Feinstein: Assault weapons ban back on the table

Status
Not open for further replies.

gun-fucious

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,977
Location
centre of the PA
Assault weapons ban back on the table
Feinstein irked by lukewarm support for extension
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, March 5, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/03/05/MN6752.DTL&type=printable


Washington -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein and President Bush seem headed for a showdown over her effort to renew the federal assault weapons ban after the administration hedged Tuesday on a presidential pledge to support the renewal.

The semiautomatic assault weapons bill, which barely passed in 1994, stands as a legislative hallmark of Feinstein's 10 years in the Senate. It is due to expire in September 2004, unless Congress votes to reauthorize it and Bush signs the bill. In his 2000 presidential campaign, Bush came out for renewal and for an additional provision to ban the import of ammunition- feeding devices of 10 bullets or more.

Feinstein wants to renew the law and expand it to include more weapons, ban the ammunition imports and make it illegal for juveniles under age 21 to possess semiautomatic guns that were permitted under the 1994 law.

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.


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.

"We will continue to study the issue," he said, adding that the White House also hasn't yet taken a position on the ammunition or juvenile-possession issues.

Feinstein, who said she was profoundly disappointed by Ashcroft's answers, had met with the attorney general on Jan. 8 to try to line up White House support for the extension. She did not receive a reply until Tuesday.

"I was a bit nonplussed. They are well on record supporting extension," Feinstein said after a hearing at which Ashcroft appeared with FBI Director Robert Mueller and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.

Feinstein, who said she will introduce her bill this week, warned the administration of trouble if the president changes his mind.

"I will hold him to his campaign promise, and I think the American people will hold him to it. I don't think there is any evidence that the American people want assault weapons on their streets," she said.

In fact, when Ashcroft was a Republican senator from Missouri, he introduced the legislation to ban juveniles from possessing assault weapons that were grandfathered in under the 1993 law. At his 2001 confirmation hearings for attorney general, Ashcroft said he and Bush supported renewing the assault weapons ban.


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.

Gun control advocates wouldn't speculate why Bush seems to be hedging on Feinstein's proposal.

At the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, spokesman Rob Wilcox said that despite Ashcroft's answers on Tuesday, the group still hopes Bush will back the renewal of the assault weapons ban.

"Nothing he said made it seem like they won't do it," Wilcox said of Ashcroft's testimony. "We think there is room to work with them."

But the National Rifle Association, which wants the ban to die in 2004, said the law has been ineffective.

"Its intent was to curb crime. The study from the Clinton administration's own Justice Department showed it had no effect," said NRA chief lobbyist Chris Cox.

"Some politicians are determined to play politics as they seek to renew and expand this ban," he added, referring to Feinstein.

Gun control advocates say the law, in conjunction with other measures, has cut gun violence.

Bush has generally said the country doesn't need more gun laws. He opposes state and local government lawsuits against gunmakers, but has said he wants mandatory child-proof safety locks on new guns.


ISSUE IMPORTANT TO FEINSTEIN

The weapons legislation remains important to Feinstein. A framed front page of The Chronicle from the day the Senate first passed the bill in November 1993 hangs in her outer office at the Hart Senate Building.

It was during debate over her proposal, which was an amendment to President Bill Clinton's anti-crime package, that Feinstein had a pointed exchange with Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, that boosted the reputation of the former San Francisco mayor who became chief executive in 1978 after Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk were shot to death by ex-Supervisor Dan White.

"The gentlelady from California needs to become a little bit more familiar with firearms and their deadly characteristics," Craig admonished the freshman senator.

"I am quite familiar with firearms," Feinstein said. "I became mayor as a product of assassination. I found my assassinated colleague (Milk) and put a finger through a bullet hole trying to get a pulse.

"Senator, I know something about what firearms can do," she ended and sat down.

E-mail Edward Epstein at [email protected]
 
There are studies by the DOJ clearly showing no effect of the ban on any crime indicater.

However, Ashcroft and Bush only talk the RKBA talk. They are willing to hold the line if it suits them but won't take proactive steps.

They will extend the ban or strengthen it if Bush thinks it will help in the election.
 
I still fail to see what the ban has accomplished. Class III still requires extensive processes to aquire. Hi cap mags, bayonets, and pistol grips............:rolleyes:Paint it black, Grenade launchers, WHATEVER ! Select fire weapons have been illegal since when,
1934 ?!?! I see a market created and driven up from the passage of this bill. A gun that in '94 cost 600$ will fetch 2500$ today. That's absurd and heinous! It's time to get tough on CRIME ! Not waste taxpayer money to support this bill or its use to further another political career. (FIENSTEIN) :fire:
 
I will make a prediction that it will never see the light of day.....
The conservatives in the House will never let it get out of committee. I am glad that Brady expires right before the 2004 election. The last thing the politicians on both sides want to do is pi$$ off a large group of people that vote just before an election.


Yanus
 
The tack to take with this may be to stress the fact that the AWB was touted as a crime reduction measur and that by all indicators it's done absoultly nothing towards that end.

Hit the fact that freedoms of law-abiding citizens have been curtailed for no benifit whatsoever. In some cases crimnals have been CREATED because of some arcane and totally pointless techincality being violated.

Can anyone come up with numbers as to how much the AWB has cost to enforce and the financial impact on dealers who can't sell what the public wants?

Could anyone show a POSITIVE financial impact if the ban was lifted in increased sales?

Stress business and dollars and cents again hold on to the fact that the ban did NOTHING to reduce crime or make "the streets" safer. Hold on to that fact like a bulldog.

We need to turn their strategy back on them. Pick a couple of iron-clad, talking points that can be supported with FACTS and hammer anyone who tries to use emotion and unsupportable evidence to the contrary.
 
For what is might be worth, the following are the thoughts I offered to e. epstein of the SFChronicle, re the article appearing at the outset of this discussion.

Sir:

In the spirit of "thoughtful" discussion of important public policy
questions, and using a form of expression seemingly favored by "young people", please note the following. "Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho Assault Weapons Ban, Magazine Cap Limits Have Got To Go."

More important than that are the following. There was, respecting
so-called "assault weapons" or "semi-automatic assault weapons" isn't that a mouthful, prior to their "banning", part of 1994 Crime Bill legislation, no particular use of such firearms by criminals, nor where the streets littered with spent cartridge cases fired from them. As to the late Messrs. Milk and Moscone, they were killed by gun fire from the quite common, garden variety .38 caliber revolver, such as was used by police departments for years and years. I assume that "the gentle lady
from California" was aware of this, though she choose not to mention it, one wonders why. Of course, while she "carried heat", she would deny, to Mr. or Mrs Everyman, the same ability. Curious, isn't it?

Other than this, the Assault Weapons Ban was a fraud, because it didn't ban so much as a single "assault weapon".The defining characteristic of the genre, see among other reliable sources, www.britannica.com is SELECTIVE FIRE CAPABILITY. The rifles effected in this legislation, close to 200, not the 19 often mentioned, as offered for sale in routine commerce in this country, lacked SELECTIVE FIRE CAPABILITY. The Feinstein Amendment, as it was then known, made a great "to do" over
COSMETIC FEATURES, things that media might mightily hype, but which have no effect on function.

So, should it turn out that, for one reason or another, the San
Francisco Chronicle chooses to take a particular political position on some public policy matter, you do seem to have so done, that's perfectly alright, though you really should tell the truth regarding what is involved, especially when the object of discussion is not something found growing wild in nature, but rather turns out to be something produced in a factory, just like automobiles or washing machines.

While you likely would not agree, your credibility would appear to stand at risk.
 
>>"I am quite familiar with firearms," Feinstein said. "I became mayor as a product of assassination. I found my assassinated colleague (Milk) and put a finger through a bullet hole trying to get a pulse.

"Senator, I know something about what firearms can do," she ended and sat down.<<


When I was a little kid, I stuck my finger into an electrical outlet. But even now, decades later, I don't know how an electrical power plant works. I've stuck my fingers into many plugged drainpipes, but don't claim to be a plumber.

>>"I became mayor as a product of assassination."<<

No, Ms. Feinstein, you became mayor by capitalizing on an assassination. Typical gun-banner strategy: use the graves of the innocent as stepping-stones to power.
 
They will extend the ban or strengthen it if Bush thinks it will help in the election.
Who is "they"? The renewal of the faux ban is in the hands of those members of Congress we elect.

The simple fact is that the "ban" cannot be renewed if the House and Senate cannot agree on extending it...that is, if it isn't sent as continuing legislation to President Bush, he cannot possibly sign it into law.

Who are your federal Senators and representative? More importantly, how will they vote on any proposed extension?

I'm sorry if I appear irritated by the lack of understanding of how Congress works...but there it is.

In short, what are you doing to make sure that the "ban" dies a worthy death?

Get it?!? :rolleyes:
 
Exactly right, Zander.
They will extend the ban or strengthen it if Bush thinks it will help in the election.
Then it's up to us to remind them that gunowners are the vanguard of conservative voters (as well as a few out-of-step liberals :D ) in this country, and that as things shape up, the AWB renewal is a third rail. GRRRRRRR>

TC
TFL Survivor
 
Zander wrote:

Who is "they"? The renewal of the faux ban is in the hands of those members of Congress we elect.

The simple fact is that the "ban" cannot be renewed if the House and Senate cannot agree on extending it...that is, if it isn't sent as continuing legislation to President Bush, he cannot possibly sign it into law.

Who are your federal Senators and representative? More importantly, how will they vote on any proposed extension?

I'm sorry if I appear irritated by the lack of understanding of how Congress works...but there it is.

In short, what are you doing to make sure that the "ban" dies a worthy death?

Get it?!?

Zander's points are well taken indeed. While media hysterics and their fellow travellers will beat the drums for extension, reauthorization or whatever device might be uitilized to keep the fraud going or to enlarge it, The Congress needs to hear from the roughly 80,000,000 is it, gun owners in this country, who one would hope, want to see the so called assault weapons ban, and magazine cap limits dead and gone, if for no other reason than "general principles", and their inherent dislike for baloney, lies and misdirection.

If gun owners do not "get their act together", as difficult a circumstance as that might be to imagine, and make themselves heard in the halls of government, then though I really hate to say it, we will richly deserve the screwing that we will likely get.

The old saw about "gunnies being their own, worst enemies" has shown itself to be all to true, at least at times, so what with having reached this juncture, it strikes me that a decision must be taken, It is, as I see things, the following. Will we continue to be our own worst enemies, or will we choose to become, finally, our own best friends.

Re comment on this aspect of things, at this location, I might well be "preaching to the choir". If that turns out to be the case, perhaps readers might take it unto themselves to spread the word amongst others, who do not partake of these discussions. At the very least, posters will, it is hoped, get on to their congressmen and senators. Contacts need not only to be established, they need to be maintained.

Thanks for your attention.
 
The San Francisco Chronicle

MARCH 6, 2003, THURSDAY, FINAL EDITION

SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A20; EDITORIALS

LENGTH: 310 words

HEADLINE: Keep assault-weapons ban

BODY:
THE FEDERAL ban on sales of certain semiautomatic assault weapons such as AK-47s and Uzis is due for renewal in September 2004, a decade after its enactment as a glittering achievement of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Support for extension of the law, with an added provision to ban import of ammunition-feeding devices for 10 bullets or more, was a campaign promise of George W. Bush as he ran for president in 2000.

Feinstein now is concerned the Bush administration will renege on that commitment. Attorney General John Ashcroft was lukewarm during testimony Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Historically a foe of gun control who holds that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to bear arms, Ashcroft would not go beyond saying that the administration "supports the current ban." He remains silent on the question of whether it should be extended.

The federal assault-gun ban is hardly the last word in bringing malicious and careless use of firearms under some kind of control. California adopted more comprehensive restraints on the fast-firing weapons in 1999. That state law so far has withstood legal challenge.

Feinstein, in fact, has hoped to broaden the federal law with additional restrictions on possession of semiautomatics by persons under 21, as well as on the ammunition devices. Ashcroft gave her no encouragement on those points, either, saying only that the White House has yet to take positions.

Bush must be summoned to carry out his campaign commitment. With Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, and pro-gun forces wielding much power in the GOP, the president has to do more than issue a pro-forma statement for renewing the assault-gun ban. He must work wholeheartedly for the congressional extension. Otherwise Feinstein will be right to call his campaign promise a sham.
 
Every American MAle is considered an enemy by Bin Laden. The world is far different from 1994. Disarming people is not going to be very popular. I hope the ban sunsets.
 
The Bad news

Sounds like the rumors about Ashcroft being more pro-gun than was previously surmised are wrong.... Oh well... I hope they can defeat the AW Ban in the House or Senate, cause if Bush signs it into law I'm voting for the Democrats next election.

My votes count double. :neener:

-Morgan
 
http://www.urban.org/crime/aw/AWFINAL1.htm

Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994

Jeffrey A. Roth and Christopher S. Koper

with
William Adams, Sonja Johnson, John Marcotte,
John McGready, Andrew Scott, Maria Valera, and Douglas Wissoker

March 13, 1997

Final Report Supported under award #95-IJ-CX-0111 from the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.

>>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<

Despite this problem with interpreting trends in the prevalence of assault weapon traces, the 1996 trace figures arguably provide the best available estimate of the prevalence of assault weapons among crime guns. Firearm tracing should now be more complete and less biased than at any time previously. For January through May of 1996, assault weapons accounted for 3 percent of all trace requests. Our group of select domestic assault weapons represented 2.5 percent of all traces. Traces for the select assault weapon group accounted for 2.6 percent of traces for guns associated with violent crimes and 3.5 percent of traces for guns associated with drug crimes. This is consistent with previous research indicating that assault weapons are more likely to be associated with drug crimes than with violent crime (Cox Newspapers 1989; Kleck 1991). At the same time, these numbers reinforce the conclusion that assault weapons are rare among crime guns.

http://www.urban.org/crime/aw/aw_final.pdf
552K
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top