Posted on 09/08/2004 11:29:11 PM PDT by neverdem
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - Despite widespread popular support, the federal law banning the sale of 19 kinds of semiautomatic assault weapons is almost certain to expire on Monday, the result of intense lobbying by the National Rifle Association and the complicated election-year politics of Washington.
While President Bush has expressed support for legislation extending the ban and has said he would sign it into law, he has not pressured lawmakers to act, leading critics to accuse him of trying to have it both ways.
Efforts to renew the ban, which polls show is supported by at least two-thirds of Americans, have faltered this year on Capitol Hill. Democrats are well aware that they lost control of the House of Representatives in 1994, the year President Bill Clinton signed the original legislation, and have shied away from the issue of gun control, while Republican leaders have opposed the ban.
"I think the will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire, so it will expire," Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said on Wednesday.
The House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, dismissed the ban as "a feel-good piece of legislation" and said flatly that it would expire Monday, even if Mr. Bush made an effort to renew it.
"If the president asked me, it would still be no," Mr. DeLay said. "He knows, because we don't have the votes to pass the assault weapons ban. It will expire Monday, and that's that."
Democrats decried the influence of the rifle association and said the ban could be renewed if the president wanted it to.
"If you support something, you have a responsibility to advocate for it,'' said Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat and chief sponsor of the ban's renewal.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who was a lead sponsor of the ban 10 years ago when he was in the House, blamed "a dysfunction of our politics'' for what he called "this Alice in Wonderland situation of repealing a law that everyone agrees has been overwhelmingly successful.''
The act prohibits, by name, the sale of 19 specific weapons that have the features of guns used by the military, and also outlaws magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. While backers acknowledge that the law is riddled with loopholes, they cite federal statistics showing crimes traceable to assault weapons have declined by two-thirds since the law went into effect.
But the N.R.A., which has made overturning the ban its top legislative priority, says the law bans only "cosmetic accessories" on guns, and does little other than place a burden on gun manufacturers. "We felt from the very start it was bogus legislation," Wayne LaPierre, the association's chief executive, said.
On Wednesday, in a last-ditch effort to persuade lawmakers to renew the law, supporters of the ban - including police chiefs from around the country and victims of gun violence and their relatives - converged on Washington for a news conference.
Tom Mauser, whose 15-year-old son, Daniel, was killed in the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado, arrived wearing his son's sneakers and took them off while addressing reporters, a pointed physical reminder of his loss.
James S. Brady, the former White House press secretary who suffered brain damage after being shot in the head by a handgun during the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, sat, mostly silent, in a wheelchair.
"The assault weapons are coming, they're coming next week," warned Mr. Brady's wife, Sarah, who has been a vocal advocate for restrictions on gun ownership for the past two decades.
Noting that Mr. Reagan had supported the weapons ban in 1994, Mrs. Brady said she felt deserted by the party she and her husband had worked so hard for. "I am angry," she said. "I am angry at our president. I'm so disappointed."
The White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, repeated on Wednesday that ''the president supports the reauthorization of the current law.'' But when asked by reporters what, if anything, Mr. Bush was doing to make that happen, Mr. McClellan replied: "The president doesn't set the Congressional timetable. Congress sets the timetable. And the president's views are very clear.''
Democrats hit hard at Mr. Bush. "We cry out for leadership,'' said Senator Schumer, adding that, "The president talks about flip-flops. Well, flip: I'm for it. Flop: House, don't do anything, don't pass it.''
The Democratic presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, supports renewing the ban, and took a break from campaigning earlier this year to return to the Senate when it came up for a vote as part of a broader piece of gun legislation. Fifty-two senators voted in favor of renewing the ban, but the underlying measure was defeated.
On Wednesday, a senior adviser to Mr. Kerry, Joe Lockhart, signaled that the ban would become a campaign issue. He said that Mr. Kerry planned to discuss the ban Monday, at an event timed to coincide with its expiration. Mr. Kerry, he said, "believes the cynical deal between the president and the House Republican leadership, hiding behind procedure, is completely unacceptable.''
A poll released this week by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania found that 68 percent of Americans - and 32 percent of N.R.A. members - support renewing the ban. The findings, drawn from interviews with 4,959 adults, had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus one percentage point.
A separate national survey, conducted by Doug Schoen, a Democratic pollster, on behalf of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, found that 74 percent of voters support renewing the ban, but that support is highest - 79 percent - among independent voters who are being courted by President Bush and Mr. Kerry. That survey of 800 voters had a margin of error of three percentage points.
Mr. Schoen, who is not advising the Kerry campaign, also surveyed voters in the swing states of Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania and concluded that support for the ban was high enough to make it a significant issue. "If Kerry wants to distinguish his position from Bush, this provides a very convenient vehicle,'' he said.
But over all, Democrats have not talked much about the weapons ban. Senator Patty Murray, the Washington Democrat who is in a tough re-election fight, said voters, unaware that the ban was set to expire, had not made it an issue, and that neither had she.
"There are so many issues, education and health care and jobs and the economy in my state right now,'' Ms. Murray said. "People are really focused on that.''
And over the years the ban has been a losing issue for Democrats. After Republicans took control of the House in 1994, President Clinton remarked that the ban might have cost Democrats 20 seats. Some believe that former Vice President Al Gore lost crucial states, including his home state, Tennessee, in the 2000 election because he came out too strongly for gun control.
Even the ban's chief Democratic backers in Congress, Senator Feinstein and Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York, acknowledged that Democrats were afraid to be too vocal in their support. "In the small states in particular, and the rural states, the control of the N.R.A. is much greater,'' said Ms. Feinstein, adding, They will specifically target a member, including a House member, and go after them.''
The N.R.A. has also said it will not endorse a candidate for president until after Congress recesses for the fall election, a pronouncement that the ban's backers say is tantamount to a threat not to endorse Mr. Bush until the ban expires. Mr. LaPierre said the claim was "100 percent untrue.'' But he blamed Democrats for the bill's undoing, saying they had tried, unwisely, to use it to gain political advantage when Mr. Clinton was president.
"I guess you could say politics is what enacted it in the first place,'' he said. "Politics is going to be the undoing of it.''
On Wednesday, as the police chiefs and victims' relatives fanned out across Capitol Hill to lobby lawmakers, a chief target was the House speaker, Representative J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois. In recent weeks, advocates for the ban have been approaching Mr. Hastert at bookstores around the country, where he has been signing copies of his new autobiography, "Speaker."
Several, including Mr. Mauser, said that Mr. Hastert seemed supportive. "He said yes, I support that,'' said Penny Okamoto, who said she saw Mr. Hastert on Aug. 16 at a Barnes & Noble store in Beaverton, Ore. "I was so surprised, I actually asked him twice.''
But on Wednesday, the speaker was noncommittal, saying that if the Senate was to adopt the bill, "then we'll take a look at it.''
Mr. Mauser said he was not satisfied with that, and would knock on Mr. Hastert's door on Thursday. He said that he had already spoken with an aide to his own congressman, Representative Tom Tancredo, a Republican who opposes the ban, and that the meeting did not go well.
"It ended on a pretty bad note,'' Mr. Mauser said. "Not even a shake of the hand.''
Yoooooooooo hooooooooooo...over here.
""The assault weapons are coming, they're coming next week," warned Mr. Brady's wife"
LOL!! Run for your lives!
Yep...the sky is falling,the sky is falling,the sky is faaaaaaaaaaa............LOL
maybe I can put a net up in my back yard and catch some as they're running around.
What a bunch of freaking morons.
I saw that.
I've been a bit more worried today about pondering the scorched earth offensive the DNC and Old Media have in store for our boy and had forgotten this.
LOL -
""If you support something, you have a responsibility to advocate for it,'' said Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat and chief sponsor of the ban's renewal."
- does this include Kerry's belief in the sanctity of life?
OTOH,Kerry is getting the @#%&(()^&%$#@##% kicked out of him by facts/truth!
Ok dude, you really need to see a psychiatrist.
This is a paradigm of speciopus reasoning. Here's what the Dems did: Let's call weapons with extra "military" features "assault weapons", and then have a mandated 10 year period in which "assault wepons" are no longer manufactured. Since there's been a 10-year gap since any "assault weapons" have been built/sold, we'll have more and more crimes committed with "postban" non-"assaault weapons". We'll leave these crimes out of our "assault weapons" stats, so the useless AWB will seem to have lowered crime.
That mauser guy really seems to need hospitalization. He sounds very sick.
Also, if kerry listens to these fools and makes it a campaign issue.. I mean, if there was ever a dream come true for Republicans. Please do it kerry!!
It looks like the Times is throwing in the towel. There must be some great wailing and gnashing of teeth just off on 43rd St just west of B'way.
"Despite widespread popular support,"
Despite what???
Yea, its really popular
So popular that even the Democrats won't fight for it.
Weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens is a wise decision made by our founding fathers. Upgrading weaponry in response to the circumstances of our time is a wise decision made by our citizens. A well armed law abiding citizenry deters crime, tyranny & anarchy.
In part because Senator Kerry voted against it.
Homer says "Do'h!" Of course he didn't. Athough he "took a break from campaigning earlier this year to return to the Senate when it came up for a vote ", he didn't actually stick around long enough to vote.
What polls? I would sure like to see the wording of these "polls" to see just what they are really asking. It seems to me, the most important real poll on this ban was in 1994. I seem to recall, the people overwhelmingly said "NO", and the Democrats took a bath in that election.
Tom Mauser, whose 15-year-old son, Daniel, was killed in the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado, arrived wearing his son's sneakers and took them off while addressing reporters, a pointed physical reminder of his loss.
This guy is always using the same old "sneaker" bit. Well, I have news for him: The Ugly-Gun-Ban was law during the Columbine Massacre. If it didn't protect little Daniel in 1999, what does he think extending it will accomplish?
Seriously though, I'm seeing a lot of "The ban is definately going to expire, really it is" news articles in the MSM lately. I am beginning to wonder if they are attempting to lull us into complacency in preparation for a last minute surprise.
We need to keep up the pressure, both this week and in the future (they will try to bring this thing back from the grave). Keep calling, faxing, and e-mailing. Make sure the Democrats know this is a losing issue, and, if they push it, they will suffer just like they did in 1994. Let the Republicans know just how many of us are "undecided" until September 14th.
Mr. Kerry, he said, "believes the cynical deal between the president and the House Republican leadership, HIDING BEHIND PROCEDURE, is completely unacceptable.''
Would this be the same procedures called filibustering judicial nominees?
I like that...w/Laser sights? :)
Cough...cough....B#$^&$#T. I wouldn't be surprised if the gun-control crowd didn't run into the streets and start wailing on Monday.
"Efforts to renew the ban, which polls show is supported by at least two-thirds of Americans, have faltered this year on Capitol Hill."
Let's see. Polls show that two thirds of Americans are opposed to abortion. Two thirds of Americans are opposed to gay marriage.
Wonder what page in the NY SLimes has this been relegated to.
What Polls and how were the questions worded...most people don't want machine guns in the wrong hands but they want folks to be able to carry a pistol!
Yeah, you might be right about this.
There's another glaring omission in the article, though, one that even the NYTimes would have been immediately aware of. Crime in general is down significantly from what it was in 1994. Even if the miniscule percentage of crimes committed with "assualt weapons" has remained constant, the total number of such crimes would have decreased by at least 1/3.
In any case, I'd like someone to point out the number of crimes committed with these rifles before the ban in '94 that could have been committed *only* with a rifle with the proscribed features. I know, we're just reliving the past going back to that question, and, I know, you'd be hard pressed to find even one, but still, it's worth pointing out how silly this ban was.
Translation: I asked all my friends and neighbors on East 86th Street.
Well said. And in the future my phaser will be protected by the 2nd too.
This is an outright lie. The DOJ does NOT keep separate records on types of weapons used in crimes. And in the Brady Bunch's own little slide show from the DOJ they state this; it's "all" gun crimes.
Secondly, in the past ten years sentencing for gun crimes have increased, many handed over to the FEDS and thereby keeping the bad guys IN Prison and off the streets for these ten years.
I know all about this survey and it's pure BS. It so happens that in that 68% of 'Americans' they reference - well it's "households" and 64% stated they DO NOT own a gun -- of ANY type. That's like asking 64% of Chevy owners if Fords suck.
And I have serious doubts about the 32% of NRA members backing this. As anyone can claim to be in the NRA over the phone and I doubt that their membership number was asked for when polled.
LIE - As we know she is an 'advocate' for gun confiscation.
This is a spurious statement as less than 1% of ALL police chiefs nationwide favor the ban. The most vocal Chiefs in favor are the ones in the big cities where guns are already outlawed like those 'crime free paradises' of Chicago & DC, ergo it's meaningless.
Mauser is not for renewing the ban as is, he's for expanding it as proposed by Kennedy. As his son was killed by a legal weapon.
I know the above because last month I successfully helped fight off an AWB resolution in my Village.
In part because Senator Kerry voted against it.
Yet another case of "I voted for it, before I voted against it."
I guess I better dig out the hip boots so I can be prepared for the "flood of machine guns on the streets" the Brady Bunch has assured me are on the way.
It is actually popular in that people say they support it. They have no idea what it is, what it contains, or what it prohibits, but they are for it because it contains the words Assault, Weapons, and Ban in the name. The unfortunate fact of life in the U.S. is that you could probably call a law that arbitrarily banned Cheerios the "Child Protection Act of 2005" and get a majority to say they approve of it.
Gotta love it when this Nazi gets one-upped.
Hooray! Everyone knows that this crappy legislation did nothing except weaken our Constitution and embolden criminals. Everyone, including Chuck Schumer, knows that most crimes are committed with HANDGUNS and that the empirical evidence proves that the way to reduce this crime by handguns is to ALLOW CITIZEN CCW!
I tried to call Schumer's local office to bitch about this article, but they were "out to lunch". Duh!
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who was a lead sponsor of the ban 10 years ago when he was in the House, blamed "a dysfunction of our politics" for what he called "this Alice in Wonderland situation of repealing a law that everyone agrees has been overwhelmingly successful."
True, but this (and the antis) really miss the point. Essentially all of the weapons existing in '94 still exist in civilian hands - maybe this is 3-5 million military style semi-autos. The VPC says that over 1 million post-bans have been made since then, and there've probably been several hundred thousand imported semi-autos in .223, 7.62x39 or 7.62. Thus, we've got somewhere between 4.5 and 6.5 million guns, and certainly 1.5 million more than in '94, yet crime has declined. What this says to me is that THERE IS A NEGATIVE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF "ASSAULT WEAPONS" AND CRIME - TRULY, MORE GUNS = LESS CRIME.
You'll never see this discussed in the NY Slimes or by any other MSM outlet.
Anyhow, here's another great one:
And my thoughts on the AWB itself...
KEEP THE PRESSURE ON. DON'T EXPECT OTHER PEOPLE TO DO IT.
AND REJOICE WHEN WE KICK THE GUNGRABBER'S ASSES.
BTTT!!!
Has the million whining moms done their stuff yet? If so, I'm noticing no media coverage on the major web sites! Good news.
Not to complain, but isn't this supposed to be excerpted?
Mauser is a fool. The gun used to kill his son wasn't even on the list.
Bwahahahahaha
Not even a reacharound!!
Yes the first two are- what a kick. Wonder if any of the anti's throught the "I am not armed" shirt was a good idea????
No editorializing there, huh. They don't even try to hide their bias. My god, it's just like Orwell predicted.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The expiration of this ban would not allow easy sales of such firearms; in fact, those have been separately regulated since 1934. But the MSM and GG don't want the majority of voters, who don't know about guns, to know that...
Ten to one says ol' chuckie's got wood in both of those pics.
Yup.
This crying tantrum has been brought to you by the New York Times, printing all the news that's fit to cry about and proudly serving as the Public Relations firm for the Island of Misfit Toys since 1851.
Despite widespread popular support, the federal law banning the sale of 19 kinds bs ... bs ... bs ...
What they really mean
Despite overwhelming support among our neo national socialist editorial board all of whom sincerely believe that they have both the wisdom and the right to tell the rest of the country what to do, Kongress isn't going to listen to us so we'll wrap up a pack of lies in the sincere belief that the dumb hicks out there in fly over country will be too stupid to see through them.
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.