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

senate.gov ^ | April 16, 2003 | Democrats Feinstein and Schumer

[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."

[IronJack]

Some of the twists and turns have just really been humorous.

Let's just say that in some cases, Occam's Razor has been disposable, and that some of these "defenses" border on the absurd. But blind faith in one's god often calls for such denial of reality.

[Shooter 2.5]

Let the policians know that we are going to use the votes they had made on the Assault Weapons Ban as a check list during the next election.

[Betty Jane]

So you liken me to some anti-Semitic loon because you disagree with my look on a future Civil War. You then question my confidence in the American people while saying that you want to preserve our Democracy. Well, to me your faith in the people in government is illuminating.

I hope George Bush does the right thing and stands by the Constitution. This country is a Republic, not a Democracy. If it were a democracy, slavery would have lasted another 50 years or more.

Polticians who don't stand by the Constitution will one day push the American people too far. First, there will be attempts at the ballot box. Hopefully, these will be successful, but with people like you who trust politicians more than their fellow citizens that possibility is becoming remote. Then, it will be time for the bullet box.

I'm sorry if the thought of armed Americans scares you. You're hoplophobia is something you will have to learn to deal with. For many people gun ownership is the final line in the sand. We have put up with the disparaging of ouor values in relation to religion, abortion, preferences, education, etc. This is the final straw for many people.

You may prefer the slavery of yourself or your children, but I, and millions like me bon't. May your chains rest lightly upon you.

[Dane]

You may prefer the slavery of yourself or your children, but I, and millions like me bon't. May your chains rest lightly upon you

And the anthem of the AK-47 drama queens whines on.

[templar]

Let the policians know that we are going to use the votes they had made on the Assault Weapons Ban as a check list during the next election.

Yeah, I know that strategy. But I've never seen it work well. there always seems to be some more pressing issue that arises that makes a vote for the "lesser of evils" imperative no matter what has been done in previous terms. Read back on this thread and see how many posts are already saying we should support Bush even if he does support and sign an AW ban and other leftist stuff because the overall conservative issues are more important and make it O.K. for him to have pushed a liberal and anti-constitutional agenda, created a bigger governmnet, more government regulations of our lives, bigger pending and greater deficits, more globalism, etc. (i.e. watch the probable flames for this statement, or similar statements by other posters)

Maybe I'm just becoming jaded from age, but I haven't sen any genuine conservative gains in my lifetime; all I've seen is the gradual shift of what is called conservativism (in politics) toward the left so that what we now consider conservative would have been considered liberal, even communistic, when I was young. Still ... I will vote for those who represent what I believe in, not the ones who try to convince me they are the lesser of evils. I know I am probably the only voter who feels and votes this way, but I have a clean concience and I feel no obligation to support those who go against my beliefs simply because I voted for them in spite of my beliefs.

[templar]

...and to continue, templar, you expect all future generations to continue to be able to exercise their RKBA from the ever-dwindling supply of pre-'86 guns and parts

I don't expect this. To be truthful, I don't expect the United States , as we know it now, to exist twenty years from now.

This is not the country I grew up in. It is not the country I went of to VietNam to fight for. It is the country that gives me less freedom as a middle aged and responsible adult than it gave to to me as a ten year old boy 45 years ago.

This has been done, to me and to my country, by the Republicans and the Democrats. But, of course, we MUST keep electing them since the alternative is unspeakably horrible. Or so I am constantly told, both here and elsewhere.

BTW, flame away, but I haven't voted for a Democrat or Republican since Dole gave us the Brady Bill.

[Jarhead_22]

Thanks for the answer to my question. I have never entered a dialogue on this subject before.

Information exchange is what it's all about.

I am sympathetic to the case of honest citizens being armed for protection, although I personally do not own a "piece".

Just as it's my right to own one, it's your right to go without, if that's your choice. To each his own.

If we restrict the supply of arms to an enemy are we then weakening the U.S.?

I'd need more information, and maybe an example, to answer intelligently.

[El Gato]

Just because the way things trully work at the present time results in some nasty governmental consequences if one violates those restrictions, doesn't mean those restrictions are not an infringement. In fact it indicates that they are. Remember that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to individuals making up the people, it applies to the government. Your distinction between liberty and freedom is incomprehensible. Although there is a distinction to be made, you haven't made it.

[El Gato]

Again, don't argue some fantasy world stuff, just go out and do these things to get an understanding of how the real world works

I'm fully aware of the way the real lworld currently works, but I thought we were discussing how the world is supposed to work, according the Constitution. We have a written Constitution, we should follow it or change it.

[CDHart]

Bush's stance on this issue makes absolutely no sense to me.

Carolyn

[templar]

Although there is a distinction to be made, you haven't made it.

It's simple. In it's most basic comncept Freedom is self control, Liberty is lack of restraint.

You could also look it up in a Black's. The definitions are similar, but not the same.

[El Gato]

Merkava. You're right...with the engine in the front, it not only has room in the back for a few troops, but the front mounted engine also provides the driver with that much more protection. It's a good tank for urban envoronments, but for open field maneuvering, I'd rather have the high speed of an M1/Challenger/Leo 2

It's probably pretty good for the hilly terrain of the Golan Heights too. That's Israel's primary threat axis now, although the Western front is resurgent these days.

[El Gato]

It didn't cost him the election in 2000, when he took the exact same position. Why should it make any difference in 2004?

If it remains only words, you are correct, but if he actually signs such a renewal, that's a much different thing than some campaign retoric. Besides, we were told the same thing in 2000, namely that it was political move, not something he would actually do. Now that he's President, he's painted himself into a corner. If the bill comes to his desk, he'll catch hell no matter what he does, but he'll lose more if he signs it that if he doesn't.

[IGOTMINE]

I beg to differ...in a country as politically divided as ours, it IS the idealogues that that shape the debate and bring in the votes. In 2000, I drained my 401K and donated every penny I could to the Bush campaign and pro-gun Republicans with an eye toward getting this heinous legislation sunset in 04. I knew in 1994 that Feinstein would be back for even more...this law has to go. I am tired of slowly being legislated into felon status.

[El Gato]

I just hope the posters are spending the same amount of time calling their Senators and Congressman as they are writing on these threads.

My Congressman is hopeless. Writing him is a waste of time on this issue. One Senator would probably vote for the ban, given that Bush has said he'd sign it, but probably could have been convinced to vote against if he had not done so. The other Senator is new, but I think he will vote against renewal and would despite what Bush says about signing the bill.

[IGOTMINE]

W is providing aid and comfort to the enemy with this public posturing. This will turn into another Campaign Finance Reform "victory", and we'll be one step closer to whatever will happen in this country when they attempt confiscation.

[El Gato]

The renewal won't make it out of the House.

That would be nice, but it would be nicer to know that they would have to get a supermajority of both houses to renew or extend this law.

[Brandon]

If it remains only words, you are correct, but if he actually signs such a renewal, that's a much different thing than some campaign retoric. Besides, we were told the same thing in 2000, namely that it was political move, not something he would actually do. Now that he's President, he's painted himself into a corner. If the bill comes to his desk, he'll catch hell no matter what he does, but he'll lose more if he signs it that if he doesn't.

I agree with you on this completely, and I think the White House is smart enough to know it's true, as well. I think they are taking a calculated risk, but it's not that much of a risk -- i.e., that the bill will never make it out of the House. If it does get to he President's desk, of course, they are going to have a very tough choice to make -- essentially a no-win position, because they will make somebody very angry no matter what they do. Which is why we need to focus our attention on Hastert, Sensenbrenner and the GOP House members generally. That's where the battle will be won or lost.

[Captiva]

Are we going to let a democrat get elected - which will be far worse than Bush?

That's the "tough guy" attitude I've been seeing in these discussions on the AW ban... Like they want it to become a self-fulfilling prophecy or something. I see the same thing when the NRA does something they don't approve of - they leave, leaving the NRA one member weaker instead of staying a member and having their voice mean something to the organization in an attempt to change it from within.

I for one am not that principled I guess??? I'm gonna keep up the good fight from the within the right side of the aisle & not just take my ball & go home in dusgust!

[El Gato]

So we have these militia types, saying they are trying to "protect" me and you by arming themselves to the hilt. They're preserving our "rights"? They don't represent me. They represent their particular pov and then resort to violence.

In point of historical fact you are more likely to get offed by some environmental wacko than a member of a self annointed militia. McVeigh was not a member of any such group, BTW. You mention the Will of the People, well the founding fathers put the second amendment in the Constitution so that the people would always be able to work their will on the government, if the government stopped listening on their own. This sort of thing has never happened, it's not likely to happen, but as Hubert Humphrey once said "The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." (from "Know Your Lawmakers", Guns, Feb. 1960, p. 4 (1960) )