Will House take up renewal of gun ban?

World Net Daily ^ | May 19, 2003 | Jon Dougherty

[Shooter 2.5]

The second-highest ranking Republican in the House believes renewal of a decade-old ban on so-called "assault weapons" is in doubt, primarily because he doesn't think the votes are there to extend it.

[votelife]

bump. clearly W is trying to get votes from banners and supporters. If this bill ever reached Bush's desk he'd get hammered either way.

[Shooter 2.5]

He's stuck with a promise he made during the campaign. He said he would sign it IF it reaches his desk. He also said we didn't need anymore gun control.

So that means if we can stop this thing before it reaches his desk, we won't have any more gun control and he'll probably sign the Gun Manufacturer's Protection Bill.

This fight really started back during the last election. It was the single most reason the NRA fought so hard to get A rated candidates in.

[RogueIsland]

Yes, he's certainly pro-gun. The way he's armed airline pilots has been very impressive.

I believe the President was opposed to the arming of airline pilots, at least initially.

[familyofman]

"No one in the Federal Government was to infringe on the arming of the citizenry aka the militia."
I still think it is disengenuous to not quote the entire 2nd Ammendment when referring to it. It is my understanding that the militias were under the control of the Govenors of their respective states.
Whatever, there should be a roll call vote on this issue. I want to know where my rep stands - I know what he says when it's election time - I want to see his vote.

[votelife]

i agree with you. I hope enough of the pro 2nd people stay with Bush and understand what is going on.

[ought-six]

"Of course, then there's the hard-core no compromise crowd he'll just have to ignore. Reality time, gang."

Well, the thing sunsets in Septmeber, 2004, two months before the general election. We'll all know just where he stands on this issue in September, 2004, if he finds the thing on his desk.

[Shooter 2.5]

The White House was against arming the pilots because the airlines were against it.

I didn't like that decision but I also wouldn't want to own a company and have the government tell me what to do. After the lawsuit protections were put into place, arming the pilots was started.

[Travis McGee]

Is he only bound by his word to pass EXACTLY only an extensino of the current AWB?

If a version is passed with more restrictions, such as a total ban on hicap mags etc, do you think he will use that as a reason to not sign it?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

You know where the well-regulated comes from?

It's no longer taught in school, but in the revolution, out of three ranks, most often only the first row had a gun. the second and third had a few shot and some powder. If the first rank fell, the second and then third would pick up the gun and use it. If the first rank had a small caliber squirrel rifle and the second rank had shot for a musket, it was useless. Therefore, the founders wanted everyone armed as much alike as possible and as well supplied as possible, preferable with the latest military model.

Not at all like today's government, who has become precisely what the founders were afraid of and put the second amendmnet in place for.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

There was the organized militia, under control of the state, and the unorganized militia, the whole of the people, designed to check the power of the state.

[Travis McGee]

"The moon being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The subordinate clause in no way restricts or affects the meaning of primary clause.

Put it another way:

"An eduacated electorate being necessary for the advancement of a civil society, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

This cannot be twisted to mean that books may only be kept at institutions of education, picked by educators, or anything else politicians might want it to say. It means THE PEOPLE can keep and read any damn book they want.

Same with the 2nd amd.

[Ravenstar]

But the militia could drill on its own if it chose though the Governor had primary Control and the President could request their help. See Post 29 above also.

Ravenstar

[Joe Brower]

"If a version is passed with more restrictions, such as a total ban on hicap mags etc, do you think he will use that as a reason to not sign it?"

Good question. I hope to keep the pressure up in the House and Senate so that we never find out. I wish I could say that I trust GW to do the right thing in this regard, but I can't. Fact if the matter is, I don't trust anyone in politics -- it's just too dirty a business. Us citizens have to bust our bananas to get the best of the lot elected, and then stand on their shoulders to ensure that they behave themselves. Nothing new.

GW should be smart enough to know that no matter what he does that may have some placating effect on the left, it's a false hope. They will hate him no matter what he does, so he's much better off making sure that he continues to please his base. As we well remember, the 11/2000 elections were a very, very close thing.

[Shooter 2.5]

The really hard core gun rights people knew then and know now exactly what he said back then.

We couldn't let gore in office and Bush is definitly a step up from what we could have had.

[Shooter 2.5]

That would be the perfect reason to not sign the Bill. He said he would sign IT if it reached his desk and when he said no more gun control, there's his "out".

[Travis McGee]

Good point about politics. We gun rights guys tend to see the AWB in isolation, but to the White House it is just one more chunk of meat in the salami machine.

Depending on other pending laws at the time, passing even AWB+ might be seen as a neccesary "sacrifice" to balance political effects.

[Travis McGee]

I hope so, but I fear the effects of the political salami machine.

[Blue Collar Christian]

Good analogy.

[Travis McGee]

I can't claim credit for it, and I probably mangled the best wording, but it is a good instructive analogy.

[George W. Bush]

Please do not post excerpts. We need the full material in our archives. Your excerpting actually reduces the research value of FR because your original link to WND will eventually change. Then all we have is a thread of comments and a few meaningless paragraphs. Embedding the text in our thread will make a permanent record. In many instances, after a few years, FR may be the only readily available free source of such information.

And your posting of the article blocks someone else from posting the article in full.

---

ON CAPITOL HILL
Will House take up renewal
of gun ban?
GOP's Hastert 'not ready' to support, oppose 'assault weapons' bill

---

Posted: May 19, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jon Dougherty
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

The second-highest ranking Republican in the House believes renewal of a decade-old ban on so-called "assault weapons" is in doubt, primarily because he doesn't think the votes are there to extend it.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, who doesn't support a reauthorization of the 1994 weapons ban and voted in 1995 to repeal it, has been one of the law's staunchest critics, saying it has done little to reduce crime and has instead robbed law-abiding Americans of their right to keep and bear arms.

"It is very simple. The votes to expand it aren't in the House," DeLay said during his weekly briefing Tuesday, in response to a question about the ban's renewal.

DeLay said, however, he hadn't discussed the issue with President Bush. And, as WorldNetDaily previously reported, Bush has come out in favor of renewing the ban, to the chagrin of some gun-rights groups and supporters.

Also ambiguous regarding the fate of the ban is House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois, who dodged questions from reporters Thursday about the ban's renewal.

"I had a discussion with Mr. DeLay [about] what he actually said to the press. I think he was trying to put his old whip's hat on and trying to figure out whether there are the votes or not," Hastert said when asked if he agreed with DeLay that a new bill reauthorizing the ban should not even go to the House floor.

"The bill has not been discussed by the leadership yet, and I have not had a discussion with the president yet. I am not ready to make that decision," he said.

The weapons law, which was part of a larger anti-crime bill passed early in the first Clinton administration, bans the importation or manufacture of more than a dozen military look-alike weapons, and limits ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

Critics of the law but supporters of the ban say weapons manufacturers, by slightly altering some cosmetic features, have largely skirted the law and are continuing to produce and sell military-style copycat weapons. They also say such weapons are a danger to society and to police, and have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people.

But supporters of allowing the ban to sunset in September 2004 say other than the appearance of such weapons, they are no different than scores of other semi-automatic rifles that were not affected by the original ban, in terms of functionality. Also, sunset supporters say the type of guns banned by the law are rarely used in crime.

Stuart Roy, a spokesman for DeLay, said two "schools of thought" were emerging within the GOP leadership regarding the ban. Opponents of reauthorizing it are divided in that some want to bring a bill to the floor so it can be defeated, while others say since there aren't enough votes to pass reauthorization legislation there is no point to even introducing one.

Roy also said his boss isn't personally interested in renewing the ban.

"The majority leader is not supportive of gun bans," Roy said. "He feels it's been very ineffective and he's skeptical of it."

Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have introduced legislation in the Senate to renew the ban. But for the House to take it up, Hastert would have to schedule it for debate.

Some Democrats not only want to renew the ban, they want to expand it to include other look-alike weapons. But Roy said a new ban wouldn't be dependent on Democrats, many of whom, he explained, opposed the 1994 ban anyway.

"The speaker is the highest-ranking Republican in the House," Roy said, "and he will have final say as to whether it gets scheduled or not."

Hastert remained non-committal regarding whether or not he would support a renewal of the ban.

"I need to have some discussions with the president and leadership before I make that decision," he said Thursday. "I am reserving my personal opinion."

Meanwhile, The America First Party officially joined a coalition of groups seeking to kill reauthorization of the weapons ban, an effort being promoted by gun-rights website KeepAndBearArms.com.

The "Coalition to End the Federal 'Assault Weapons' Ban" was formed shortly after Bush said he'd back an extension of the current law.

"We are proud to be the only political party so recognized and wish to thank the KABA for allowing us to participate in its strong stand in favor of the Bill of Rights," said party Chairman Dan Charles. "Allowing the ban on certain types of firearms to expire serves part of our larger goal of restoring the Second Amendment rights of all our citizens. …"

"A firearm, be it single shot or semi-automatic, is protected equally by the Constitution. A free people do not need permission to own guns," added Frank Hackl, Wisconsin America First Party chairman.