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."

[TLBSHOW]

ping

[philman_36]

Things that make you go Hmmmmm...

[cynicom]

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.

[FreePaul]

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.

[TLBSHOW]

chuckie has it at his web site too...

http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01632.html

[philman_36]

I'm surprised it isn't tattooed across their "collective" backsides.

[Keeper of the Turf]

Don't vote for Bush then. A democrat will get elected which will give us the AW ban plus a whole lot more.

[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.......

[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.

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.

[Keeper of the Turf]

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?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

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?

[annyokie]

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.

[btcusn]

Things that make you go PUKE!!
Jack

[TLBSHOW]

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...........

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

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.

[ThirstyMan]

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!

[wku man]

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!

[dinodino]

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.

[Hacksaw]

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.