Bush has stated he will renew AWB

[jsalcedo]

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. "

 

[Gewehr98]

And this is quoted from where?

Facts, man, facts!

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

 

[Country Boy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Found part of Bush stance on AWB

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]

here is more

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]

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]

Why does this have to ruin my day? oh i hope..... .... http://www.awbansunset.com/

 

[BerettaNut92]

UZIs and AK47s no but MP5s and AR15s...heck yes!

 

[Frohickey]

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]

mayhaps he says
IF it gets to his desk he will sign it
'cause it ain't gonna get to his desk

 

[voilsb]

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]

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]

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]

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]

speak of the devil.....

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

"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]

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".