Gonzales supports the AWB

[charlesb_la]

Jan 18, 2:38 PM EST


Gonzales Backs Assault Weapons Ban


By JESSE J. HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales told the Senate on Tuesday that he supports extending the expired federal assault weapons ban.


Gonzales also said he wants Congress to get rid of a requirement that would eliminate part of the Patriot Act this year, despite complaints that it is too intrusive.


"I believe the USA PATRIOT Act has greatly improved our nation's ability to detect and prevent terrorist attacks," Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee in written answers to questions left over from his confirmation hearing.


Gonzales, who served as President Bush's lawyer during his first term, is expected to be confirmed when the Senate returns after Bush's inauguration on Jan. 20. He would be the nation's first Hispanic attorney general and replace John Ashcroft.

Democrats, including Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., pressed Gonzales for written answers to several of their questions during his daylong confirmation hearing. Those answers were delivered on Tuesday to the committee, which planned a Wednesday meeting to consider nominations.


Congress let the 10-year-old assault weapons ban expire in September. The measure outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons, banned certain features on firearms such as bayonet mounts, and limited ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.


Gonzales pointed out that his brother Tony is a SWAT officer in Houston.
"I worry about his safety and the types of weapons he will confront on the street," Gonzales said. "The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress. I, of course, support the president on this issue."

Antigun groups criticized Bush during the presidential campaign for failing to press for an extension of the ban.


Gonzales also said he supports the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, the post-Sept. 11 law that expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers.


More than a dozen provisions of the law are set to expire by late October 2005 unless renewed by Congress. These include authority for judges to issue search warrants that apply nationwide, authority for FBI and criminal investigators to share information about terrorism cases, and the FBI's power to obtain records in terrorism-related cases from businesses and other entities, including libraries.


"I believe the sunsets that apply to several provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act should be repealed," Gonzales said.


Opponents have called the law intrusive and contend that letting the FBI get library records undermines civil liberties and threatens to let the government snoop into the reading habits of innocent Americans.


Gonzales says people have misunderstood what parts of the Patriot Act does. "I am unaware of abuses under the USA PATRIOT Act," he said. "For this reason, I welcome an honest and real debate."


Gonzales said he is willing to consider tempering that part of the law.


The statute says business and library records must be "sought for" a terrorism investigation. Opponents have claimed that means the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court - the secret court that approves surveillance and wiretaps for espionage and terrorism cases - had no choice about whether to grant the subpoena.


"I would be happy for the statute to be amended to state the investigators may ask the FISA court for an order requesting the production of documents 'relevant to' an ongoing foreign intelligence investigation," Gonzales said.

 

[R.H. Lee]

"The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress. I, of course, support the president on this issue."

A little "Mini-Me" Great. Well, what else could we expect. I nickname him "Senor Wences".

 

[publius]

If he agrees with the boss on the PA and on the AWB, I wonder if he also agrees with the boss' decision to sign the McCain Feingold Incumbent Protection Act?

Good point at the end there. "Sought for" is not the same as "relevant to."

 

[Standing Wolf]

The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress. I, of course, support the president on this issue.

Trusting R.I.N.O.s is like believing you've got only a mild, temporary case of A.I.D.S.

Creeps like Gonzales make me glad I voted Libertarian this past November.

 

[GoRon]

If the AWB or some version thereof gets signed into law in the next 4 yrs I will never vote for the GOP for any office ever again.

They have recieved my vote faithfully since the first Clinton term. It is now time to see some results.

 

[R.H. Lee]

They have recieved my vote faithfully since the first Clinton term. It is now time to see some results.

You might have a long wait. Republicans have received my vote faithfully since the first Nixon term. They got my last vote, ever, in November. I'm re-registering Independent.

 

[mattf7184]

Let the GOP know what you think:

http://www.gop.com/ContactUs/Default.aspx

 

[longeyes]

Abandon all hope ye who stick with the two major Parties. It becomes clearer by the day that they are impediments to the America envisioned by the Founders and believed in, still, by more than a few of us.

 

[longeyes]

Gonzalez has been holding W.'s dynastic cloak for a long time now. Loyalty to the king counts.

 

[publius]

The measure outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons, banned certain features on firearms such as bayonet mounts, and limited ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.


Gonzales pointed out that his brother Tony is a SWAT officer in Houston.
"I worry about his safety and the types of weapons he will confront on the street," Gonzales said. "The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress. I, of course, support the president on this issue."

I guess I'm anti-cop.

I also hate cheeruns and beat puppies.

 

[CentralTexas]

I guess he also disagrees

with the recent decision by the DOJ about owning guns being an individual right.
We need a party where the Second Amendment is a party plank...
May I direct you folks to the Libertarian party website?
www.lp.org

 

[River Wraith]

They don't have the votes, which makes it a non-issue for now. However, the Republican party is coming dangerously close to losing my vote, for whatever that's worth.

 

[wdlsguy]

Constitution Party

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Gun Control

 

[macd]

I've said all along that Bush didnt press the AWB as a political move to get re-elected, when in fact he supported the ban. Regardless what many think but Bush is a scumbag. Period. Dont give me this crap Republicans or Democrats are looking out for you. If you think that, I've got some land for sale on Mars you might be interested in. Politicians are all scum, both partys included. Dont kid yourself. Its gonna be a bumpy four years.

IMHO, when you lie about going to war you should fry. No questions asked.

(Art's Grammaw stopped by...)

 

[Zip06]

This cannot be good. Not voting Republican next time is useless. I mean vote how...like demo. Get real.

No we need to get united in a block and put the mass of our weight behind a candidate. GW is going to sell us out for sure; he is not going to do anything about illegal immigration and he is going to change the social security rules.

Next President probably will not be a Republican if he goes down this road.

 

[deej]

This cannot be good. Not voting Republican next time is useless. I mean vote how...like demo. Get real.

Time for the obligatory Simpsons reference:

Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're
nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about
it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]
-- "Treehouse of Horror VII"

 

[CaesarI]

Say one thing...

Based on the headline of this thread you'd think it was the NYT. Just 1 little word would make it all better: "Gonzales *says* he supports the AWB"

Big difference between sayin' and doin.

I think many of you are too quick to cry wolf on this one. Most of this is because so many people honestly believe the lie that Socialists love to tell: "Bush is an idiot" He's so stupid, he got elected to office twice.

Let's revisit the AWB from Bush' perspective acting under 2 assumptions:
1. Bush is politically savvy.
2. Bush opposes the AWB.

- The Dems don't have the votes to push it through the House.
- Saying you support the ban defuses *most* of the anti-gun criticism, which could cost Bush the White House. This will not satisfy the die-hard anti-gun folks, who will correctly identify my actions as what they are, but it will satisfy the "I'm anti-gun and don't know a darn thing about either side." type, who is very prevalent in the American electorate.
- Most gun owners, and NRA members, don't give a lick about the AWB. There are perhaps 500,000 to a million *hard* 2A supporters who do (much more than the rabidly anti-gun folks), who would be very angry if the bill passed, but might be smart enough to allow me to *say* one thing ("I support the Ban") and *do* another ("Don't you *dare* let that bill hit my desk!").

Politically savvy action: say you support the ban, but in private channels, make sure it dies. Politically ballsy action: promise you'll sign the ban *if* it hits your desk, and make darn sure it never does.

I swear, it's like no one on this thread has read Machiavelli before. The Dems have been sayin' one thing and doin' another for decades to great effect, and to the benefit of the Democratic party. A Republican tries to do the same thing to get elected, and you guys can't figure out when he's lying to *help* you.

So his AG is doin' the same spiel, big fat hairy deal.

-Morgan

 

[geekWithA.45]

Yeah, my take on it is that it's a transient blip, just politics, consistency with W's carefully crafted plausible deniability, more or less as CeasarI lays it out.

SomeSenator: Do you agree with your boss on the AWB?
Gonzales: Yeah. Insert anecdote for color about his brother
SomeSenator: Next question....

I'm not going to hit the panic button on it, but I will note it for future reference, to see if it becomes part of a larger anti 2A pattern.

As gunnies, we need to be a lot more politically savvy if we're going to be effective. Reflexively chanting about how the game's rigged, the DemoCans (or was it Republicrats?) are the one boot on your neck party, and the only hope for salvation for America is the {pick your favorite 3rd party, it literally doesn't matter} isn't gonna get any of us very far.

There is a time to wait and see, and I'd say that this is one of them.


Let's face it, your confirmation hearing, when you're vulnerable, is NOT the time to be making grand stands in the face of the opposition.

Here's a real example of that from my own private life:

When we were in Russia adopting the kids, the authorities took from us certain critical official pieces of paper that would be eventually be important later to the kid's legal status, the sort of papers you don't let out of your sight. (IIRC, I'm 85% certain it was our official and personal copies of the Adoption Decree from the Russian courts, in addition to the spares that were intended to be filed in Moscow) Due to cultural and language differences, they were unable to clearly explain their purpose for retaining the papers.

This was scary, straight out of the cold war ????.

Nonetheless, our analysis indicated that the absence of the papers would not prevent us from returning home with our kids, as we had already obtained their entry visas, and so we wisely let it slide, knowing that if we had to fight over it, we would fight from a position of strength, on American soil, with our children at home and registered as US Citizens, rather than go off half cocked in a strange land with no support.

The papers were returned a few nail bitten days later, an outcome that would have been complicated had we paniced and called out the Embassy Marines.

You don't fight from a vulnerable position when you've got a choice.

 

[g56]

#1 It's a confirmation hearing, he's playing up to the liberals.

#2 Saying and doing are 2 entirely different things.

#3 GWB has said for a long time he would sign an AWB if it was presented to him, I believe he is counting on the Congress to make sure one never gets to his desk!

 

[tyme]

There's a significant risk that Congress could pass a weaker form of AWB, or something else entirely like a ban on any pistols that have factory ammo that goes through some IIIa vest model.

They (both Bush and Gonzales) had better know what they're doing.

Let's face it. Republicans have compromised in the past. They're not going to get the benefit of the doubt from me until they go a while defending the RKBA against all attempts to further weaken it. When they have a good record, I'll be more inclined to believe that they're being Machiavellian rather than traitorous.

 

[rick_reno]

I'm waiting for this administration to tell gun owners to bend over - I'm convinced it's coming sometime in the next four years. But, I'll continue to support President Bush because lots of folks here told me he was the only hope we had before the last election.
I voted Libertarian - they didn't win, but I didn't have to carry an air sickness bag into the booth with me.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, both he and Bush could be lying about this, as part of some subtle plan to suck up to people who'd never vote Republican anyway. But the simplest explaination by far is that they're saying it because it's true: They really DO want the ban reenacted. It's not like it's freakishly unlikely for a Republican to be anti-gun, and like father, like son...

Nothing has come along to change my original assessment of Bush: He's a moderate anti-gunner who's willing to restrain his impulses to the extent that he sees as politically necessary. He saw it as VERY necessary in Texas, less so on a national stage, and now he's not going to have to face the voters (directly) again. Expect him to start pushing some of those gun control proposals he ran on, like raising the national age to own a handgun to 21, and cracking down on private party sales of guns.

And expect him to go out with a bang when it comes to Executive Orders.

 

[publius]

Big difference between sayin' and doin.

True enough. However, support from the office of the President and the AG does tend to lend a patina of respectability to the mean looking weapons ban. It's not a popular ban. How many votes could he possibly get by lying and saying he supports it?

Based on actions, we have to conclude that W supports the McCain Feingold Incumbent Protection Act. I still wonder if his AG nominee does as well?

 

[Luckyorwhat]

CaesarI: "Politically savvy action: say you support the ban, but in private channels, make sure it dies. Politically ballsy action: promise you'll sign the ban *if* it hits your desk, and make darn sure it never does."

That's not how things work. Real picture - think 'Sopranos' more than 'West Wing'. Problem is that they don't swear enough on the Sopranos.

Half of the campaign against Kerry was that he was two-faced. This means you can't suddenly do the same thing, or it may look bad.

All evidence to date shows that the MO of W is to say something, as a trial balloon, modify the idea based on feedback from the trial balloon, and push it more and more. until it is in the top 5 new stories every day, day after day. Tax cuts, agency reform, military action, bing bing bing.

There were people, (even democratic senators) who figured GWB was bluffing about attacking Iraq, they voted the authority to attack them because they [say] they thought he would use it as a bluff. They thought it was just skillful Machiavellian maneuver...

Rick_Reno: What exactly does GWB have to lose by pushing some legislation that is slightly unpopular, and could easily be explained as necessary ("A sleeper cell has access to assault weapons to carry out Ter. attacks...")?

All: The third-party route is a dead-end. If it should some-how get elected (as in Britain, Labour), then it will take 2-3 years before you can't tell the difference between it and the one it replaced (Blair simply implemented Thatchers proposed policies, and then some).

What is required in electoral reform, as Mexico did. Some countries use the riding system, "first past the post", where the canidate wins the riding if they have more votes than any other candidate. Other places use a proportional list, where each party submits a list of candidates and if they receive 17% of the popular vote they put the top 17% of the people on thier list into government. The former is great for forming governments to get things done, but isn't fair. The latter is fair, but gets nothing done. Mexico uses the both put together, they just double the number of representatives - you have the riding system, and then you add your %pop. vote to that.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Bush's feet need to be held to the fire on this before he goes "all wobbly" on 2nd Amendment issues. The NRA needs to remind him of their endorsement.