USA: "In surprise move, Bush backs renewal of assault weapons ban "

[cuchulainn]

http://www.charleston.net/stories/04...bushguns.shtml

Story last updated at 7:37 a.m. Saturday, April 12, 2003

In surprise move, Bush backs renewal of assault weapons ban

BY SHANNON MCCAFFREY
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON--The Bush administration is bucking the National Rifle Association and supporting a renewal of the assault weapons ban, set to expire just before the presidential election.

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

Tossing out the ban on semiautomatic weapons is a top priority for the NRA. President Bush said during his presidential campaign that he supported the current ban, but it was less clear whether he would support an extension.

The White House comment comes just before the NRA's annual convention and as the gun debate overall shows signs of fresh life. Republicans now control the House and the Senate and are using their newfound power to breathe life into the stalled pro-gun rights agenda. This week, they pushed through a bill in the House to give gun makers and dealers sweeping immunity from lawsuits.

The assault weapons ban is considered a crown jewel by the gun-control movement, and even though its expiration is more than a year away it already is being watched closely.

The White House comment surprised those on both sides of the gun issue.

"That's lousy politics," said Grover Norquist, an NRA board member who leads the conservative pro-Bush group Americans for Tax Reform.

Joe Sudbay of the Violence Policy Center said it "creates a huge problem for Bush with the NRA."

"The NRA said they would be working out of the Oval Office when Bush was elected. This creates an interesting situation for them," he said.

Matt Bennett of Americans for Gun Safety applauded Bush's stance but urged the president to use his political clout to push for Congress to act. If Congress does nothing, the ban could just expire.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, said Bush's support was somewhat irrelevant.

"Ultimately, I think this issue is going to be decided by the Congress," LaPierre said.

If it is, the NRA has reason to be optimistic.

This week's action on the immunity legislation for dealers and gun makers reflects the interest of Republicans to resurrect the pro-gun rights agenda.

Congress was poised to act on the bill last fall, but the sniper attacks in the Washington area prompted a delay. The measure has enough co-sponsors in the Senate to pass that chamber unless Democrats dig in their heels and filibuster.

Supporters of the immunity bill say it shields gun makers from bankruptcy because of frivolous lawsuits that became popular during the Clinton administration. Lawsuits filed by cities against gun manufacturers -- modeled on similar litigation against the tobacco industry --so far have been unsuccessful but have kept gun makers tied up in court.

Gun-control advocates say the immunity bill will keep innocent victims of gun violence from getting their day in court.

The gun industry would become the first to receive blanket immunity protections if the bill succeeds.

The action on Capitol Hill coincides with another attempt in court to sue manufacturers, this one by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Filed in New York, the NAACP contends that weapons disproportionately harm minorities. While a number of cities have sued the gun industry with little success in order to collect damages for gun violence, the NAACP lawsuit seeks to impose new restrictions on handgun marketing and distribution.

Testifying at the case was Robert Ricker, the former head of the American Shooting Sports Council, the main gun industry trade association. Ricker is the gun industry's first whistleblower. He says weapons manufacturers have known for some time that dealers were selling firearms to juveniles and criminals but remained silent for fear of being held liable.

The active gun debate stands in contrast to several years of inaction. Democrats largely abandoned the gun issue in the 2002 midterm election after some determined that it had been an albatross for Democratic presidential hopeful Al Gore in 2000.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., elected to Congress on a gun-control platform after her husband was killed and her son wounded by a deranged gunman on a Long Island commuter train in 1993, acknowledged that some Democrats are nervous about the gun issue.

"But it's coming back. I think you're going to see it popping up a lot this session with the Republicans in control," she said.

The 1994 bill made it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess certain semiautomatic weapons that discharge one shot for each pull of the trigger and automatically load a round of ammunition without being cocked. The prohibition is due to expire in September 2004.
Copyright © 2003, The Post and Courier

[Sodbuster]

In surprise move

To whom? Not to me. It wasn't hard to see if one would look through the smokescreen they call Iraq.

[Lone_Gunman]

Bush has said all along that he would renew the assault weapons ban, if the Congress were to pass it and send the bill to him.

This is not a change in policy. He has never stated otherwise.

[TallPine]

Just part of the Bush plan to lose the election in 2004 ...

(maybe he really is dumb?)

[Leatherneck]

The President just carefully drew a bead on his left foot and pulled the trigger. There'll be trouble over this.

TC
TFL Survivor

[hammer4nc]

So here's the question: How much pressure is Bush going to apply on congress to pass the new bill (so he can sign it)? He won't be the first politician to play both sides against the middle, by posturing for a bill he know will never reach his desk...though this is contrary to Bush's advertised "straight ahead" style. Is he just raising the issue to kill more democrats in 2004?

Political history: Remember, the AW ban is thought to have cost the democrats control of the house of representatives (including de-Foley-ating a sitting speaker), in '94. Also, 92% reelection rate for house members voting to repeal the AW ban in '96 (never got through the senate).

I can't believe public opinion has changed that markedly since the mid 90's. Confused?

[OF]

Well, either hammer or Leatherneck have it right. Bush is either proving the pundits who say he's no genius on domestic policy matters, or he is a genius and you have to look past the headlines to see it.

We are in charge of the outcome. Make sure this thing never hits his desk so he doesn't have to prove himself one way or the other.

- Gabe

[The Rock]

The AWB will die.

We've known Bush Jr is the same as Bush Sr is the same as Clinton. None actually support your right to carry as you see fit, but that should not come as any surprise to anyone who has been paying any sort of attention.

TR

[Boats]

Did you guys skip right over Machievelli in school? This is a "compassionate conservative" ploy from the get-go. Just watch it unfold.

Bush comes out in support of extension after getting big negative press write-ups a few months ago for lukewarm comments about the administration supporting the "current law."

However, at least two players have their thinking caps on besides Bush. First, Matt Bennett of "Americans for Gun Safety" immediately realized that if the president did not use his political clout to push for Congress to act that the extension won't happen. Then Bush could just shrug and say, "I guess the people, as reflected by the House's inaction, just weren't for it anymore." Political cover, baby!

Wayne LaPierre, and the NRA, are also not asleep at the switch. Bush gets to distance himself from the spurious charge that he is in their pocket and LaPierre kills the AWB where they were going to all along anyways--in the House subcommittee on crime or in the House Justice Committee. The fewer people you need to kill it, the better, as House reps from solidly controlled pro-gun districts will never answer for failing to hear an extension of the AWB that their constituents don't want. Even then, if somehow all of the House Democrats come out in favor of gun control via a discharge petition in the House, they don't have the votes to pass it on a floor vote. Remember, the original AWB barely passed in a Demo controled House. It would never pass today without some more high profile criminal crap timed just wrong.

"Ultimately, I think this issue is going to be decided by the Congress," LaPierre said. Enough said there.

This is politics, not first and goal at the one yard line. Some deception is required to kill the AWB while at the same time not handing a cost-free club to the left wing press and politicians to beat Bush over the head with in front of the soccer moms.

I too think Bush is crazy--like a fox.

[rick_reno]

I hope this is nothing more than smart politics - and he's supporting a bill that he knows he'll never have to sign. Anything else and he's going to be a one term President, like his father. I don't see gun owners - who want some of our Rights restored - voting Democrat, but I could see them sitting out the election. If Congress acts on this and he signs it, I won't support them.

[Boats]

Well, that is the gamble Bush is making with his base isn't it? Backchannel they are going to do everything possible to make sure Bush never has to sign anything smacking of gun control.

[hammer4nc]

Upon further reflection...this story really is nothing more than an off-handed remark, made in passing by a minor functionary (Scott McClellan, usually briefs the press on Barney the white house dog!), to a single Knight Ritter reporter. Not a news conference, nothing. All the reaction angles were created by the same reporter, making phone calls to various players in the issue, and composing the story. About as far from "white house policy" as you can get. Manufactured news.

We'll never know if this was a clever news plant by Bush, or if Scott McClellan is now getting his pp whacked by boss Ari Fleischer, for blabbing out of turn. My bet is the story will die.

[Tamara]

Boy, the mental gyrations an abused spouse will go through to believe "He really does love me, you know!"

He said he supported the ban in his campaign. He's said before that he'd even favor increasing restrictions (ending importation of "hi-cap" mags and banning their posession by people under 21). He's said before that he'd sign a renewal.

That this is considered a surprise by anyone is actually pretty funny, really.

[Standing Wolf]

Do I look surprised?

[4v50 Gary]

No surprise at all. Politics as usual.

[Kharn]

White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder.

If its not Ari saying it, its probaby a ploy to cover W's butt when the renewal fails. If Ari announces it with fanfair and such in a big conference, we're in for a back stabbing.

Kharn

[Skunkabilly]

What? Doesn't he want to get re-elected?

[Republican-leaning Libertarian]

[UnknownSailor]

Boats has a good point, WRT passage of a renewal probably not possible without another "massacre". I hope that between now and September, 2004, that all of those on THR are extra vigilant for another Stockton, or Columbine.

[Hkmp5sd]

This is the reason I am really glad the AW ban dies before I make my decision on who to vote for in the next presidential election.

Simple process. Bush signs a new AW ban, I will not vote for him.

[Cal4D4]

"Wayne LaPierre, and the NRA, are also not asleep at the switch."

If they actually do snub this in the House it will go a long way to changing my thoughts on the NRA. It may not actually change anything in Kali, but it would be a good gesture of their effectiveness.

[Boats]

I'd rather be able to do mental gyrations in the first place than always see the blinkered view of the world. Few people, even back in the day, were political purists falling in line with Patrick Henry and "Give me liberty or give me death." Reality has to be dealt with as we find it not as we wish it to be.

Uh, yes, the only pressure that matters to the Administration is pro-2A folks who want the AWB killed. Newsflash! We are a noisy and potent minority if you haven't been paying attention. I am sure that just like me, you all have some gunowning friends who don't give a second thought to the AWB unless you bring it up first. Those folks are the reason we even have to watch favorable politicians tiptoe through this minefield of gun control.

So yes, let's all castigate Bush for being where the sheeple are on this one. I am so certain it is a heartfelt committment from Jr., rather than a calculated position. A good Prince has henchmen do his dirty work for him while maintaining his popularity before the masses. What do you think Tom DeLay is for? I am very sure that one Texan in the House will get his marching orders on the AWB very distinctly. Bush knows he couldn't push this through the more conservative base of the House of Reps even if he wanted to, which I don't think he does. Karl Rove will see to it that nothing unusual happens absent another sniper/Columbine level incident making non-passage politically suicidal.

And like it or not, just like the vast majority of people with jobs or careers, the Bush White House is not going to chance throwing everything away to please a minority of perpetually disgruntled folks whose views cannot be squared with the majority of satisfied consumers.

The real political problem we have is with those shooters we all know who think that their hunting rifles and shotguns are sacrosanct and the AWB doesn't matter. It is just easier for us to believe that Bush's political machinations geared towards playing both ends against the middle on a very emotionally charged topic are going to be our downfall if the new AWB hits his desk. If it has come down to praying for a veto, then the war was lost when the early shots were fired, not in the last stand, and we'd be playing the role of the French Army.

[Ian]

But if you don't vote for the Republican, a Democrat will win!

Bush can put all his weight behind a new (and likely worse) AW ban, and the get re-elected by a bunch of duck hunter who are scared that a Democrat would be even worse.

[Waitone]

From Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

politician--2 a : a person engaged in party politics as a profession b : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons

leader--2 : a person who leads: as a : GUIDE, CONDUCTOR b (1) : a person who directs a military force or unit (2) : a person who has commanding authority or influence c (1) : the principal officer of a British political party (2) : a party member chosen to manage party activities in a legislative body (3) : such a party member presiding over the whole legislative body when the party constitutes a majority d (1) : CONDUCTOR c (2) : a first or principal performer of a group

Neither of the two shall meet.

Bush will not burn political capital fighting for or against the AWB. He will gladly do what congress asks him to do. Not at the top of his priority list.

If you thought by electing Dubya to the presidency you were electing someone who supported the constitution, you are sadly mistaking. He is a politician interested in his own power and the power of his selected party.

You will not get principaled leadership out of a politician. He needs to be scuffed up periodically just to let him know his base will not tolerate being abused.

Remember, the joker signed the Campaign Finance Control Bill.

[Hkmp5sd]

But if you don't vote for the Republican, a Democrat will win!

Yep. That is why Bush can confidently state he is all for renewing an AW ban. In his view, we don't have any other choice.

Wrong! I will not vote for Bush if he signs an AW ban. If he does that, there is no difference between him and a democrat and I will not reward Bush for screwing me over.

[T.Stahl]

(S)He who thinks that politicians will return any freedoms they managed to take away from you is either a day-dreamer or an incurable optimist.

Note to self: Cancel any thoughts about moving to the USA in a couple of years.