Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Feinstein and Schumer Welcome President Bush's Support of Assault Weapons Ban
senate.gov ^ | April 16, 2003 | Democrats Feinstein and Schumer

Posted on 04/19/2003 7:02:08 AM PDT by TLBSHOW

Feinstein and Schumer Welcome President Bush's Support of Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization

- Seek to Work with President to Swiftly Reauthorize Ban, Close Clip-Importation Loophole - April 16, 2003

Washington, DC - U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) welcomed the announcement that President George W. Bush supports the reauthorization of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which is set to expire in 2004.

In an article published this weekend, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law."

Senators Feinstein and Schumer, authors of the original assault weapons legislation in the Senate and House of Representatives, will introduce legislation to reauthorize the ban shortly after Congress returns from recess. The legislation would:

Reauthorize the prohibition on manufacture, transfer, and possession military-style assault weapons, while protecting hunting rifles and other firearms. Close the clip-importation loophole, which prohibits the sale of domestically produced high-capacity ammunition magazines, but allows foreign companies to continue to bring them into the country by the millions.

Preserve the right of police officers and other law enforcement officials to use and obtain newly manufactured semi-automatic assault weapons.

In a letter to President Bush, the Senators wrote: "As the original authors of the Assault Weapons Ban in the Senate and the House, we strongly believe that military-style assault weapons have no place on America's streets and should be banned. In 1994, we fought hard to win passage of the original ban, and shortly after Congress returns from the spring recess we plan to introduce legislation that would reauthorize it.

This is why we were pleased to see that your spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated your support for the ban and its reauthorization this weekend when he said, 'The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law.'

We welcome your support and look forward to working with you to gain swift passage of this legislation. The current ban is due to expire in September 2004 and in order to continue to keep these weapons off the streets, it is imperative that the reauthorization bill becomes law.

As part of the reauthorization, we also plan to include language to close a loophole in the 1994 law, which prohibits the domestic manufacture of high-capacity ammunition magazines, but allows foreign companies to continue sending them to this country by the millions. A measure that would have closed this loophole passed the House and Senate in 1999 by wide margins, but got bottled up in a larger conference due to an unrelated provision. You indicated your support for closing this loophole during the 2000 presidential campaign, and now, with your help, we can prevent the manufacture and importation of all high-capacity clips and drums.

Once again, thank you for your leadership on this matter. With your assistance, we will be able to pass legislation to continue the ban and help make America's streets safer."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: assaultweaponsban; awb; bang; feinstein; presidentbush; reauthorization; schumer; support
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-369 next last

1 posted on 04/19/2003 7:02:08 AM PDT by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
ping
2 posted on 04/19/2003 7:11:26 AM PDT by TLBSHOW (The gift is to see the truth.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Things that make you go Hmmmmm...
3 posted on 04/19/2003 7:16:12 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Sometimes one has to wonder if Bush wants to be like his father. Kill a few votes here, a few there and next thing you know, you lose. The Lott affair, open borders, gun affairs, Islam is peace and on and on.

Bush cannot contgrol his own party members for a tax cut but the dems welcome him with open arms for gun control. Way to go, just watch that cliff ahead of you in 04.

4 posted on 04/19/2003 7:16:50 AM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Feinstein and Schumer Welcome President Bush's Support of Assault Weapons Ban

The whole Democrat party should welcome Bush's support. It could get a Democrat President for them in 2004. This, along with the open border policy, could easily get Bush unelected. I want a Republican president, not just one elected as a Republican.

5 posted on 04/19/2003 7:21:37 AM PDT by FreePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
chuckie has it at his web site too...

http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01632.html
6 posted on 04/19/2003 7:22:15 AM PDT by TLBSHOW (The gift is to see the truth.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I'm surprised it isn't tattooed across their "collective" backsides.
7 posted on 04/19/2003 7:24:15 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FreePaul
Don't vote for Bush then. A democrat will get elected which will give us the AW ban plus a whole lot more.
8 posted on 04/19/2003 7:37:14 AM PDT by Keeper of the Turf (Fore!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Keeper of the Turf
Who said don't vote for Bush instead what must be done is convince the President to reverse his stand on this issue and do not advance the liberal democrats and Bill Clintons agenda.......
9 posted on 04/19/2003 7:41:16 AM PDT by TLBSHOW (The gift is to see the truth.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Keeper of the Turf
Is it the preceived incrimentalism toward complete gun control that has people here upset? I'm not trying to be a wiseguy or ignorant, I am just puzzled.

We own a LOT of guns, but no assualt rifles. Someone give me the arguement please. FRmail me if it is way long or you wish to remain anonymous.
10 posted on 04/19/2003 7:43:13 AM PDT by annyokie (provacative yet educational reading alert)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I've read many post saying, "Bush will not get my vote"..."I will stay home on election day"...yada yada yada. What if he doesn't reverse his stand? Are we going to let a democrat get elected - which will be far worse than Bush?
11 posted on 04/19/2003 7:44:12 AM PDT by Keeper of the Turf (Fore!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
Shall not be infringed.

Simple as that. No other enumerated right says "Shall not be infringed."

Any restriction at all, no matter how "reasonable" is more than infringed.

Did they write the Constitution as a joke?
12 posted on 04/19/2003 7:46:06 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
Okay. I can go along with that. But it begs the question of the interpretation of the rest of the Constitution and the Amendments to.

And no, I don't subscribe to that "living document" nonsense. But is a static interpretation of all after more than 200 years reasonable? I am torn.
13 posted on 04/19/2003 7:49:41 AM PDT by annyokie (provacative yet educational reading alert)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Things that make you go PUKE!!
Jack
14 posted on 04/19/2003 7:50:13 AM PDT by btcusn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Keeper of the Turf
What if he doesn't reverse his stand? Are we going to let a democrat get elected - which will be far worse than Bush?

Feinstein and Schumer Welcome President Bush's Support of Assault Weapons Ban

.......liberal democrats are the enemy and must never be voted in...........

15 posted on 04/19/2003 7:53:00 AM PDT by TLBSHOW (The gift is to see the truth.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
When the second amendment was written, they must have had a picture of Schumer, Kennedy, Hillarious and Fineswine right in front of them.

The founding fathers knew what to do.

16 posted on 04/19/2003 7:56:26 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Keeper of the Turf
I have to agree wholeheartedly with your sarcasm.
I'm not seeing the Democratic platform as a viable option just because a few citizens have their thirst for assault weaponry trimmed back.
There are ideologues on the conservative side and there are ideologues on the liberal side.
Issues such as the assault weapons ban brings out all our ideologues. They see this as only the first step toward disarmament of the populace -- a Constitutional violation.
Partial birth abortion otoh, brings out the liberal's ideologues who see restrictions on that heinous act of murder to be a first step in a march to eliminate abortions altogether.
It's not the ideologues who will decide the next election!
17 posted on 04/19/2003 7:57:35 AM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
It's not "perceived " incrementalism at all, ma'am...it is happening. This is how England, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have managed to almost completely disarm their citizenry. Demonize, then criminalize one class of guns, then when that ban "doesn't do anything to stop gun violence", take it another step farther. If there's too much resistance at the time to criminalize a class of firearms, go after "evil" ammo. Or create a new tax for ammo or firearms. It's real, it's happening, and folks on both sides of the aisle are to blame.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

18 posted on 04/19/2003 7:59:22 AM PDT by wku man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
Yes. Anything other than a direct reading is indefensible. The Second Amendment enumerates the right that gives the People the means to preserve all their other rights.
19 posted on 04/19/2003 7:59:33 AM PDT by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
You know, a good strategy for the judiciary committee would be to hold the committee vote on the ban to be contigent upon full floor votes for Piclering, Estrada, and Owen.

Schumer has been such a prick that they should vote it down anyway.

20 posted on 04/19/2003 7:59:41 AM PDT by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
I live in a house as old as the Republic. It was well made. It will be here long after the yuppie macmansions that surround us have crumbled.

It can be upgraded, renovated, etc, but if I were to tamper with the foundation, it could fall down.

Same as our republic. The Constitution is our foundation.

21 posted on 04/19/2003 8:00:03 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Stirring up trouble again I see, Todd.

For the millionth time this will be fought in the House, where the 2nd Amendment actually matters the most, local congressional elctions.

In 99 Schumer and Feinstein passed thru a gun control after Columbine, the House passed a different bill with the help of 45 rural democrats and the Feinstein/Schumer bill died in conference.

The President can fend off demo and media attacks that he is a hostage to the gun lobby in an election year and Congressmen can say they protected the 2nd amendment in the 2004 election.

I know, I know, people will bring up CFR, but CFR is totally different, CFR was a feel good issue that actually blew up in the demo's faces since it turned off their tap of soft money and the latest reports have the Pubbies having a 4 to 1 advantage in fund raising and, IMHO, the most vile part of CFR(ad bans) will be thrown out before the 2004 elections.

You can go on with your chest thumping and simplistic rants Todd.

22 posted on 04/19/2003 8:00:26 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW

23 posted on 04/19/2003 8:01:40 AM PDT by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Who said don't vote for Bush instead what must be done is convince the President to reverse his stand on this issue and do not advance the liberal democrats and Bill Clintons agenda.......

And if he is not convinced.......?

24 posted on 04/19/2003 8:03:00 AM PDT by weaponeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
One term President.
25 posted on 04/19/2003 8:03:26 AM PDT by weaponeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
"And no, I don't subscribe to that "living document" nonsense. But is a static interpretation of all after more than 200 years reasonable? I am torn."

You betcha, Annie. What good are rules if they change every quarter or inning? The Constitution must not change just because our society has become increasingly lazy, stupid, and perverse. The principles of liberty never go out of date, regardless of how technology causes our society to evolve.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

26 posted on 04/19/2003 8:04:12 AM PDT by wku man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Here is the deal..........

The President said he 2000 he would support the ban. The time to stop it is before he signs a ban.
27 posted on 04/19/2003 8:04:13 AM PDT by TLBSHOW (The gift is to see the truth.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: weaponeer
And if he is not convinced.......?


the job of FReepers is to convince him.
28 posted on 04/19/2003 8:06:41 AM PDT by TLBSHOW (The gift is to see the truth.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
The President said he 2000 he would support the ban. The time to stop it is before he signs a ban.

Yep and the place to do that is in the House, where the 2nd amendment actually can sway a congressional election.

29 posted on 04/19/2003 8:08:14 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: weaponeer
And if he is not convinced.......?

No body here wants to vote in a liberal to office. If Bush signs this, he sure as hell isn't a "conservative". If our Rights will not be respected by either liberals or conservatives... then we no longer have the bragging right to he moniker "Free'est country in the world".

From that point... soap box... ballot box... cartridge box.

30 posted on 04/19/2003 8:09:19 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dane
So what are the freep plans of action on this matter?
31 posted on 04/19/2003 8:10:20 AM PDT by TLBSHOW (The gift is to see the truth.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: weaponeer
One term President

IOW, a statement made by a one issue malcontennt who refuses to look through the legislative machinations, but thinks he/she is so cool being a malcontent keyboard commando.

32 posted on 04/19/2003 8:11:05 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wku man
Thank you for your input. I do appreciate it.

I guess my dilemma is that we are a much different society than when the Founders wrote the Constitution, for which I have terrific respect. They were truly visionary.

As for the rules changing, what about the Instant Replay before making a call in football? Why is there sudden death in pro-football, but not in college games? Again, I am not being a wise-guy.
33 posted on 04/19/2003 8:12:25 AM PDT by annyokie (provacative yet educational reading alert)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Feinstein and Schumer Welcome President Bush's Support of Assault Weapons Ban

Say, Mr. President, you're in great company there. /sarcasm

34 posted on 04/19/2003 8:12:25 AM PDT by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
So what are the freep plans of action on this matter?

Not official freep plans, but my advice is to phone and write a snail mail letter to your congressman. Also if you have a demo congresmman, don't think the matter as a lost cause, especially if you are in a red state.

35 posted on 04/19/2003 8:15:43 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
"Is it the preceived incrimentalism toward complete gun control that has people here upset? I'm not trying to be a wiseguy or ignorant, I am just puzzled."


Yes.

36 posted on 04/19/2003 8:16:12 AM PDT by bruoz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
Would you agree to the government telling you that you could not purchase a four bedroom home, because you only have two children, and therefore don't "need" four bedrooms? Would you agree to the government telling you that you do not "need" a SUV, or "need" to get your ears pierced, or (you fill in the blank)?
Are you too inept to make your own decisions? Need some government nanny to make your decisions? Why cannot law-abiding citizens own what they want? Others seem quite willing to impose on me. BTW, I am a USMC veteran, 1974-1981. Pay my taxes, sent my son to college, now someone tells me I cannot own something I want (did not say need)?
If guns kill, then mine are all defective. The Second Amendment is not about duck or deer hunting. It is about FREEDOM.
37 posted on 04/19/2003 8:17:52 AM PDT by Tahoe3002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: weaponeer
Please explain to me you would accept the Kyoto Treaty, the International Criminal Court, higher taxes, UN control of our foreign policy, partial birth abortion, and a liberal Supreme Court for the next two decades for the right to carry a rapid-fire assault rifle.

Thanks.
38 posted on 04/19/2003 8:19:05 AM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dane
OK.

Re-signs the AWB.

Can't get a decent tax cut through without doubling the size of government

anti-USA PATRIOT Act and it's more evil twin in part II. Neither of which have sunset clauses.

Farm Bill.

Border Policy.

Before the war talk went into high gear, there was Bush's stance on welfare benefits for illegal aliens.

Are you SURE Bush is a real "conservative"? The only thing right he has done so far is telling the UN to take a hike and going after Saddam.

39 posted on 04/19/2003 8:20:14 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
"I guess my dilemma is that we are a much different society than when the Founders wrote the Constitution, for which I have terrific respect. They were truly visionary.

They just never imagined that technology would allow the governmemt to have more advanced weapons than the people.

40 posted on 04/19/2003 8:20:21 AM PDT by two23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Right_in_Virginia
... for the right to carry a rapid-fire assault rifle.

So you feel it is ok to give up some of your Rights so that others may be left alone? How much of that type of barter before your Rights are gone altogether?

Sorry, I vote for neither option. No UN. No anti-Self Defense legislation. If a candidate cannot respect my Rights, then they WILL NOT get my vote. Nor anyone else's that I can get to see reason.

41 posted on 04/19/2003 8:25:10 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Are you SURE Bush is a real "conservative"? The only thing right he has done so far is telling the UN to take a hike and going after Saddam

And signing a PBA ban, sign a bill protecting gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits, promoting a tax cut(which a demo would never do), promting drilling in ANWAR,etc.etc.etc.

I know you would rather rant and not look at the whole picture, especially the legislative machinations of the process.

BTW, I thought you were never going to post to me again?

42 posted on 04/19/2003 8:27:01 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Dane
...a one issue malcontennt...
To me, you're a one note wonder and that note is always a sour one, no matter what the issue is.
Maybe I've just not seen your replies on the other issues I'm interested in.
I've yet to find a single thing I can agree with you on, much less an 80% mark.

I'll ask succinctly, and I hope to get a succinct answer...Is this legislation good or bad?

43 posted on 04/19/2003 8:27:23 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dane
I thought you were never going to post to me again?

It's been a while. I thought things may have changed. I guess not. Sorry about that...

44 posted on 04/19/2003 8:28:21 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
And if he is not convinced.......? the job of FReepers is to convince him.

We FReepers have a history of some failures:

Bill Clinton elected (twice!>

failure to have him removed when impeached

much legislation

If Bush signs a re-authorization, I'm going back to the Libertarians. Yes, it means a Demo being elected. So be it. Let's get it over and tell Claire that it's time.

45 posted on 04/19/2003 8:29:00 AM PDT by weaponeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Dane
IOW, a statement made by a one issue malcontennt ...

Yep, I am a one issue malcontent. It's called the Constitution. I already know your feelings on this issue from previous posts.

46 posted on 04/19/2003 8:31:06 AM PDT by weaponeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
I'll ask succinctly, and I hope to get a succinct answer...Is this legislation good or bad?

Bad, but I can understand the administrations position. This is a time bomb waiting to go off 2 months before an election, by taking this position the administration shields itself from the bombardment of the mainstream press ready to pounce and shout, "Bush hostage to gun lobby".

Like I said before, the place to kill this legislation is in the House, where 2nd Amendment issues actually can make or break elctions.

47 posted on 04/19/2003 8:33:22 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Feinstein and Schumer Welcome President Bush's Support of Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization

The fact that Feinstein and Schumer are welcoming ANYTHING by Bush should tell GW that he is on the wrong side in this issue. The other other problem is - GW took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Asssault Weaons Ban is a direct assault on the Constitution.

For all the positives GW has shown since being elected, he is going to alienate many 2nd Amendment defenders as well as strict Constitutional conservatives. I sure hope this isn't the start of a year of pandering to build votes. If so, I won't vote for him next time.

48 posted on 04/19/2003 8:34:35 AM PDT by TheBattman (Kid Control, not Gun Control)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right_in_Virginia
Please explain to me you would accept the Kyoto Treaty, the International Criminal Court, higher taxes, UN control of our foreign policy, partial birth abortion, and a liberal Supreme Court for the next two decades for the right to carry a rapid-fire assault rifle. Thanks.

I wouldn't accept them. They would happen anyway. It's not about the right to carry a radid fire assault weapon. (I don't and I wouldn't.) It's about FREEDOM. Something too few people understand around here.

49 posted on 04/19/2003 8:35:14 AM PDT by weaponeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Right_in_Virginia
>em>"Please explain to me (why) you would accept the Kyoto Treaty, the International Criminal Court, higher taxes, UN control of our foreign policy, partial birth abortion, and a liberal Supreme Court for the next two decades for the right to carry a rapid-fire assault rifle."


The rest of the things you mention may come and go but my right to keep and bear arms is as dear to me as my life.

50 posted on 04/19/2003 8:35:38 AM PDT by bruoz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-369 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson