Posted on 08/20/2004 7:39:16 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
On the eve of the upcoming presidential election, Constitutional constructionists -- Patriot advocates of the liberty and freedom ordained by our Creator as framed in our Constitution -- were informed by the Bush administration that President George Bush will sign renewal of the 1994 Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer gun-control regulations scheduled to expire on 13 September, 2004 -- if Congress supports extending the measure.
It is understood that the administration's position on this legislation -- which is indistinguishable from that of John Kerry -- politically calculates that the measure will not get through Congress. This would prevent the legislation from becoming political fodder just prior to the presidential election.
However calculated, it is a stupefying example of bad judgment and timing -- arrogance in fact -- that President Bush's pragmatic handlers have taken a public stand on this legislation when the administration could have remained silent and waited for Congress to act one way or the other. In taking a position on the legislation now, the administration offended both the overwhelming majority of the President's constituency, and the constitutional foundational of our Republic -- a colossal blunder!
The Constitution's Second Amendment prohibition against government interference in the "right to keep and bear arms" is the one assurance that ensures all other rights. As noted by Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
Indeed, Madison himself wrote in Federalist No. 48, "The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any...." That is no less true today than it was in 1787.
Senators Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer were the original sponsors of this gun-control measure, which narrowly passed the Democrat-controlled House and Senate in 1994 and was signed into law by Bill Clinton. Though House Majority Leader Tom DeLay says that the votes in the House are not there to renew the measure, Feinstein and Schumer will press for a roll-call vote in order to politicize this legislation prior to the election.
Feinstein and Schumer even applauded the Bush administration's position on the measure, writing: "We welcome your support and look forward to working with you to gain swift passage of this legislation. With your assistance, we will be able to pass legislation to continue the ban and help make America's streets safer." "Safer"? For whom?
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, firearms-related crime has declined 54 percent in the last decade. The number of violent crimes reported in 2002 was 980,000 fewer than in 2000. But a National Institute of Justice report (headed by Christopher Koper at the University of Pennsylvania) concludes, "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence." Feinstein's own California Assistant Attorney General Patrick Kenady noted in an internal memo, "Information on [these guns] would not be sought from forensics laboratories as it was unlikely to support the theses on which the [Feinstein-Schumer gun-control] legislation would be based."
Even The Washington Post painfully admits, "[The banned guns] play a part in only a small percentage of crime."
Feinstein-Schumer, ostensibly, claims to protect law-abiding citizens. Of course, only law-abiding citizens comply with such restrictions -- and at their own peril. Criminals don't care whether the weapon they're using comports with the 23,000 federal, state and local gun restrictions already on the books. But they do care whether their intended victim has a firearm: Extensive interviews with violent felons make it clear that they prefer to prey on the victims who are least likely to possess a gun for self-defense.
In Commonplace Book, Thomas Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Again, no less true today than it has been throughout history.
For 30 years, the Left has used the "safety" claim as the foundation for its strategy of "incremental encroachment" on the Second Amendment to achieve its ultimate goal of gun confiscation. The Feinstein-Schumer legislation, which prevents law-abiding citizens from owning semi-automatic rifles (so-called and decidedly misnamed "assault weapons") for lawful purposes, is no exception. To wit, Feinstein said of the 1994 legislation, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate...for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in --I would have done it!"
Other Congressional Leftists such as Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Reps. John Conyers and Carolyn McCarthy have drafted additional legislation to ban or confiscate millions of guns used for personal protection -- this despite the spirit and plain language of the Second Amendment. (Memo to Lautenberg, Conyers and McCarthy: What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" that you don't understand?)
Our Republic's Founders had it right. "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them," warned George Mason. Patrick Henry concurred, imploring future generations: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
The Bush administration's calculation that the renewal of the Feinstein-Schumer legislation will never get to the President's desk because it won't make it through Congress is a dangerous gambit, and there is no excuse for the advance notice that Mr. Bush would sign the renewal, which served only to encourage Leftist gun confiscators. That encouragement just made re-election of conservatives in Congress -- and the White House -- more difficult and more expensive.
There are at least six bills reauthorizing Feinstein-Schumer pending in the Senate and House. Congress will return from its summer recess on 7 September and will be in session only four work-days before the sunset date. Fellow Patriots, let us urge our elected representatives to oppose H.R. 3831 and S. 2498 and any other legislation seeking to extend the so-called "assault-weapons" ban. And let us not underestimate the resolve of those who would infringe upon our Second Amendment rights: "I really believe passionately in this," said Senator Feinstein. "I'm not going to give up." (Memo to Senator Feinstein: Neither are we.)
Please act now -- join more than 60,000 fellow Patriots on the frontlines in defense of our Constitutional liberties who have already signed a petition against Feinstein-Schumer renewal. Link to -- http://patriotpetitions.us/nogunban/
(If you don't have Web access, please send a blank e-mail to: Each e-mail sent to this address will be counted as one signature for the petition. (No duplicate e-mail addresses are counted.)
Do you have a link for the official news release other than the Federalist Patriot report? Exactly when and who said the AWB was going to be acted on by congress and sent to Bush? Is this a current report or a re-write of past articles on the AWB? Thanks.
email to: letters@federalist.com
Friday, July 09, 2004
Originally enacted in 1994, the Clinton crime bill claimed that banning gun ownership by law-abiding citizens was the solution to violent crime. But anti-gun politicians were able to pass a measure banning so-called "military-style" semi-automatic firearms only after agreeing to "sunset" the ban in a decade.
Now, with the September 13 expiration of the Clinton gun ban fast approaching, anti-gun activists across the nation are making a renewed push to re-enact this ineffective legislation. But time is running out. Congress will be in session for only 14 more work days before the sunset date arrives, and because time is short, the anti-gunners are redoubling their efforts to extend the ban.
Over the next few weeks we must remain extremely vigilant against any attempt by the anti-gunners to reauthorize this legislation. Already, Representative Michael Castle (R-Del.) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) have introduced bills to do just that--H.R. 3831 and S. 2498, respectively. Feinstein recently claimed, "I really believe passionately in this. I`m not going to give up." Commenting further on the ban`s renewal, she said, "It`s only the sheer power of the gun lobby that stands in the way."
Obviously, our opponents will continue to work at every turn to try and accomplish their anti-gun goals. At this time, more than ever, it is critical that we remain proactive! Please visit NRA-ILA`s website-- www.ClintonGunBan.com --to learn the facts about this debate. And please continue to forward this website to others who need to know both the history and the truth about this issue. Then, please immediately contact your Representative and Senators and urge them to oppose H.R. 3831 and S. 2498, and any other legislation seeking to extend the so-called "assault weapons" ban.
You, ultimately, are the ones who can "stand in the way" of Feinstein`s publicly stated goal: "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in!" Please be sure to contact your legislators today!
Yes, just say "Nay" -- and anything else appropriate.
Though House Majority Leader Tom DeLay says "The votes in the House are not there" to renew the measure, Feinstein and Schumer will press for a roll call vote in order to politicize this legislation prior to the upcoming presidential election.
For thirty years, the Left has used the "safety" claim as the foundation for its strategy of "incremental encroachment" on the Second Amendment to achieve its ultimate goal of gun confiscation, and the Feinstein-Schumer legislation preventing law-abiding citizens from owning semi-automatic rifles (so-called and decidedly misnamed "assault weapons") for lawful purposes, is no exception. Such laws claim, ostensibly, to protect law-abiding citizens. Of course, only law-abiding citizens comply with these restrictions -- and at their own peril. Criminals don't care if the weapon they are using comport with the 23,000 federal, state and local gun restrictions already on the books.
Ms. Feinstein made clear her real objective after passage of Feinstein-Schumer in 1994: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate...for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."
BTTT!
Senator Frist has been a staunch supporter of our Second Amendment rights, as well.
BUMP
"Feinstein and Schumer will press for a roll-call vote in order to politicize this legislation prior to the election."
So, exactly how does a Senator 'press' for anything in the House?
The true measurement of an American leader's commitment to freedom is his respect for the second amendment. The upside is, IMHO, that there's no real downside for coming out and proclaiming that the right to keep and bear semi-automatic weapons is an individual liberty, a human right, and protected by the Constitution.
Some people sitting on the fence will hear that and decide to vote for such a leader. We know it's not John Kerry.
Let's hear it from our Republican political machinery...
Bump for the right to live.
I hate being the ass, but it's Federalist 46.
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.