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."

[ThirstyMan]

I was merely answering the basic criticism that governments with tanks, jets and nuclear weapons can instantaneously squash rebels armed only with small arms, rockets and grenades.

OK and thanks for the clarification. There is a role for small arms in any defense or offense. The way the attack waves have worked in the last two Gulf Wars has been to apply so much military might ["soften"] that by the time their use is appropriate, to pull the trigger seems futile. The assumption that the American military could be engaged to wage this kind of war against its own citizens is a rediculous assumption reserved for the conspiracy nuts, imho.

[ez]

There is no upside to Bush's maintaining this "promise". He is doing so because he must honestly believe black guns are evil and have no place in modern America.

I will vote for him anyway as I have no choice. Any Democrat would be worse on RKBA.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I just honestly disagree with your analysis. If you searched my history, you would find me both a passionate advocate of the Second Amendment and a strong Bush supporter. I refuse to believe he thinks black guns are evil...damn, he's from Texas.

I think a lot of soccer moms and mushy moderates who ARE for abortion voted for Bush because his "compassionate conservatism" made him seem unthreatening, and they wanted the White House sterilized and the Oval Office sink replaced. I also think he would lose many of their votes if he gave Chris Matthews et al a chance to hammer him for a year over how he broke a campaign promise "just like Dadday."

Not to mention, I don't think he'll lose that many votes on the right, as your last two sentences indicate.

Thank you for a civil discourse...

[TLBSHOW]

bump

[TLBSHOW]

bump

[votelife]

bttt

[votelife]

bttt

[Little Ray]

So we can't discipline our own, 'cause we might get sumpthin' worse, boo hoo.

Fine, we get a Democrat. Its getting hard to tell the difference anyway.

[Monty22]

Why bump this? It's almost a year old now. Any news on the status of these bills? If Delay says no, it'll be no I figure.

[votelife]

I bumped it for 2 reasons. One, everyone on this site got really agitated last year. It's been a year, nothing's happened. So maybe Delay has axed it.

Or it still could come back, in which case a few well placed calls couldn't hurt.