Posted on 07/24/2004 5:12:31 AM PDT by Pharmboy
WASHINGTON, July 23 - During his campaign for the presidency in 2000, George W. Bush took a dramatic step: a vow to support the ban on assault weapons, enacted in 1994 for a 10-year period.
"It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society," Mr. Bush declared.
Since then, the president's advisers have repeatedly affirmed his support for the ban, a position that has helped him appeal to moderate voters and demonstrate independence from the powerful gun lobby. But in the middle of a presidential election year, and with only five working days left in Congress before the law expires at midnight on Sept. 13, the issue has become a hot potato that no one in the Bush administration seems eager to touch.
Mr. Bush has said he would sign legislation extending the ban if the Republican-controlled Congress passed it, and White House officials say he stands by that pledge. But Congress has already begun a six-week recess, and Republicans there say they have yet to hear him declare that he actually wants the legislation to move.
All the while, the clock keeps ticking, leaving legislators of both parties predicting that the ban, which for a decade has barred production and sale of 19 kinds of assault weapons, will lapse. The lawmakers do not return to work until Sept. 7, leaving too little time, many feel, for legislation extending the measure to pass both houses of Congress.
Republican and Democratic gun-control advocates have been left badly frustrated. They maintain that Mr. Bush, Republican Congressional leaders and some Democrats have calculated that although the ban has broad popular appeal, it is safer to allow it to expire than to risk alienating conservative-minded gun owners and the National Rifle Association during an election year.
The critics say Mr. Bush is dancing a fine political line, voicing continued support for the ban to appease moderate and swing voters while pleasing his conservative constituency by declining to expend political capital to ensure that the law is extended.
At a news conference on Tuesday, Representatives Michael N. Castle, Republican of Delaware, and Carolyn McCarthy, Democrat of New York, urged Mr. Bush and the Congressional leadership to act. But, standing near the Capitol in front of two tables lined with assault weapons, they acknowledged that they were fighting an uphill battle.
"To allow the ban to sunset is simply irresponsible; every major law enforcement organization in America supports an extension of the ban," said Mr. Castle, who was flanked by law enforcement officials. "But this is a hypersensitive political issue with a lot of members of Congress. The N.R.A. has put a great deal of pressure on them not to do this."
Claire Buchan, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bush, said Tuesday that he had been true to his campaign promise and would like to see the ban retained.
"The president has made his views clear, going back to the 2000 campaign," Ms. Buchan said.
But at a routine press briefing on Monday, Scott McClellan, the president's press secretary, declined to say whether Mr. Bush would prod Congress to extend the measure.
Wayne R. LaPierre Jr., executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said it was already clear that the law was dead. He said it had proved ineffective, doing nothing to reduce crime while infringing on the rights of gun owners.
Mr. LaPierre also said politicians now recognized that supporting the ban was risky. He and others have attributed Al Gore's losses in some states four years ago in part to his strong support for gun control. And he pointed to an interview with the Cleveland daily The Plain Dealer in 1994, the year the ban was enacted, in which President Bill Clinton said 20 House Democrats had lost their seats because of voting for it.
"I think it will expire and not be renewed," Mr. LaPierre said. "It's not only a political loser; the legislation was meaningless in terms of its effect."
Supporters of the law acknowledge that it is riddled with loopholes. But they say the number of assault weapons linked to crimes, as a share of all crime-linked weapons, declined about 66 percent from 1995 to 2002. (In 2002, assault weapons accounted for only about 1 percent of firearms used in crimes, according to one advocacy group, Americans for Gun Safety.)
Supporters also point to a recent poll of 10 electoral battleground states, conducted by the Consumer Federation of America and the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, that found strong backing in the Midwest and the Southwest for a renewal of the ban.
But Republican pollsters and analysts say voters who are fierce opponents of gun control are more likely to be motivated by the issue.
"On guns, intensity matters," said Q. Whitfield Ayres, a Republican pollster. "That means the people who care about the gun issue care very intensely and are likely to vote on it. The broad public can give you an answer in a survey, but it's unlikely to drive their votes."
Some supporters say Mr. Bush is not alone to blame. They say Democrats including Senator John Kerry, the presumptive presidential nominee, have not been beating the drums loudly enough.
"We have two candidates for president who say they support renewal of the assault weapons ban," said Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "But neither one of them has been as passionate about it as we would like."
It would be nice to see this law go off in the sunset; terrorism at home might make some congresscritters a bit shy about the continuing disarmament of law-abiding citizens.
Tick-tock, bang PING!
If Bush signs it, he'll end up a one-termer like his father, and I shudder to think of the damage that a Kerry victory will do to the Republic.
Don't you even read. It's dead. This a NYT hand wringing article to get knee jerk lunkheads like you all in a tizzy, with your knee jerk one liners.
You're prolly right though, but we should never underestimate the power of indignant liberals when they marshall their forces for a holy war. I hope this will slide because the timing of the dummocrat convention would make it tough for them to get their act together. And, the media can't scream about Bush doing it since the congress let it die.
Here is a fine example of the BIG LIE perpetuated by the anti-gunners. There is no federal BAN on OWNING "assault weapons" as defined in this law, it just bans the importation of a certain semi-automatic weapons. In most states it is perfectly legal to own such firearms.
I never hear anyone stressing this fact.
Yeah, I know, but one would think that a person who has been registered on FR for 4 years(mvpel) would see a NYT hand wringing divide the base story and not make a knee jerk reply.
This one, to the best of my knowledge, bans the sale, importation, and manufacture of particular models and configurations of semi-automatic rifles, which have certain visible (but not functional) characteristics. It also limited the capacity of magazines to 10.
Maybe somebody else can correct me if I've messed it up.
That's a point that these articles never cover; they never tell you what the law actually does.
This didn't read like a "divide the base" story to me. It was more a "alert the fringe left to run around like their hair is on fire" story, IMO.
Have you ever seen the "gun lobby" without the adjective "powerful" on the front? Is it NYT editorial policy to refer to the "powerful environmentalist lobby" or the "powerful feminist lobby"? And when did it go from "NRA" to "powerful gun lobby"? Some focus group or other must've concluded that people associated the NRA with ordinary people, rather than a shadowy corporate entity.
The way these guys hone their misuse of language is terrifying.
So why were you the one running around with your hair on fire? j/k :)
I agree but one poster on this thread took it as a divide the base story, IMO, and gave the usual answer.
Most excellent observation. They don't want you to know what they're squealing about, or else the average reader would think they're crazy.
Just another stupid waste of a law pushed and passed by...LAWYERS! Now if nobody minds...I'll go click a few rounds off with my Ruger rancher 223. You know, the one with the Garand action and all?
...or the [powerful] teacher's lobby or union lobby. No--only the Times' enemies are powerful. Great observation.
Proof that Congress is most useful when they are on vacation. :-D
Five more days. Could it be that the congresscritters opened a dictionary and learned the word "infringe?" Nah.
5.56mm
No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
Looking forward to lower prices for high capacity magazines!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.