Bushmaster M4 Carbine
Posted on 01/18/2005 12:33:16 PM PST by snowsislander
WASHINGTON -- 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.
---
I think he honestly is trying to reverse the leftward trend. He would not be nominating the likes of Janice Brown if he was not. We'll see though. His Dad blew it on Souter. Reagan blew it by not going to the mat for Bork. We'll see if they've learned their lessons.
It's policy. He doesn't even have to think about it.
Bushmaster M4 Carbine
While googling for pictures, I ran across this one:
I shot a buddy of mine's whose 1903 has a similiar setup and that was about as enjoyable of a shoot as I have been in a long while.
I think you're right. The country is moving incrementally
to the left under the guise of being centrist or "moderate." We have unprecedented numbers of people
who have a growing dependency on Big government. Studies
have shown that illegals draw an average of $25,000 more
per person per year than they contribute in labor or taxes
and are forcing school systems and hospitals into insolvency - not to mention the invitation open borders
extends to terrorists. The problem is that many conservatives will not vote for the "lesser of two evils"
because to do so is still to vote for an evil -- they
historically just drop out. Incidentally, this is how the
Marxist dialectic of history is supposed to work as it
hobbles along to the "classless" society: Marx said that
quantity (a series of small acts) eventually changes
quality (the whole nature of an economic substructure).
And suddenly, albeit gradually, the whole system has
changed. Most people only think of Marxism in terms of
violent revolution - but gradualism is more a part of it
than that. And I firmly believe the Left, even if they
are not all Marxists, are fully aware of this process and
try to "give history a push." Yes, many colleges and
universities have Marxists (perhaps not Communists) on
their faculties. I think the U.S. will soon be ripe for
a truly conservative movement. Today even some purportedly
conservative magazines are not truly conservative. For
example, Fred Barnes, editor of the Weekly Standard and
guest on FOX, has rightly been described by R. Ponnuru
of National Review as a "big government" conservative.
Nevertheless, I think that a reaction is coming and we'll
have a rebirth of conservatism that believes the less
government the better. Well, I hope so.....
He may not care about that, he may figure that he is on the downward slope and there is nothing stopping him now. Even if there is a shift in Congress to the left, he could say the h#ll with them. I hope not, but you never know what is in people's heads.
Why is that, he has nothing to loose and no re-election to worry about. The only thing he truely would need to worry about is if Jeb wanted to run in '08 (which I doubt he will). Of course he still could get away with it, either people will say that Jeb is different from George and they might say/hing that Jeb would repeal the EO or George would do it early enough into the administration that people might forget by the time '08 comes along.
If he learns of any abuses, he won't want to debate it any more.
Since the bill was sold as necessary to deal with terrorists, where are the civil and criminal liabilities against police and government employees for using the powers in investigations that "turn out" not to be terrorism related? Or at least make any evidence so obtained excludable. The government is constantly playing this bait-and-switch game where they claim sweeping new powers are needed for some politically unoposable cause, but there are no harsh penalties for other use of those powers, once granted.
Well, he could say that as a private citizen, he sees no need for it, and enumerate all the reasons it's unnecessary and pointless, but that as an officer of the Executive Branch, he would faithfully and to the best of hi s ability enforce any law enacted by Congress.
How will reauthorizing the ban prevent "Tony" from facing AK-47's illegally brought in from China? Unless he wants "Tony" to invade the homes of law-abiding gun owners to seize their weapons....hmmm.
I would also ask if the 2nd only pertains to self defense or the right of the people to remove a tyranical government.
I think that is the question we need to ask of people to see if they know the true meaning of the 2nd and whether they support it.
Tell me, why can't he? He has the power of Executive Order, and daddy used it to ban the imports of certain military style semi-automatic firearms (or as I like to call them anti-assault weapons). Why can't he take that further and say there is no "assault weapons" for citizens?
They have no values, except self interest. If that can be furthered by supporting abortion or gun bans they will be for it and vice-versa.
Under oath?
Too late! : )
Down in the article you will find Gonzales' actual statement which is in italics. He describes the President's position and says that supports the President. He could have 42 assault weapons at home and say this without breaking his oath.
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.