bills attached that would prevent the lawsuit preemption bill from passing. Please remember we're talking about the Senate which is noriously anti-gun. he did not say he didn't want the AWB attached - he said he didn't want anything attached that would prevent passing the parent bill. See the difference?

There was a clear majority in favor of adding on the AWB renewal, so its addition would not have stopped the bill it was attached to if it was going to be passed in the first place. We didn't have the votes to keep the AWB from passing. That means if the Senate chose it could have passed the entire package whether we objected or not.

So it was a clever statement by Bush but not one that makes the point most assume it makes. He wanted the bill passed. He did not say only that bill. He did not say specifically to not add the AWB renewal to it. He merely said don't add anything that would kill it.

Nuetral

#1 I'll grant that

#2 I'll grant that

Con
#1 I'll grant that

#2 I'll grant that

Now here's the catch - by saying "I'll grant that" I merely mean that those were his actions. He did sign certain bills into law, & his subordinates did do things that seem pro-gun.

But the thing about Bush is he'd sign an unlimited third party extended warranty if it hit his desk. He's signed laws that he said he believed ot be unconstitutional (McCain-Feingold) so his signing a bill really doesn't show a solid demonstration of his support or disdain for bill.
That'd mean #5, #7, & #8 of the "Pro" column, #1 of the "Neutral" column & #2 of the "Con" column are inconclusive where they refer to his signing a bill into law.

Bush is the boss & whatever his subordinates do does reflect on him. With that being said...

#1 (from the "Pro" column) was done by the State Dept. (If I recall) & was a good thing (though it could've been a little better) & Bush should get credit for that if we use a system where the actions of his subordinates (both good & bad) reflect his views. Ditto for #3 & #4 of the "Pro" column.

However if we use that system then Bush has (& should) take the blame for the burdensome & deliberetaly obstructionist system the TSA set up to arm pilots.

Because of his opposition to the armed pilots bill & because of the TSA's rather slimey methods of preventing armed pilots from happening I'd have to move #1 of the "Neutral " column into the "Con" column.

So what we end up having is something like this:

Pro
#1 Acceptable although could have been done a little better.
#2 Unacceptable - see above - Moved to "con"
#3 Acceptable if you can accept a registration/licensing system to begin with
#4 Acceptable if you can accept a registration/licensing system to begin with
#5 Partially acceptable as his support means something while his promise to sign is redundant considering his record.
#6 Acceptable although his motivations are unclear - it could have been he just thought the program was a waste of funds. But there's nothing principly wrong with a voluntary program to buy firearms from a firearms Rights persepctive. There's a lot principly wrong with it if you object to the government using stole..er, taxed funds for any kind of social program.
#7 Inconclusive - his signing a bill is presumed.
#8 Inconclusive - see #8
#9 Unacceptable - see above - Moved to "Con"

Neutral
#1 moved to "Con" column
#2 Acceptable if you can live with only a aprtial repeal of gun control through executive orders.

Con
#1 Acceptable
#2 Inconclusive
#3 (moved #2 from "Pro" column) see above
#4 (moved #9 from "Pro" column) see above
#5 (moved #1 from "Neutral" column) Partial acceptable, Partially Inconclusive. His signing a bill doesn't reflect his positions on that bill His public statements however do matter & he was against the arming of pilots.

or more streamlined...
Pro we have #1, #3, #4, #5, & #6.
Neutral we have #2
Con we have#1, plus my lists #3, #4 & #5.

That'd put it at 5 Pro, 1 Neutral & 4 Con with my revision of your list.

Keep in mind that's just using the info you provided & allowing for him taking full credit for the actions of his subordinates as well as not bringing up the actions he (& to be fair every president since FDR) should have taken. & I also take into consideration that you aren't a rabid absolutist like I am.

Bet you never thouht a simple column based argument about a presidents pro's & con's would get this complex, did ya?

Bush, from everything I've seen him do & say, is a bit too authoritarian for my tastes. This spills over into his view on firearms as a "firearms are an individual's thing as long as they follow the law" attitude. Since I feel that every single friggin federal gun control law & most state gun control laws are unconstitutional & violative of an individual's Right, I'm sure Bush & I would clash severely if we were ever put in the same room for a discussion.

Bush's actions & views (from my perspective) seem much akin to WildistillthinkthrowingsentencesbetweenmyfirstandlastnameisacutethingAlaska's views. So imagine WildpeoplewithonenamearejustjealousofmyabilitytoslipinmessagesinmysignatureAlaska & me debating but with a few secret service agents in his corner. That'd be how well Bush & I got along if he tried to justify what I see as his anti-gun actions.

Oh, before I let it slip - Bush's support of Texas CCW permits doesn't gain him any points with me. I know the different arguments for CCW permits, but the bottom line is they're permits whereas carrying a weapon concealed or otherwise should be treated as a Right, not a privilege.

& for the inevitable counter-argument that the perfect is the enemy of the good, don't you think it's a little bit misguided to oppose perfection? Perfect is not the enemy of the good: perfect is the enemy of the inadequate. By calling the inadequate good you're degrading the standards whether you realize it or not & giving aid & comfort to those whose motto is "Good enough or guv'mint work".

Anyway, your views may be different, but that's how I'd rearrange the columns BR posted. But for a rating of any sort I'd have to give Bsh the same one I'd give every president since FDR on the firearms issue: inadequate.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 8, 2004, 09:45 AM
Like I said, different people will see them in a different fashion... as for the Second Amendment being an individual right with reasonable restrictions, you can look at that as either an attack (He said "restriction") or an opportunity (He said "reasonable").

From my perspective, the fact that the Second Amendment is subject to restriction merely means that it is like every other amendment in the Bill of Rights (i.e. the First Amendment does not guarantee you the right to distribute child pornography).

As for perfect being the enemy of the good, I think you miss the point of that saying entirely. It is always noble to strive for perfection. Where it stops being noble is when you refuse any advancement at all because it is only good and not perfect.

wingedmonkey
June 8, 2004, 10:04 AM
There was a clear majority in favor of adding on the AWB renewal, so its addition would not have stopped the bill it was attached to if it was going to be passed in the first place. We didn't have the votes to keep the AWB from passing. That means if the Senate chose it could have passed the entire package whether we objected or not.

But it would have stopped passage because the House would not have gone along with it.

Sportsmen for Bush (http://www.vasportmen.org)

Sportsmen for Kerry? (http://www.sportsmenforkerry.com)

Brett Bellmore
June 8, 2004, 10:05 AM
Add to the "CON" column:

3. Had his AG successfully urge the Supreme court to refuse certiori for 2nd amendment challenges. Ok, maybe they would have refused it anyway, but Ashcroft didn't have to ASK them to do the wrong thing.

4. Had his AG defend, to his best ability, all existing gun control laws that are challenged. And, no, Ashcroft is NOT legally obligated to defend laws he believes are unconstitutional. Let alone do a good job of it. It's close to SOP for the AG to deliberately do a bad job of "defending" laws the administration finds offensive, and not unheard of for him to hire somebody to defend laws he can't in good conscience defend.

5. Permits Minetta to continue sabotoging the armed pilots program. Even after being warned about it by Congress.

Publicola
June 8, 2004, 10:33 AM
BR,

iI disagree: not every Right enumerated in the Constitution should be subject to restriction. W/o getting into too much detail as long as the Right in question doesn't involve the disregard of another's Rights then there's no justification for restriction. Child Porn involes the display of photographs of chidlren in sexual activities. Under a certain age kids aren't capable of rationally consetning to such behavior, hence it steps on the kids' Rights (albeity unenumerated Rights but Rights nontheless).

& since gun control is 99% prior restraint (i.e. prohibiting ownership or possession regardless of action or intent) then I don't see how the exercise of the Right to Arms can interfere with someone else's Right. Shooting a ugn walking down mainstreet? That can be restricted becaue it steps on the Rights of others 9i.e. it endangers their life &/or property). Owning a Mac-10 & carrying it under your jacket? Nope, doesn't make the cut since it doesn't harm anyone. If you define Rights as not including actions which trample someone else's Rights then it makes a little more sense as opposed to drawing a line between two things which you define both as a Right.

& I get the "enemy of the good" thing. But from my perspective I generally see it as I described: an excuse not to put forth the extra effort. But I don't think any stride for perfection can be called innoble. Impractical perhaps, but the nobility is still there.

Most of us can agree that no state should make you pay a fee or beg permission for carrying a firearm without harmful intent (however if you plan to murder someone you should pay the approriate license fees) but the justification used to support laws that provide for just that instead of trying for a law or amendment that would make carry legal sans permit is that the perfect is the enemy of the good. Again, from my perspective, this often seems not like an admonition that the goal is out of reach & we shoudl settle for as close as we can get to it, but rather it turns the meaning around to make in practice the good the mortal enemy of the perfect. Neither of our views on this phrase is universal as there are some instances where I would agree with yours & there's probably a few where you'd agree with mine. It's just that in my experience it's used as a justification for mediocrity far more often than to keep overzealous intentions from resulting in an outright loss.

Wingedmonkey,

What makes you think the House would have stopped it?

Thumper
June 8, 2004, 11:41 AM
3. Had his AG successfully urge the Supreme court to refuse certiori for 2nd amendment challenges. Ok, maybe they would have refused it anyway, but Ashcroft didn't have to ASK them to do the wrong thing.

I know you don't agree, Brett, but I'm certainly glad he did. KABA's case was fine, but the makeup of the Court left us on VERY shaky ground. Some of us believe that Ashcroft did us a huge favor there.

txgho1911
June 8, 2004, 03:00 PM
inadequate+bush=true
unacceptable+kerry=true
unatainable+? libertarian, constitution, green=true

No where from any state or party do I see or would agree with:
adequate
perfect

Bush will sign what congress puts in front of him on his desk.
Months and years of the boss calling division heads onto the carpet will cause 1% attrition due to those who resign for personal reasons.
I we elected a congress that would never infring apon or decide allone what law to creat and set in front of the president would the machine not be so littered with disasterouse wrenches.

Do not forget what else the election is all about.
There are lefties and rinos in congress. There are also numerous people to replace on RNC.
If you want some real change because we have not had enough then you will have to work for it. I would like to vote this year once in Nov. Not at every oportunity from the rooftops. Others may mistake me for someone I am not.

garrettwc
June 9, 2004, 02:07 AM
Why doesn't this stop the PRK, and other states, from mandating the registration of all firearms??

The Tenth amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Although we all know that registration is a facilitating step to consfiscation, it has not been successfully changed on 2nd Amendment grounds. Therefore, it is up to the states to do as they choose until the Supreme Court says otherwise.

Getting back to the main topic of the thread, GWB's voting record is only part of the story. If the schemes of the various states do make it to the Supreme Court, do you want it heard by a panel appointed by Bush or Kerry?

If you enjoyed reading about "GWB's Second Amendment Record" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!