Skip to comments.
Uphill Battle for Weapons Ban
NewsDay ^
| 9 December 2003
| Elaine S. Povich
Posted on 12/09/2003 5:16:38 PM PST by 45Auto
In the decade since the Long Island Rail Road shooting and the nine years since Congress enacted a law to ban assault-style semiautomatic weapons, the world has changed, according to Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-Mineola). And not for the better.
That's why she and other gun-law advocates are pressing to extend the assault weapons ban enacted in 1994, a year after the LIRR shootings that killed six and wounded 19. The ban will expire in September unless Congress and the president act.
McCarthy, whose husband, Dennis, was killed and son, Kevin, gravely wounded in the shootings, and other backers of the law are facing an uphill battle.
House Republican leaders say they won't bring it up this year. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) does not have it "on the radar screen right now," said spokesman John Feehery. "We'll re-evaluate priorities for next session, but it's not on his priority list now."
President George W. Bush, who pledged in his campaign he would sign an extension of the weapons ban if it reached his desk, seems unenthusiastic about pressuring Congress to get it there.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: aw; ban; bang; banglist; fed; rkba
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
1
posted on
12/09/2003 5:16:42 PM PST
by
45Auto
To: 45Auto
President George W. Bush, who pledged in his campaign he would sign an extension of the weapons ban if it reached his desk, seems unenthusiastic about pressuring Congress to get it there.I'll bet he's very unenthusiastic about getting this piece of crap renewed, especially since it expires barely a month before the next presidential election.
2
posted on
12/09/2003 5:18:07 PM PST
by
45Auto
(Big holes are (almost) always better.)
To: 45Auto
This ban is so incredibly STUPID, that's the worst part of it.
It affects 'assault pistols', for some reason. That alone makes it a load of crap. 10 round magazines my butt.
And the only thing it 'bans' are cosmetic features. At this point even the banners know it doesn't make a difference, they just don't want the damage to their egos that would come.
3
posted on
12/09/2003 5:19:12 PM PST
by
Monty22
Comment #4 Removed by Moderator
To: 45Auto
I have better idea. Pass a law saying anyone without a criminal record and who has no history of mental illness can carry a concealed weapon on their person. That AND ONLY THAT, will forever end this type of mass murder in public places.
5
posted on
12/09/2003 5:31:26 PM PST
by
BenLurkin
(Socialism is Slavery)
To: Veracruz
No need to worry about our President's campaign pledges.
To: 45Auto
President George W. Bush, who pledged in his campaign he would sign an extension of the weapons ban if it reached his desk, seems unenthusiastic about pressuring Congress to get it there. As well he might be. He'd get hammered by his base if he signed such a thing and wouldn't get a single solitary vote from the people calling for it. This dawg won't hunt.
To: BenLurkin
You're right---why don't they pass a national concealed carry law? The right to carry is enshrined in the Second Amendment so there are no Federalism issues.
8
posted on
12/09/2003 5:40:03 PM PST
by
07055
To: 45Auto
Using illegal weapons is already banned. What the hell does a further ban on a specific
class of weapon do, when the weapon is already illegal in the first place?
We've got too many weapons laws on the books as it is. We simply need to stop analyzing criminals' childhood traumas and put them away for life. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200, do not parole after five years. Life sentence or death sentence, doesn't really matter to me-- although I prefer the latter.
That's the ONLY way we're going to be able to use laws to stop the lawless. Not more laws-- enforce the perfectly good ones we have now.
Otherwise, people are going to start taking the law into their own hands, or at the very least exercising their right to protect themselves. Is that what the Liberals fear?
9
posted on
12/09/2003 5:43:58 PM PST
by
Egon
(I'll still respect you... I'll respect you even more... Just use more whipped cream...)
To: BenLurkin
Guess that would leave out Jessica Lynch the survivors from her unit and probably all the MOH winners....from being allowed CCW...
10
posted on
12/09/2003 5:45:13 PM PST
by
joesnuffy
(Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
To: Billthedrill
We have to keep the pressure on. This is a very big win for freedom, if we can sunset this bill. It rolls back very stupid and invasive gun legislation. It will totally demoralize the anti-freedom types, who for decades have been saying that if only we cam make silencers illegal here, short barreled shotguns there, require an ID to buy, build registraton bases, etc, etc, etc, eventually we will make it so hard to own a firearm that the political base will be reduced and we can ban them all, just like in England.
It is the death of a thousand cuts, and this sunset not only heals some of the cuts, but puts a weapon in the hand of the victim.
To: Billthedrill
This bill can't even come up for a vote, can it? The Republicans control both houses and they decide what bills are voted on, right? Not to mention a fillibuster should it make it out of the House. The RATS have told us how necessary the fillibuster rules are---let's see if they like it used for something other than judicial nominees.
12
posted on
12/09/2003 5:46:11 PM PST
by
07055
To: joesnuffy
Please explain.
13
posted on
12/09/2003 5:55:17 PM PST
by
BenLurkin
(Socialism is Slavery)
To: 45Auto
"We'll re-evaluate priorities for next session" read: "We'll see how the next election is shaping up and decide how far over to the left we need to slither in order to stay in office".
Our task as gun owners will be to convince the RINO Republicans that if they budge one micron on this issue, we'll stay home on election day.
They can NOT get voted out of office by Demonrat voters angry over their NOT renewing the AW ban - the anti-gun lobby largely consists of Soros, Goldman, McKelvey, and their hirelings - but they CAN get voted out by our staying home. We need to make sure that fact gets impressed in their tiny minds on a regular basis between now and September.
McKelvey and his crowd are going to pull out ALL the stops on this. They know that having the AW ban sunset is a defeat they *cannot* afford - and they're going to try every trick in the book. Look for Senator "Treason" McPain on a TV station near you...
(speaking of which, each of us needs to put every media outlet in our area on notice IN ADVAnCE that if they air McKelvey's ads on this, when he inevitably comes out with them, we will stop watching and listening to their station *permanently*.)
14
posted on
12/09/2003 6:04:59 PM PST
by
fire_eye
(All leftists appear identical, when viewed through an ACOG...)
To: 45Auto
President George W. Bush, who pledged in his campaign he would sign an extension of the weapons ban if it reached his desk, seems unenthusiastic about pressuring Congress to get it there. If his goal in passing the Education expansion, and the Medicare expansion, was to triangulate and add moderate votes, it will all be for naught if he signs a new AWB. The conservatives (this one included), already on the fence about Bush, will abandon him in droves.
15
posted on
12/09/2003 6:10:19 PM PST
by
Tatze
(Give Pizza Chants!)
To: 45Auto
The AWB is a joke. How about terrible nasty evil doer of awful mean things applied to Ben Laden. I bet that would stop other terrorist as well as the AWB has stopped others from committing firearms offenses.
To: Tatze
I couldn't agree more. If the Republican-run federal government sells us out and renews any version of the AW ban, then we know for sure what the writing is on the wall and that we've all been bamboozled. At that point, this poor fool will secede from the Union, form his own country and declare war...
To: 45Auto
If gun bans worked so well then will somebody please tell me why Washington DC is the murder capitol of the USA?
18
posted on
12/09/2003 8:59:48 PM PST
by
Centennial
(It is later than you think....)
To: 45Auto
Vote for or sign this, lose my vote. That simple folks.
19
posted on
12/09/2003 9:03:37 PM PST
by
Dan from Michigan
("if you wanna run cool, you got to run, on heavy heavy fuel" - Dire Straits)
To: BenLurkin
He is probably referring to the fact that all those mentioned would be thought to likely suffer from PTSD. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of "counseling" is required now by the military for POWs or combat vets.
Personally, I would change your exclusion to anyone who had been institutionalized against their will. Why deny the right of self-defense to someone who voluntarily sought treatment for depression or something similar at some point in their lives?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson