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."

[Dead Corpse]

... 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.

[Dane]

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?

[philman_36]

...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?

[Dead Corpse]

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...

[weaponeer]

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.

[weaponeer]

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.

[Dane]

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.

[TheBattman]

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.

[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.

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.

[bruoz]

>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.

[ThirstyMan]

Well Put!

[ApesForEvolution]

Do you support a Constitutional Convention then?

That's because that's the next logical step in your failed logic. Sorry, but if the Constitution is not exactly what it says, it will be replaced eventually.

The world communists have a manifesto they're trying to replace it with.

But, of course, the RKBA 2nd Amendment is the lynch pin...which is slipping out as we type.

[two23]

"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?"

NO! How about if someone told the press they could not use electronic keyboards, but had to control the speed of delivery of news, by having to use a manual type-writer and one finger only? How about if before the press could publish in a newspaper, they had to pay a fee, submit fingerprints and under-go a backround check and and while travelling had to keep the type writer in the back seat and the paper in the trunk? (sound absurd? well it is)

"This laying of moral blame for violent crime at the feet of the law-abiding, and the implicit absolution of violent criminals for their misdeeds, naturally infuriates honest gun owners."

I abhore porn, liberal newspapers and Archie Comics, but for me to want them banned would mean I have no respect for the 1st Amendment. Why is it that the 2nd gets hacked and whittled but if someone went after the 1st, there would be civil HELL to pay?

"The Bill of Rights is the list of the fundamental, inalienable rights, endowed in man by his Creator, that define what it means to be a free and independent people, the rights which must exist to ensure that government governs only with the consent of the people."

[Belial]

Yes. Anything other than a direct reading is indefensible.

I seriously doubt the founding fathers had modern weaponry in mind when they wrote the second amendmant.

Do you really think it's a good idea for anyone to be able to buy a machine gun? That would fall into this argument. Maybe even a shoulder-held SAM launcher.

[ApesForEvolution]

What an assinine argument on your way to wiping your back end with the Constitution...

[annyokie]

I don't have a dog in this fight. I am trying to gather information.

[ThirstyMan]

It's not about the right to carry a radid fire assault weapon. (I don't and I wouldn't.)

Why don't and why wouldn't you?

[wku man]

"I guess my dilemma is that we are a much different society than when the Founders wrote the Constitution..."

You are absolutely correct, ma'am, and in most ways the changes haven't been for the better. Again, the principles of freedom we were founded upon never change, though. Regardless of what we've become, and what we will become in the future, we are still "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (if they'd left it 'property', it would've solved a whole lotta problems!)".

"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."

I don't think for a second you're being a wise guy...it's a very good question. Rule changes in sports are always debated, and no matter what the oputcome, some fans are always disappointed. So what good are the rules then? That's open to debate.

The difference is that football is a sport, not our Constitution. If the instant replay rule is changed, it affects the way a game is played. It directly affects the relatively few players and owners, but to everyone else it's just water cooler and sports page discussion. If the AWB is extended, especially now, when the stage is better set than at any other time in my memory to start rolling back ridiculous gun laws, everyone's rights have been affected in a way that that we'll likely never be able to correct. The momentum of the left toward total registration/confiscation of firearms will be bolstered. We simply can not play fast and loose with our freedoms, as the NFL plays fast and loose with the rules.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[TLBSHOW]

we sure do have our job cut out for us......

DEMOCRATS SAY "JUMP", REPUBLICANS ASK "HOW HIGH?"

http://www.conservativeusa.org/vote-rec99.htm

JOHN ASHCROFT LEADS EFFORT TO CRIMINALIZE POSSESSION OF GUNS AND AMMO

"In another sign of Republican distress over the gun issue, GOP leaders broadened an earlier proposal banning possession of semi-automatic assault weapons by juveniles to include high-capacity ammunition clips, as proposed initially by Democrats. The proposal, offered by Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.), was approved 96 to 2."

Reuters pointed out that "By a 96-2 vote, the Senate closed a loophole in a law that bans anyone under age 18 from buying a handgun. They extended that prohibition to youth purchases of semi-automatic assault weapons like Uzis or AK-47s. Two Republicans, Bob Smith of New Hampshire and Mike Enzi of Wyoming, voted no on the amendment by Missouri Republican John Ashcroft.

"They also accepted a Democratic ban on importing all high-capacity ammunition clips. Those clips, which let people fire scores of bullets without stopping to reload, cannot now be manufactured in the United States but are still imported. ..."

[philman_36]

Bad, but Bad, but I can understand the administrations position.
What is their to understand in "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".
Is that what you're calling "the administrations position"?
Would you rather the non-mainstream press, which has far more influence than the mainstream press after years of their shoddy work, shout "Bush hostage to gun control lobby"? Looks to me that that is what is happening, and rightly so.

You're all too aware of the incremental approaches of the Socialists (you've even used that as an argument against me basically calling me what I abhor) yet you shrug this off with your "but" position.
You know this is bad legislation and you know it is going to lose GWB votes if he renews the ban, but you and others are willing to hand over our political birthright for a mere four years in a game of political expediency!
I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand that way of thinking.