Shrubs new Gun Bans

[Don Galt]

Bush's father is the one who signed an executive order, and everyone here (But you apparently) has heard of it... it was the 1989 ban on the importation of AK types.

I didn't know that Pa Bush also voted for the 1968 ban! That's far worse...

As to his sons actions, I have backed up my claims a number of times, but people keep claiming I haven't. Are they just ignoring what they don't like to hear?

Here's the direct URL:
http://www.falparts.com/ftg.gif

I know its much easier wish Bush was a pro-gun guy, as it would be easy then to justify voting for him...

But we have PA bush to thank for the 89 bans, and he supported the 68 ban. George Bush extended the 94 ban as indicated in teh Fair Trade Group letter, and he has endorsed the Clinton AWB.

In other words, if it is renewed (Which will involve expansion of the ban) Bush has publically pledged to sign it.

That wasn't one of his subordinates, that was the words from the guys own lips.

But of course, he's not responsible for what he says, is he?

 

[fallingblock]

I like "Dubya"......

Gore would have been so much worse

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Bush's father is the one who signed an executive order, and everyone here (But you apparently) has heard of it... it was the 1989 ban on the importation of AK types.

My bad, I thought we were talking about GWB, not Sr. We are all aware of the 1989 ban. Luckily for us, Bush Sr. has already paid at the polls for that mistake (assuming of course that you consider eight years of Clinton more of a punishment for Bush Sr. than gunowners).

As to his sons actions, I have backed up my claims a number of times, but people keep claiming I haven't. Are they just ignoring what they don't like to hear?

Don Galt, do you read your own evidence? Read that again and notice when import permits were frozen - July 2000. There was a period of industry comment and ATF enacted the new interpretation in April 2001.

Now, please tell me who was President of the United States in July 2000.

I think everyone here realizes Bush isn't the RKBA candidate we would all like him to be. It is fair to point out that he has not reversed any executive decisions of the Clinton Administration regarding firearms. However, when you willfully distort the record of what he has done, you do a disservice to everyone with an interest in RKBA.

I have already corrected you once on this same issue and pointed out that the very item you are complaining about and attributing to Bush actually happened under President Clinton.

Can you explain why you have chosen to repeat the same erroneous information after having been corrected previously?

 

[alan]

Re Shrub's gun bans, and related items:

To put the thing in some sort of context, if I may.

1. George the First, otherwise known as George H.W. Bush, issued at least one anti gun executive order.

2. Slick Willie, President Clinton, did the same when opportunity presented itself.

3. George W. Bush, the current president, when first elected, had the authority to vacate existing executive orders. He failed to so do.

Beyond this point, for instance, what a President Gore would/might have done, is pure speculation. The Congress plays a role in legislation, in case people have forgotten.

In my view, what needs to be done is the following, and for openers, it should be applied to those who voted for the Assault Weapons Ban in the first place. Re any still in office, they must be defeated. Any who oppose sunset or who support reauthorization, extention, strengthening ect., ect. must also be defeated. In addition, any supporters of past "gun control" laws need to be defeated, if they run for reelection. At the very least, their return to office should be strongly opposed.

If shooters, collectors, gun owners and like minded others do not work to oppose the return to elective office of those who try to, essentially destroy them, then they do not deserve the rights that their enemies try to take away.

As for the BATF, with or without the addition of "E", they have variously been described as Jack Booted Thugs, a bureaucracy run amock, armed tax collectors gone out of control, run away clerks ect., ect. Call them whatever you wish, but pressure on The Congress must be brought and maintained so that their transgressions are checked. Unless enough hell is raised, they will roam on, unchecked with things getting worse. This end result might be what comes anyway, but it will most certainly be attained absent the necessary effort.

 

[Don Galt]

Because, if you would bother to read the letter, the policy happened under Bush.

You seem to think its clintons fault because he was president when the ATF suspended imports... but its also still Clintons fault when the policy went into place under Bush.

Its awlays Clinton's fault, eh?

Bush is the president. This happened on his watch. IF he'd reversed it, or undone it, that would be one thing, and I would be pointing to him and saying "he turned out better than I thought".

But he has done nothing. CLEARLY he approves of this.

OR, if he doesn't, because he never talks to the ATF and is unaware of what they are doing, how is every action of theirs under Clinton's watch Clinton's fault? Double standard there.

Also, the ATF has gotten a "promotion" to justice and has been increasing its raids on legitimate legal importers on trumpued up BS "if we weld machine gun parts on to this we can make it into a machine gun, therefore this demilled to ATF specifications reciever is an illegal machine gun!" Interordinance has been raided. Some company up in Washington state has been raided. etc. etc .etc. Those are Clinton's fault as well?

 

[Don Galt]

That's a good point. Bush could easily remove most of this nonsense (and the distinction between imported and non imported rifles) by simply undoing his fathers 1989 ban.

The AWB bans specific features, not importation, etc. Thus if GWB did that, then they importation rules (the new ones that I'm pointing out here) would not be valid.

I don't think for a second he didn't take office without reviewing the executive orders of his predecessors, including the ones of his fathers.

I'm not advocating Gore, I'm saying, Bush does not deserve the unquestioning support he gets from gun owners.

 

[rock jock]

But he has done nothing. CLEARLY he approves of this.

The second statement is not necessarily a corollary of the first.

 

[Don Galt]

That's not an argument.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You seem to think its clintons fault because he was president when the ATF suspended imports... but its also still Clintons fault when the policy went into place under Bush.

Feel free to read your own image. ATF froze all import permits in July 2000 (Clinton). After a period of industry comment (which is pretty much standard for government bureaucracies implementing new regulation) in April 2001 (Bush), ATF unfroze the permits and allowed importation of parts for repair and replacement purposes only.

Now if you feel that Clinton doesn't deserve the blame for that and Bush does, I guess we will have to disagree.

Bush is the president. This happened on his watch.

Actually it didn't - it started on Clinton's watch and was partially reversed on Bush's watch. But let's take a look at everything that happened on Bush's watch, shall we?

PRO:

1. UN Small Arms Restrictions blocked by US

2. Attorney General declares Second Amendment is individual right - reverses 35 years of previous Justice Department doctrine on the matter.

3. Attorney General refuses to allow legitimate purchase of NICS data to be used for fishing expedition - Ashcroft stops grabbers from sifting through NICS data of legitimate purchasers to look for "terrorists".

4. Ashcroft changes NICS data holding from 90 days to 1 day - NICS data on legitimate purchases will now be purged from the system in a single day as the law intended rather than being held onto for 90 days per Clinton policy

5. Bush supports and will sign lawsuit preemption bill

6. Bush ends taxpayer funding of useless HUD gun buybacks

NEUTRAL:

1. Claims to be against arming air line pilots but signs bill authorizing it.

2. Doesn't repeal any Executive Orders relating to guns instituted by previous Presidents.

CON:

1. Continues his support (stated in 2000) of the notoriously useless semi-auto ban.

 

[rock jock]

Bart,

That is one of the single best summaries of Bush's record on the 2A as president that I have seen . Excellent work putting that together! Every THR member, especially those who seem to excel in complaining incessantly about Bush, should read this. I would add one more item to your list that has benefitted me personally. Bush signed into law the concealed handgun law in Texas that allows me to legally carry.

 

[Don Galt]

Except that he conveniently ignores bush's support for the 1989 ban-- under which this new ban is being conducted.

He could end the 1989 ban with the stroke of a pen.

And of course, you guys continue to ignore the fact that the president is on record as supporting Clintons AWB and says he will sign its expansion.

I've made my points, I've PROVEN them.

I think there's no point in repeating myself further.

 

[alan]

Bartholomew Roberts:

You described Geo W.'s failure to vacate ANY of the anti gun rights executive orders of previous presidents, Bush #1 and Clinton as being "neutral", I noticed. Please define "neutral".

His failure to act on this stuff paints him, in my view, as definately anti gun/anti gun rights, push coming to shove, despite some of the positives you mentioned.

 

[rock jock]

His failure to act on this stuff paints him, in my view, as definately anti gun/anti gun rights, push coming to shove, despite some of the positives you mentioned.

"despite the positives?" Those are some pretty big positives. Name me another president who has had the guts to stand up to the UN like GW. Name me another AG who has explicitly stated the 2A to be an individual right. Name me another president who has reduced the burden on gun owners instead of expanding them. Your problem, alan, is that you fixtate on a few small blemishes, and in doing so, ignore the changing tide of RKBA we are witnessing in this country, due in no small part, I might add, to the courage of our fine president.

 

[alan]

rock jock:

I wasn't dismissing the value of the pro's, though you might take a close look at the entirety of the AG's statements. Most anything would be an improvement over Clinton.

As to what you refer to as "fixating on a few small blemishes ...", I do not consider the Presidents failure to vacate despicable executive orders as "small blemishes", nor would I so characterize his support for retaining this ridiculous, fraudlent ban on so-called assault weapons, a ban which has yet to effect, in any way at all, Assault Weapon #1.

Other than the foregoing, it strikes me that President Bush has been less than honest with the people of this country on other issues, but that is grist for another day, in another mill, perhaps at a different site.

By the way, re Bart's item 5 in the Pro section, has the president, aside from saying he would sign the bill, if passed, really done anything to secure it's enactment? I'm asking a question, rather than making any sort of backwards framed claim.

 

[Obiwan]

OK....you guys are right...

President Bush is a bad guy because YOUR personal concerns are not at the top of his list of things to do.

Politics aside, he should just go ahead and hang it all out there and recind every gun law that he can.

I can see the paper now....

"Bush puts Machine Guns in Criminals Hands.....And Pulls Trigger"

How many executive orders get recinded by subsequent presidents?????

Show of hands please.....who actually believes Al Gore...or any Dem would be better?????

Thought so......

Now...make your feelings known (certainly)

Work within the system to make things better.

But please try to keep a civil tongue in your head.....if I wanted to read how bad Bush is I would watch Jennings, Rather, or Brokaw

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Don Galt:

He could end the 1989 ban with the stroke of a pen.

Once again, if you'll just work on those basic reading comprehension skills you will see that I did not "conveniently ignore" this; it is in fact listed as item 2 under "Neutral"

Since it is in my best interest that you are able to argue RKBA effectively, I'd like to point out that willfully ignoring points where you have been proved wrong does nothing to enhance your credibility and increases the chance that any valid points you make will be ignored by someone who is put off by your bias.

I think there's no point in repeating myself further.

At last, we agree!

alan:

You described Geo W.'s failure to vacate ANY of the anti gun rights executive orders of previous presidents, Bush #1 and Clinton as being "neutral", I noticed. Please define "neutral".

Well I listed that as neutral since under the Clinton watch, all import permits were frozen. They were allowed to resume imports under Bush; but with the caveat that they be used for repair or replacement only (the logic the ATF used to justify the original freeze).

In my mind it wasn't a bold step forward; but we weren't going backwards either... so I listed it under neutral and explained what happened so that those who feel that is more of a con can make the change according to their own judgement and consider costs/benefits accordingly.

While we are on anti-gun executive orders, I'd like to point out one more thing:

Here is a list of every Executive Order signed in 1989.

The only one I can find dealing with arms is Executive Order 12680, which deals primarily with arms EXPORT; but does have this paragraph:

"to the Secretary of the Treasury, to the extent they relate to the control of the import of defense articles and defense services. In carrying out such functions, the Secretary of the Treasury shall be guided by the views of the Secretary of State on matters affecting world peace, and the external security and foreign policy of the United States. Designations including changes in designations, by the Secretary of the Treasury of items or categories of items which shall be considered as defense articles and defense services subject to import control under Section 38 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) shall have the concurrence of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense;"

This could be the paragraph that justifies the 1989 import ban (and it is the only one I can find in there that relates to import of arms) but we will need an expert in bureaucratese to decipher what it really says.

By the way, re Bart's item 5 in the Pro section, has the president, aside from saying he would sign the bill, if passed, really done anything to secure it's enactment?

The only action I am publicly aware of is his statement that he will sign it and that he thinks it is necessary. I believe the main impediment to the bill so far is the threat of filibuster by the likes of Sen. Feinstein (the bill has only 55 sponsors vs. a filibuster-proof 60); but I believe that now that the Senate Minority Leader is on board as a co-sponsor of the bill, we will see it come through before the November elections.

 

[alan]

Bart:

Re the following, "The only action I am publicly aware of is his statement that he will sign it and that he thinks it is necessary. I believe the main impediment to the bill so far is the threat of filibuster by the likes of Sen. Feinstein (the bill has only 55 sponsors vs. a filibuster-proof 60); but I believe that now that the Senate Minority Leader is on board as a co-sponsor of the bill, we will see it come through before the November elections.", if S. 659 is not passed during this a session, and or is significantly different from House passed legislation, will the whole thing have to start from square 1, next year, that being an election year, with little liklehood of such a Hot Button matter being brought up for a vote?

The following might be somewhat off point, but it strikes me as interesting anyhow. Is this bill really necessary, except figuratively, especially respecting what might have been given to the anti's, to secure the support of Daschel. How many states have already 86'd these suits, and in almost all cases, haven't they been tossed by the courts, notwithstanding the bit about the antis only need to win one. Also, when if ever is the industry going to file counter action.

Re the executive orders of Bush #1 and Clinton, the former's order, I do not off hand recall it's number, as I understand blocked the import of so-called Assault Weapons, none of which had, as imported, selective fire capability. Also, the same rifles had previously been examined by BATF, and were deemed by that mob, to have satisfied that "sporting use" baloney requirement. Of course, all that changed when Bush the First opened his mouth, possibly prompted by Bill Benet, who was CZAR of something or other, at the time, despite his having admitted that he really didn't know anything much about guns.

As for Clinton's order(s), again I do not recall the number, he blocked the import of what were semi-automatic rifles, whose makers had modified then so that they fully complied with the ridiculous COSMETIC REQUIREMENTS of the Assault Weapons Ban. One just cannot satisfy or please some people. It was exactly these executive orders that "W" should have vacated, but didn't, which is why I raise questions, and the hell with what "media" would have to say. Last time one looked, it appeared that the president has the means of getting his side of an issue before the public, with or without the blessing of media.

As to questions posed by some re "Would Gore or another Democrat be better or worse for our side, who knows for sure? The Congress is usually involved in the passage of laws, and can also overturn executive orders, correct me if I'm wrong. It does seem to me that Bush could be a whole lot better than he is, and I don't subscribe to the theory that speaks of differences of opinion as to what is more important. Of course, I could be wrong here and or in the above.

I think that the question turns on the following. Has Bush turned out to be nothing more than a poor choice between "the lesser of evils", and if this turns out to be the case, how long before he completely betrays our side, which considering his origins, is something to think about.

By the bye, if you might now be thinking about the following, how the devil do we manage to get a presidential candidate that is really pro gun rights, and actually has a serious chance of being elected, damned if I can say, but it would be interesting to see such a candidate, don't you think?

 

[t-stox]

Besides the fal kits what other model of guns has the Bush admin Banned??

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

if S. 659 is not passed during this a session, and or is significantly different from House passed legislation, will the whole thing have to start from square 1, next year, that being an election year, with little liklehood of such a Hot Button matter being brought up for a vote?

If S.659 is not passed during this session, it will have to be re-introduced. If it is passed during this session but is significantly different from the House legislation, it will go to a joint conference committee where the House will have the upper hand in deciding what stays and what goes from the Senate version.

If you look at the polling on the issue, most people support the idea that gun manufacturers should not be held responsible for the criminal actions of unrelated third parties. I think the group that has the most to lose by having this brought up during an election year is the Democrats - though now that Soros has pitched in $15 million to prop them up, you can bet that they will be more hardline on gun control once again.

How many states have already 86'd these suits, and in almost all cases, haven't they been tossed by the courts, notwithstanding the bit about the antis only need to win one. Also, when if ever is the industry going to file counter action.

The industry did seek counter-action in the Nathan Brunow case where they were hit with large damages that were later overturned. The headline "Evil Gun Industry Sues Grieving Widow of Gun Violence For Legal Fees". It is a lose-lose for the industry. I think the bill is necessary even though around 30+ states have already limited such lawsuits.

By the bye, if you might now be thinking about the following, how the devil do we manage to get a presidential candidate that is really pro gun rights, and actually has a serious chance of being elected, damned if I can say, but it would be interesting to see such a candidate, don't you think?

The way you do it is by developing pro-gun candidates at the very low levels of city and municipal government and pushing them up through the party system to state and national levels and by supporting pro-gun platforms within the respective parties. It is a lot of hard work that very few people have the stomach for and the closer you get to the top, the more compromises you have to make to get the support of your party.

There is always the one-in-a-million, lottery odds chance of a virtually unknown candidate catching fire with the public and being catapulted into high office out of nowhere. It does happen; but basing your RKBA preservation strategy on it is akin to buying lottery tickets for your retirement planning.

Like most other things in life, the surest route to success is a clear goal, a plan on how to reach that goal step-by-step, and lots of hard work.

One thing I would like to do is start organizing like-minded people at the city and municipal level where even small numbers make a big difference due to apathy of most voters and start weeding out the anti candidates before they can build a rep that carries them higher in the parties.

 

[fallingblock]

Yes!

"I think that the question turns on the following. Has Bush turned out to be nothing more than a poor choice between "the lesser of evils", ..."
***********************************************************

The answer is that G.W. IS better than the alternative would have been.

Now as to the speculation about why he isn't as 'good' as we would have liked.....

 

[Don Galt]

Besides FALs, any foriegn made rifle is included-- from AKs to HKs.

When your choice is between a National Socialist and a Communal Socialist, there is no "lesser of two evils".

Both want to take your guns.

Bush has accomplished nothing as president in defense of gun rights-- he has not undone any unconstitutional gun laws. He hasn't undone his father's gun ban, he has pledged support for the AWB, he has made flying with a gun much more problematic, he has created a government agency that violates the 4th ammendment hundreds of thousands of times a day (the TSA), he has promoted the out of control, and unconstitutional ATF to the department of Justice where they are increasingly siezing legal gun parts. His administration has made some public statmeent in support of the 2nd, but has done NOTHING to acutally support it.

Talk is cheap. And 2.5 years in, we have no actual progress. When the Democrats are in power, they make progress. They undermine the second ammendment. When republicans are in power, the undermine it LESS, but they never even TRY to undo what the Democrats have done.

 

[Oracle]

Don,

That is exactly what Margaret Thatcher called the "ratcheting effect". Leftists pass laws that undermine individual rights, then Conservatives get into government and strictly enforce those laws, because they want to be seen as "law and order" types. Then the leftists get into power again, and pass more laws, and the conservatives get into power and strictly enforce them, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. The bad laws never get removed, because the Conservatives don't have the courage to try and remove them. This is expecially applicable to the Republican party in this country.

 

[Obiwan]

" he has made flying with a gun much more problematic, he has created a government agency that violates the 4th ammendment hundreds of thousands of times a day (the TSA)"

Some bozos with boxcutter made all this possible....

Hell...might as well blame the President for having my nail clippers confiscated!!! I want an extra $.99 in my tax refund!!!

As I recall, President Bush did not want the screeners federalized...thank the Dems for that one....Big Labor is their bankroll...not the GOP.

The Airlines are the ones that make flying with a weapon difficult...I have never even talked to a TSA employee about checking a weapon.

So you know...I fly 3-4 times a month.

The TSA make keeping your shoes on more difficult...that's about it.

If you have to add those for filler, your case is looking pretty weak.

 

[Don Galt]

Oracle--

That's a good point. And now I have a term for it! The Rachetting effect. Thanks!

Obiwan--

Yes, it seems that even when George Bush signs the bill into law, he's not responsible, its the "Democrats" who did it. Do you know what percentage of republicans in congress voted for the measure?

 

[Obiwan]

And if he had held out you would be pissin and moanin about how he held up anti-terror legislation.