Bush on AWB renewal

Status
Not open for further replies.

45R

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,692
Location
No Place Like Home
http://www.libertyforall.net/2003/archive/may18/weapons-ban.html

NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org


For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: [email protected]



WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush's support for renewing a Clinton administration ban on so-called assault rifles sends the wrong message to terrorists and other criminals, Libertarians say.

"Politicians who want to disarm vulnerable Americans at a time like this are a threat to homeland security," said Geoffrey Neale, Libertarian Party chairman. "The government simply can't protect every one, all the time, but at least it can allow Americans to protect themselves."

The 1994 assault weapons law, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and then-Rep. Charles Schumer, D-NY, banned the manufacture and importation of certain types of semi-automatic rifles and prohibited magazines of more than 10 rounds. Bush administration spokesman Scott McClellan set off a public furor recently when he said the president "supports reauthorization of the current law," which is set to expire in September 2004 because of a 10-year sunset provision.

But banning guns sends terrorists and other criminals the message that Americans are even more vulnerable than before, Libertarians point out.

"Fortunately, terrorists carrying semi-automatic rifles haven't yet stormed a shopping mall, an office park or a busy urban area, but they could," Neale said. "If that happens, shouldn't their victims be able to shoot back with the same weapons the terrorists are using?

"Of course, an assault weapon may never be used to thwart a terrorist assault. But if overturning this gun ban saves just one life, it will have been worthwhile."

The main justification for the gun ban -- that assault weapons are a favorite choice for criminals -- doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny, Neale pointed out.

"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, assault weapons are used in less than 1 percent of violent crimes, and the FBI admits that far more people are killed every year by knives and blunt objects than by any kind of rifle, including an 'assault rifle,' " he said. "So banning assault weapons to protect public safety makes as much sense as banning knives and baseball bats."

The threat posed by assault weapons is so exaggerated that Joseph Constance, a deputy police chief in Trenton, NJ, once told the Senate Judiciary Committee: "My officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."

The bigger threat is that Bush will follow through on his promise to sign the renewed assault weapons ban, Neale said.

"When it comes to supporting crime-victim disarmament laws, Bush is a recidivist," he said. "Just eight months after terrorists commandeered four airlines on September 11, Bush opposed a House bill that would have allowed armed pilots in the cockpit. Fortunately, the president reversed himself in response to public pressure -- and the legislation was approved."

Now Bush seems to be repeating his mistake -- and that's bad news for homeland security, Libertarians say.

"Let's urge Bush to flip-flop in the direction of freedom again and let this gun ban quietly expire," he said. "It's time to stop the government's assault on public safety."
 
I'm as Republican as it gets but if he signs any kind of gun control bill, he will not get my vote again. Period!!! Hopefully this is just a political calculation in hopes no bill will ever get out of congressional committee. [Fingers crossed]
 
What Shaggy said.
No 2nd term for Dubya if he really does sign ANY gun restrictions legislation.
 
and i hear a collective "awwww crap" from THR members....

and i wsa telling dad earlier this week how i see myself switching sides more and more....yes i am a Democrat....or i was....or i dont know anymore. but i want my guns thats for sure....
 
Uh,
No guns, no Bush. Fine, but then who would we vote for Hillary? Start calling your reps now. If the bill comes through strong enough he won't veto it.
 
This editorial piece makes a few wrong-headed points.

The most glaring is to continue to use the term "assault weapon," and then go on to justify their legality by citing the infrequency of use in crimes.

The term "assault weapon" has now been broadened by the anti's to include .50 BMG bolt-feed rifles, semi-automatic handguns, and even some revolvers. Disavow the use of the term; it hurts us.

The issue of infrequency of criminal use is also a potential trap. We can say that less than 1% have been used in crimes. Let that rise to 1.2% and our critics will be all over us like a cheap suit.

If we're going to defeat this, we need to go back to the basic arguments that we made in the early 90's: these are not "machine guns," they only look different, and banning something based upon appearance is a dangerous and frankly ridiculous idea.

We didn't lose those arguments in the 90's because they lacked substance; we lost the arguments because we had a president on TV almost weekly lying when he tried to refute them.

The times are different, and the public is less receptive to the type of spin that we got from Clinton on guns.

We don't need to massage the truth; we just need to tell the truth.
 
I just emailed Bush and Cheney at [email protected] and [email protected] respectively and told them that if the assault weapons ban was renewed by them I would not vote for them again. Maybe if enough of us do this they might get the message.
 
Uh,
No guns, no Bush. Fine, but then who would we vote for Hillary? Start calling your reps now. If the bill comes through strong enough he won't veto it.

I'll write in Mickey Mouse or stay home. I don't care but I'm not voting for a guy who proports to be a friend to gun owners and then signs legislation that continues anything this ridiculous.

Besides that, this is just the last straw for me anyway. I like Bush over Gore or any Clinton, but for chrisakes, he is compromising away stuff for political capital...it's ridiculous. Campaign finance reform, teaming up with Teddy Kennedy on the education bill, then signing it. On board with taxpayer paid prescription pills.....etc....etc...ad nausium. He is advancing the socialists agenda batter than Daschle could have ever hoped for. Not to mention the Patriot Act. The AW ban renewal will just be the final nail in the coffin for me.
 
Keep voicing your concern on this to your represntative and senators. This is where the action is!

Bush seems to be a decent man and good "leader" - we have done worse (# 42 for example) but he never has been particularly pro-gun. He did sign the CHL bill for us while governer, but he has never spoken out on repealing these ridiculous feel-good laws.
 
Evidently, the backlash has started for our Pres.
Check it out on Keep and Bear Arms:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2767

President Bush's Boy Feels the Sting of His Boss' Mistake

by Sam Cohen
[email protected]

May 8, 2003

KeepAndBearArms.com -- The New Hampshire State Republican Committee is sponsoring a series of in-state visits from party bigwigs. Last night, Karl Rove, advisor to the President, and a friend of George W. Bush for 30 years, spoke at a lecture hall at Southern New Hampshire University, in Manchester. The hall was full, with several hundred people there, including a state senator, a recent Congressional candidate, and a number of other people I knew. (New Hampshire's a small state.) I sat in the front row, and after Rove's speech, was the last of a half-dozen people to be recognized for questions.

I introduced myself as a director of Gun Owners of New Hampshire, the NRA state affiliate, noting -- for the benefit of the audience -- that even Bill Clinton admitted that the country's 83 million gun owners, and the NRA, delivered the electoral votes of Arkansas, Tennessee, and West Virginia in the 2000 election. I then told of assistant White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's statement a couple of weeks ago that President Bush had joined Democrat senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer in calling for renewal of the so-called Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, due to sunset after ten years in 2004.

My question was whether President Bush was aware that many thousands of gun-rights activists around the country felt so strongly about this that we had drawn a line in the sand (my exact words), and would not support ANY politician -- even President Bush himself -- who supported this atrocious legislation.

Rove began his answer by referring to the tremendous amount of email that the White House had received on this subject, but then he shot back the question of whether we supported Bush in the 2000 elections.

I said "absolutely." His follow-up was that Bush had publicly campaigned on his position of "enforcing existing gun laws," and his position hasn't changed; he was just being consistent. Rove then closed the session and walked off the stage.

Just a few minutes later, I approached him to continue in private as he was leaving the building; I was the last to do so before he got into his car. This is where it got interesting: Rove took my arm and literally got in my face, using the old drill sergeant intimidation trick of speaking through clenched teeth with his nose an inch from mine. It didn't work, because I'm taller (and older, and uglier) than he is, and I took HIS arm in turn. He told me that Bush was sticking to his position, but that Congress would never pass the legislation. I told him that there were a lot of us, that we were dead serious, and that if Bush let the ban get renewed he'd lose the election, because freedom is more important than politics. He looked at me -- still with clenched teeth -- turned, and walked to his car, obviously angry.

GOOD! First, his anger told me that he knew that the hypocritical strategy was dangerous. More importantly, it tells me he'll remember the exchange.

Molon Labe!

Sam Cohen
http://www.thespiritof76.com/rkba.html
 
[sarcasm]
If Bush renews the AWB, let's all vote Democrat! They'll preserve our 2nd Amendment Freedom!
[/sarcasm]
:rolleyes:
 
If Bush renews the AWB, let's all vote Democrat! They'll preserve our 2nd Amendment Freedom!

You can do your roll eyes smily all ya want, but if Bush signs the legislation, he is no different than Chuck Schumer on the issue so what does it matter? It may matter on other issues, but really???? Like I said above, he is managing to advance the liberals agenda almost as good as Algore could have. Hell, he's not even fighting for Miguel Estrada. He needs to beat that horse into the ground but he's not.

There are a lot of people P.O'ed at Bush for saying what he is saying. You can say you support existing law all you want. But then if a bill hits his desk, it must not be existing law because existing law does not need the Presidents signature does it?
 
Bush can say anything he likes to get a political edge; but if he signs that bill, I will hold him accountable at the ballot box in 2004.

In the meantime, I am going to plagiarize an excellent post from AR15.com describing the most effective strategy:

The goal is to kill these bills before they ever see the light of a CNN camera. We have to make sure that anti-RKBA bills get buried in committee - and STAY buried.

Towards that end, we need to SUPPORT and ENCOURAGE these particular House members because they have these and all other anti-RKBA bills in THEIR hands right NOW.

The Senate is almost a lost cause - but we have strength in the House and THAT'S where we need to focus our efforts - and our emails, letters and phone calls.


108th US Congress -

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE -
(this is where all gun-control bills are introduced in the House)
Chairman - Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-WI: GOA rating: A

HOUSE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY -
(this is the judiciary subcommittee that is the first to vote on (or bury) all gun-control bills)
Chairman - Rep. Howard Coble, R-NC: GOA rating: A
Subcommittee Members -
* Rep. Tom Feeney, R-FL: GOA rating: A
* Rep. Rick Keller, R-FL: GOA rating: A
* Rep. Mike Pence, R-IN: GOA rating: A
* Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-VA: GOA rating: A-
* Rep. Randy Forbes, R-VA: GOA rating: A-
* Rep. Steve Chabot, R-OH: GOA rating: A-
* Rep. Mark Green, R-WI: GOA rating: B-
* Rep. Robert Scott, D-VA: GOA rating: F-
* Rep. Adam Schiff, D-CA: GOA rating: F-
* Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-TX: GOA rating: F-
* Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA: GOA rating: F-
* Rep. Martin Meehan, D-MA: GOA rating: F-

HOUSE MAJORITY WHIP -
(this is who is most responsible for either "moving" or "sidetracking" bills in the House)
* Rep. Tom DeLay, R-TX: GOA rating: A

Just look at that straight-A line-up!

THIS is what a Republican-majority can do - but the battle's just beginning now!

This is our BEST chance to kill these kinds of bills.

Now we can piss and moan all we want to about what bills are introduced and who introduced them - but THESE PEOPLE are the ones who can keep or kill them.

Contact them and let them know that these anti-gun bills are blatant violations of the 2nd Amendment and "remind" them that the 'gun-control' issue was a MAJOR factor in the success of conservative Republicans in both the 2000 and 2002 elections and will continue to be so in the future.

And if you live in any of these Rep's States (or better yet their districts) you MUST contact them OFTEN and let them hear from the people who will be voting in their next election.

Just think...
...it only takes EIGHT people in this one subcommittee to bury these bills - DEAD.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brief History Of AWB And Voting Record Of Republicans On House Judiciary Subcommittee On Crime, Terrorism And Homeland Security:

1994 Assault Weapons Ban (103rd Congress, 5/5/94):
H.R. 4296 (Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) that bans the manufacture, transfer, or possession of semi-automatic assault weapons. This measure is similar to the amendment to the Senate-passed crime bill, sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein. The bill passed 216-214. (by ONE FRICKIN' VOTE!!!)

Final Passage of 1994 Crime Bill (103rd Congress, 8/21/94):
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, containing a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons and a ban on juvenile possession of handguns. The bill passed 235-195. Signed into law by Clinton on September 13, 1994 (P.L.103-322).

1996 Repeal of the Assault Weapons Ban (104th Congress, 3/22/96):
H.R. 125, "The Gun Crime Enforcement and Second Amendment Restoration Act of 1996." Repeal of the federal assault weapon ban originally passed in the 1994 crime bill. The bill passed 239-173. The Senate never voted on the bill to repeal the AWB.

How They Voted: '94 AWB / Final '94 Crime Bill+AWB / '96 Repeal of AWB

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN:
* Sensenbrenner, R-WI = NO / NO / YES

SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN:
* Coble, R-NC = NO / NO / YES (has NEVER voted in favor of ANY gun-control bill)

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS:
* Goodlatte, R-VA = NO / NO / YES (has NEVER voted in favor of ANY gun-control bill)
* Chabot, R-OH = Not around in '94 but voted YES to '96 Repeal of AWB.
* Forbes, R-VA = Not around in '94 but voted YES to '96 Repeal of AWB (but he likes gun-show background checks)
* Green, R-WI = Not around in '94 or '96 (but has 8/9 pro-RKBA voting record)
* Keller, R-FL = Not around in '94 or '96 (but has 4/4 pro-RKBA voting record)
* Pence, R-IN = Not around in '94 or '96 (but has 4/4 pro-RKBA voting record)
* Feeney, R-FL = NEWBIE ALERT (has 1/1 pro-RKBA voting record - yes to HR1036)

HOUSE MAJORITY WHIP:
* DeLay, R-TX = NO / NO / YES (has NEVER voted in favor of ANY gun-control bill)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE:
* Hastert, R-IL = NO / NO / YES (has NEVER voted in favor of ANY gun-control bill)


Now THIS is what voting for Republicans will get you - a virtually STACKED pro-RKBA House Leadership and Subcommittee majority!!

But we MUST keep the pressure on these guys - ESPECIALLY the newer House members!!

This is our fight to win or lose. Rather than fight over what we will do if he signs it, let's make sure it never reaches the President's desk.
 
Seen today on YAhoo

Irking N.R.A., Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons
Thu May 8, 9:02 AM ET Add Top Stories - The New York Times to My Yahoo!


By ERIC LICHTBLAU The New York Times

WASHINGTON, May 7 President Bush (news - web sites) and the National Rifle Association, long regarded as staunch allies, find themselves unlikely adversaries over one of the most significant pieces of gun-control legislation in the last decade, a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons.

At issue is a measure to be introduced by Senate Democrats on Thursday to continue the ban. Groundbreaking 1994 legislation outlawing the sale and possession of such firearms will expire next year unless Congress extends it, and many gun-rights groups have made it their top priority to fight it. Even some advocates of gun control say the prohibition has been largely ineffective because of its loopholes.


Despite those concerns, the White House says Mr. Bush supports the extension of the current law a position that has put him in opposition to the N.R.A. and left many gun owners angry and dumbfounded.


"This is a president who has been so good on the Second Amendment that it's just unbelievable to gun owners that he would really sign the ban," said Grover G. Norquist, a leading conservative and an N.R.A. board member who opposes the weapons ban. "I don't think it's sunk in for a lot of people yet."


Advocates on both sides of the issue say the White House appears to have made a bold political calculation: that the risk of alienating a core constituency is outweighed by appearing independent of the gun lobby, sticking to a campaign promise and supporting a measure that has broad popular appeal. The president has claimed the middle road supporting an extension of the current ban but not endorsing the stronger measures that gun-control supporters say would outlaw many "copycat" assault weapons. That position has forced Democrats in the Senate to reject plans for a more ambitious weapons ban.


Mr. Bush's position "cuts against the N.R.A.'s position," said Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation, "and it will put the president for one of the first times since he signed the campaign finance reform bill at odds with his own political base."


"He's built up enough positive political capital in other areas that it won't be fatal," Mr. Franc added, but the issue could hurt Mr. Bush in Middle America, considered critical to his re-election chances in 2004.


The assault-weapons issue puts the president in a precarious political spot. When Mr. Bush was campaigning for president in 2000, a top N.R.A. official boasted that the group's relationship with Mr. Bush was so "unbelievably friendly" that the N.R.A. could practically claim a seat at the White House. The N.R.A. has been a major donor to Mr. Bush, and the gun lobby and the Bush administration have been in lock step on most major gun issues, including the current push to limit lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The Justice Department (news - web sites) under Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) has been a particularly close ally of the gun lobby, pushing an expanded view of gun rights under the Second Amendment and initiating law enforcement changes sought by the N.R.A.


But White House officials said the assault-weapons ban was one case in which the president and the N.R.A. did not see eye to eye.


"There are times when we agree and there are times when we disagree," said Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman. "The president makes decisions based on what he believes is the right policy for Americans." Mr. McClellan added that the ban was put in place as a way of deterring crime and that Mr. Bush "felt it was reasonable."


The White House position has heartened gun-control advocates. Matt Bennett, a spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety, which supports an extension of the weapons ban, said, "I think Bush realizes that, number one, this is the right thing to do, number two, he promised to do this in the 2000 campaign, and number three, he knows that it's good politics and this is an extremely popular measure."


The N.R.A. has maintained a polite civility toward the White House, even though it insists the ban is a violation of the Second Amendment that deprives hunters and sportsmen of many high-powered rifles.


Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A's chief lobbyist, said in an interview that while the defeat of the assault-weapons ban would be one of the N.R.A's top priorities, the group's focus would be on convincing members of Congress to vote against it so that it never reaches Mr. Bush's desk. "Do we agree with the administration's position on this? No, we don't, but the real fight is going to be not at that level, but in Congress," he said.


A bill will be introduced in the Senate on Thursday by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, that would extend the ban for 10 years in much the same form it exists today. House Democrats expect to introduce a toughened version of the bill next week. That version, rejected by Senate Democrats as too politically risky, would significantly expand the class of banned weapons.


Mr. Schumer said he believed Mr. Bush's support could be critical in what he predicted would be a hard-fought campaign to renew the assault-weapons measure, which bans 19 types of firearms and others that meet certain criteria.


"We hope the president will not just say he supports the ban but will work to get it passed," Mr. Schumer said in an interview. "This will be a good measure of the compassion in his compassionate conservatism."


Senate Democrats ultimately decided that a stronger version of the ban would not pass muster with the White House and thus stood little chance of gaining passage, officials said. As a result, the Senate proposal will not specifically ban the Bushmaster rifle type that was used in last year's Washington-area sniper attacks. The House version would, because it includes a broader definition of an assault rifle, officials said.


"I would like to strengthen the bill" beyond what will be introduced in the Senate on Thursday, Senator Feinstein said today. "But I don't want to lose the bill, and important to that is the president's support."

Mr. Schumer said that even with the White House's public support, "I am worried that the anti-gun-control forces in the administration will conspire to kill this measure in the dead of night without a vote."

He noted that Mr. Ashcroft gave a noncommittal response two months ago when he was asked before the Senate several times whether he would support the reauthorization of the assault-weapons ban.

Mr. Ashcroft said Justice Department studies had found that the ban's impact on gun violence was "uncertain," and he said more study was needed.

The question of the gun ban's impact over the last nine years will be a crucial point of debate.

A report due to be released soon by the Violence Policy Center a liberal Washington group that supports an expansion of the ban examined the killings of 211 law enforcement officers from 1998 to 2001 and found that one in five were done with assault weapons, often copycat models that did not fall under the 1994 ban.

"Unfortunately, the firearms industry has been very successful at evading the ban," Kristen Rand, the group's legislative director, said. "Assault weapons remain a huge public safety problem."

Gun-rights groups insist that the assault-weapons ban has had little or no impact in fighting crime, and they maintain that their opponents are wrong to depict high-powered rifles as the weapon of choice for gangs and rampage killers.

"None of these weapons are used for crimes, and the Democrats know that," Mr. Norquist said.

For many gun owners, the issue is visceral, and Mr. Bush's stance has made the debate more emotional.

"There are a lot of gun owners who worked hard to put President Bush in office, and there are a lot of gun owners who feel betrayed by him," said Angel Shamaya, an Arizona gun owner who runs a Web site called "keepandbeararms.com."
 
What we do in the privacy of a voting booth is one thing, but what we do and say in public should be another. Who I vote for is my business, but why should I broadcast, for the world to see, my intention to vote for GWB regardless of what he does between now and the election? His people read these messages too, and if they see a sizeable group who will forgive him any sin and still vote for him... Then why not go ahead and commit the sin?

Hillary isn't going to be a serious contender for the next presidency... she's having trouble keeping her job in New York. None of the candidates presently running for the Demos even want to talk about guns. They remember what happened last election.

Vote for whomever you want for whatever reason you want. But that's eighteen months from now. In the meantime, don't give a RINO any encouragement. Tell 'em loudly and publicly that you'll vote for Ossama Bin Laden rather than anyone who'd stab his constituency in the back. What you do in the voting booth is your business.
 
don't be fooled

More than likely, W made this highly public announcement to get a fire light under people's butts -- our butts. Our country has not leaned this far to the right in a long time. How many people do you know that are more pro-gun since 9/11/01? How many dormant Constitutionalists, conservatives, and pro-2nd amendment people have been awakened? By generating a grassroots firestorm, our congress is highly unlikely to alllow an AWB to get to W's desk.

W's smarter than people think. He is constantly underestimated by his adversaries. I suspect he likes it that way. It makes his job easier.

Laws come and go. One thing he cannot lose is the opportunity to appoint conservative judges. More than anything else, these judges determine what is legal and constitutional.... and how your life will be lived. You are seeing this bloodbath now witth the democratic filibuster. The dem's are on the ropes - all stops are being pulled out.

Let W say what he wants - keep your eye on the end game!
 
A report due to be released soon by the Violence Policy Center a liberal Washington group that supports an expansion of the ban examined the killings of 211 law enforcement officers from 1998 to 2001 and found that one in five were done with assault weapons, often copycat models that did not fall under the 1994 ban.

So VPC has a new category of "copycat" assault weapons, based on the California law? What will it be in another 10 years? Lee Enfields and other bolt-action rifles with a detachable magazine?

Is there some way we can all egg on VPC? I really hope VPC pushes for a more radical law than Feinstein wants. Let them run this one off a cliff at full throttle.:neener:
 
More than likely, W made this highly public announcement to get a fire light under people's butts -- our butts.
Ah. This must be why Ari Fleischer in today's White House briefing repeatedly expressed support for the continuation of the AWB because (he says) Bush believed in it in 2000 and believes in it now.

Guys, George W maybe a grinnin', schemin', winkin' Texan who is trying to use reverse psychology on the US and doesn't really support the AWB, but I'm having trouble believing it.
Laws come and go.
Only half right.

Laws come. And come. Rarely - very rarely do they go.

If I had to make an analysis, I'd say Bush is trying to play this one as middle of the road as possible, often tending a bit towards the other side.
 
O.K. Folks,

We had a tax here in Orygun that was outrageously high on cigars. One of the local merchants enlisted lobbyists, politicians and radio personalities to get it reduced.

One of the lessons from the battle is that emails get counted, sorted and deleted by underlings and the summaries are given to the official. Email does not have the same protections or priviliges that real mail has. Real mail is more likely to be read by the person it is addressed to and is something that shows bulk. It has to be physically handled and disposed of. In short, it carries more weight.

I suggest that after sending your emails you also invest in a few stamps and send a real letter to the people concerned. Mail gets read. Email gets summarized.

By the way the address of the White House is, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. for those who forgot. You'll have to get the zip yourself.

OK I looked it up for you,

The Zip for the White house is: 20500-0003

Now crank up your word processor and get busy, don't forget your state officials and congress and senate people either.
 
Bartholomew Roberts, the post you took from AR15.com looks similar to a post I made on AK47.net. Here is what I wrote there about this discussion:

Somebody explain to me how any AW Ban bill is going to get out of this committee.

House Judiciary Committee: GOA ratings

Sensenbrenner - WI - Chairman - (A)
Coble - NC - (A)
Smith - TX - (A-)
Goodlatte - VA - (A-)
Chabot - OH - (A-)
Jenkins - TN - (A-)
Cannon - UT - (A)
Bachus - AL - (A-)
Haostetler - IN - (A+)
Keller - FL - (A)
Flake - AZ - (A-)
Pence - IN - (A)
Forbes - VA - (A-)
King - IA - (A)
Carter - TX - (A)
Feeney - FL - (A)
Blackburn - TN (A)
Hart - PA - (B)
Green - WI - (B-)
Gallegly - CA - (C)
Hyde - IL - (C-)

Those are the Republican memebers with the GOA ratings. Flake - AZ was not rated but I give him an A based on this http://www.awbansunset.com/house_az.html

Democrats -

Boucher - VA - (B)

Dems have 15 other members on the committe which are all Rabid anti gunners. F or F-

Takes 19 votes to get a bill out of committee. These guys vote as a block 9 times out of 10. That's the way it works, or you ain't getting on the committee. Even if that was not the case, I doubt anyone rated B or A is going to vote yea. Bottom line, Dems can't get this out of committee.

People here and elsewhere who have reps:

Hyde
Gallegly
Green
Hart
Boucher

Need to write these guys weekly IMO. Or call!!!

Bottom line, we all need to write and call our reps. But if you have one of these B or C rated guys on this committee, it is real important to let them know what's what.
 
There is another way the bill can be reported out of committee. A member of the House can start a motion to discharge. It is essentially a petition to force the bill out of committee.

Once a majority of the House signs the petition a vote to bring it out of committee is made, if the vote passes it goes directly to the House floor. If it does not pass the bill is reported favorably out of committee and scheduled on the calendar.

However, if the Judiciary committee is smart, they will prepare an alternate bill with many, many pro-gun amendments and report that bill out of committee if it appears the motion to discharge is gaining support.

The motion to discharge is actually how the original 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act got passed. The Dems controlled the House and had killed the bill with ease each of the preceeding years. So they didn't bother to draft an alternate and the pro-gun Dems and Republicans teamed up to force the motion to discharge so swiftly that the House leadership got caught with their pants down and the best they could do was append the bill with an amendment banning machineguns in the last minutes of debate (on a vote that even law schools describe as "irregular").
 
ARGH! Post keeps getting cut off at the bottom.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030508-12.html
Q Let me ask you something about the assault weapons ban. I realize the President was for the reauthorization back in 2000. Why does he support that?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President thought, and said so at the time in 2000, that the assault weapon ban was a reasonable step. The assault weapon ban was crafted with the thought that it would deter crime. There are still studies underway of its crime deterring abilities, but the President thought that was reasonable, and that's why he supported it. And that's why he supports the reauthorization of the current ban.

Q Does it work?

MR. FLEISCHER: There are, indeed, studies underway that will determine that. And we'll await those studies to make any final conclusions. But that's exactly what the President said in 2000.

Q But he's willing to disappoint a pretty big supporter here, the NRA, based on some ongoing studies, or does he have a more fundamental belief that these kinds of weapons should not --

MR. FLEISCHER: He believed it in 2000, before studies were completed; he continues to believe it now. We'll see if the studies provide any additional information. But the President focuses on this issue like he does on all -- he focuses it on the merits. He makes his determinations. Often the President will agree, of course, with the National Rifle Association. On this issue he does not.

Q One more point on this. Forgive me for wading into the politics of issues like this, but he doesn't think that there's -- is he concerned about taking steps that put him at odds with his Republican base, or does he feel like really he's built himself up so much it's not an issue?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think when you look across-the-board at the positions the President takes, the President evaluates the issues that come before him based on the facts, based on the merits. He makes the determinations, and then others are free to say whether they agree or disagree with the President. I think his view to whether it's an issue that's important to one party or another party, or to many people in the middle, his view is, do what's right, and let people interpret it from there. In this instance, you know what he said, as you pointed out, in 2000. He continues to believe it today.

Q Ari, on that, last night Karl Rove was in New Hampshire, and he spoke with one of the leading gun activists in the state, who says on his website today that Karl Rove said Congress isn't going to pass this extension anyway, and so gun owners don't have to worry, the President is going to be for the extension, but Congress isn't going to pass it anyway. Is that the President's attitude, that this bill isn't really coming his way?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think you can talk to any number of handicappers about any number of issues that are pending before the Congress and probably get an equal number of opinions. So this is a matter that the Congress will be taking up, and they will be taking it up now, knowing what the President's position is on it. And I can't make any predictions about what Congress ultimately will do. It's a business that outsiders engage in and insiders engage in; we'll see who's right.

Q According to this gentleman, Karl Rove was engaging in that. Given the fact that Republicans do control the Congress and that getting this passed, getting it onto the agenda will require Republican leadership, is the President willing to fight for this, to fight for the extension of the assault weapons ban?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has made his position known. And during the course of the debate, I imagine that people will refer to the President's position and cite it, and I will continue to repeat it. The President, you will watch his actions and judge for yourself over time.

Q So no plan to make any calls on this, to spend political capital to get this done?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, as I indicated, I think you'll be able to judge the President's actions by observing them yourselves.

...

Q Ari, attacking this another way on the assault weapons ban, basically the NRA is getting what they want from Congress. What is the President willing to do -- as he said he supports the Clinton administration's assault weapons ban -- what is he willing to do to go the extra mile so this ban would be reinforced after 2004?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the statement from the President, already, sends a very clear signal to people about what the President supports, the fact that the President is prepared to sign this legislation. And this is an issue that both parties will take up and face, and I think you'll find any number of people in the other party who has different thoughts about this, as well.

But the President is for it. I've said it, you know his position, and you are free to talk to him about it yourself -- he took questions today -- raise the issue with him, and you know his position.

Q But there's a contradiction. One of his main advisors is contradicting what the President is saying. How is that --

MR. FLEISCHER: That's not true. It's not true.

Q Well tell me then. Tell me why it isn't true.

MR. FLEISCHER: I think as Terry described the remarks by a third party, it was a question of analysis of what Congress will or will not do. And as I indicated, you can, on any number of issues, find people who handicap what Congress will or will not do. It's a guessing game.

Q But basically what the Karl Rove statement is, is the polit°^ÿQ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top