Posted on 08/19/2004 10:21:25 AM PDT by 45Auto
If there's one issue on which Republicans usually agree, it's their strong defense of the Second Amendment. But less than two weeks before the GOP convention, moderates and conservatives find themselves at odds over the soon-to-expire semi-automatic gun ban.
In a clash with pro-gun Republicans, President Bush has publicly supported the ban on so-called "assault weapons" dating back to his 2000 presidential campaign. Although he hasn't actively pushed for an extension of the 1994 law, his spokesmen consistently reaffirm his support for it.
The law would sunset Sept. 13 without action from Congress. Republican leaders in the House of Representatives have refused to bring up the matter for debate, and with only four working days left before it expires, even the law's supporters acknowledge it is doomed.
At the same time, however, a band of moderate Republicans have stood in stark opposition to their more conservative colleagues in House leadership posts. They believe enough Republicans would join with Democrats to send a bill to the president's desk.
The Republican-controlled Senate has already voted 52-47 to extend the ban, thanks in part to 10 Republicans who broke ranks. Because the March 2 vote came in the form of an amendment to another bill, the legislation was later voted down in an effort to defeat the measure.
Differences of opinion among Republicans existed in 1994 at the time Congress approved the ban. As a result of that vote, former President Bill Clinton estimated it cost 20 Democrats their jobs, giving Republicans control of Congress.
Political observers disagree whether the stakes are as high today, but both gun-control advocates and Second Amendment supporters suggested Bush ought to tread carefully.
"President Bush has made some key mistakes, such as saying he would sign an extension of the gun ban," said Erich Pratt, spokesman for Gun Owners of America, which has voiced some of the most stringent criticism of Bush as a result of his support for the ban.
By essentially staking out the same stance as his Democrat challenger, Sen. John Kerry, Bush has hurt his reputation with gun owners, Pratt said.
"The president has almost shot himself in the foot in that he has taken away one of the huge magnets that pulled Democratic voters over to his side of the fence," Pratt told CNSNews.com.
Gun-control groups like Americans for Gun Safety have made much of Bush's support for extending the ban. One of its advisers, Matt Bennett, said there's little difference between Bush and Kerry as a result.
"On the major issues of the day, Kerry and Bush are virtually identical in at least what they say about the gun issue," Bennett told CNSNews.com. "Bush has said he supports extending the assault weapons ban, he said he supports closing the gun-show loophole, he said he supports cracking down on gun crime. These are the things Kerry talks about when it comes to guns."
That's what Pratt said worries him, especially if voters buy into that argument. It's not as much of a concern for the National Rifle Association, which downplayed the gun ban's impact on the presidential race.
"We actually don't think it will play a big role in the election because we're cautiously optimistic that it will sunset on Sept. 13," said Kelly Hobbs, the NRA's spokeswoman.
But those on the other side of the gun debate see things differently. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a leading advocate of renewing the ban, has predicted a backlash against Bush should he not actively campaign for an extension before Sept. 13.
"If it is allowed to expire, it will be President Bush's fault, and we'll let people know that," said Chad Ramsey, a regional director for the Brady Campaign. "He is responsible. It will have expired on his watch. If that's the case, there will be a backlash. People will be angry he let this happen, and people will probably show up at the voting booth with that in mind."
Republicans, meanwhile, aren't saying much. CNSNews.com was unable to reach any of the House moderates who have signed onto legislation to extend the ban. The most outspoken advocate, Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.), recently held a press conference with Jim and Sarah Brady.
Other House Republican who have bucked their party to support the ban include Reps. Doug Bereuter (Neb.), Tom Davis (Va.), Michael Ferguson (N.J.), Nancy Johnson (Conn.), Peter King (N.Y.), Mark S. Kirk (Ill.), Jack Quinn (N.Y.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.) and Christopher Shays (Conn.).
The more conservative House leaders, Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), have expressed little desire to bring up the matter for a vote.
In the Senate, the Republican defectors include Sens. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.), Susan Collins (Maine), Mike DeWine (Ohio), Peter Fitzgerald (Ill.), Judd Gregg (N.H.), Richard Lugar (Ind.), Gordon Smith (Ore.), Olympia Snowe (Maine), George Voinovich (Ohio) and John Warner (Va.).
"It is a divisive issue within the Republican Party ... between the moderates and conservatives," said Rob Recklaus, spokesman for Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), who has championed the issue. "It has to do a lot with the NRA leadership, which has the ear of the conservative wing of the Republican Party."
On the issue of the gun ban, however, Bush has strayed from his traditional conservative base. In Pratt's view, it would be best if the president kept his stance under wraps.
"I do think Bush is on one side of it and House leaders are on the other, but that being said, I don't really think it's an issue," Pratt said. "I don't think the president has a desire to push it. I don't think this is an important enough issue for the president. What he has said can only hurt him, but certainly, it won't hurt him as bad if he started actively pushing it."
It's about the politicaly smartest position Bush could take. I don't know whether it is intentionaly smart or it just works out that way. By saying he would sign the ban if it came to his desk, he wins points with the "soccer mom" crowd.... who, out of ignorance, believe it somehow makes thier kids safer. But Bush knows it isn't going to get to his desk ....therefore he doesn't have to loose points with us gun owners. He's not actively pushing it and he's not actively opposing it...he's just letting it whither on the vine. That's a savvy position. The real test will be to see what happens next year.
Everyone credits the Republican wins in the '90's with the institution of this ban.
No matter how the Liberal Dems or Liberal Republicans feel about the ban, they risk a backlash if they support its extension in an election year. There is no way to know how severe the backlash would be, but do they want to risk the potential will equal the '90's protest or exceed it?
We'll find out.
Those in the "gun culture" are the single largest "swing vote" out there as Bush the Elder got to find out.
The only thing this issue can do is lose votes for Bush, if the renewal bill makes it to his desk and he signs it. I repeat, this is the only thing that renewing the Assault Weapons Ban can do for Republicans.
I just hope that they know it, and don't imagine they can pull off some idiotic "triangulation" move.
If the ban sunsets, Bush will get the NRA's endorsement. They're just holding their cards close to the vest for now.
It is practically KILLING the gun grabbers to lose his battle. I wouldn't put it past them to arm some deranged lunatic with an "assault weapon" and turn him loose on the streets just to drum up more support.
And either not up for re-election or not likely to be defeated.
Yeah, right. One only has to luck at the Republican supporters of this crap, all from usual lib locales, the Maine girls, the New England and Midwest Girlymen, give me a break.
I think that Bush will have to come out with some sort of statement about his support for the 2nd Amendment before he gets the endorsement of the NRA. Maybe sometning like:
"During the past ten years, there was absolutely no change in crime that could even remotely attributed to the Assault Weapon Ban. Even before that, statistics show that assault weapons WERE NOT the preferred weapon of choice by criminals and were used in less than 1/10 of 1% of all violent crimes,
The vast majority of gun owners, well over 99%, are good law-abiding, hard working, citizens who are conscientious about the safety of their family, their neighbors, and their country. Prohibiting the ownership of a gun that is functionally no different from many guns over 100 years old will do nothing to deter crime but will unnessarily infringe upon their right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
For these reasons, it is my belief that there is no need to renew the Assault Weapon ban."
The GOP has been commandeered by all sorts of partially reformed liberals, opportunistic political slime and the paid minions of global money monders. The whole two party system has become a corrupt criminal enterprise.
Waiting until September 14 to put a Bush/Chaney sticker on the truck. It looks like I may be able to do that but it ain't over 'til it's over.
As Rogue Island said above, I'm much more worried how a "lame duck" Bush will hose us when he can no longer be punished by gun owners. We could get something far worse than the current ban. AWB 2 is clearly a large step to total confiscatory bans that the UN craves.
I figured The Beltway snipers using the Bushmaster would have been enough; notice how fast the main stream commie press dropped the whole issue when they found out the guys who did it were a Black Muslim and his butt boy instead of some crazy, rednecked white supremacist? If anything the fact that these guys had sympathy with MOOOslim Terrorists, and that the random sniping was right out of the Al-queda playbook, was a lesson that maybe, just maybe, a well-armed citizenry was a good idea. That's why the commies don't bring the episode up as a 'poster child' for gun control.
Yea, we already know how much the Bush kid's old man loves the UN and the kids don't seem to be independent thinkers.
Republican voters feel more strongly about this issue than the open borders idiocy.
Another reason for this incident not getting traction with the anti-gunners is that the rifle used was undoubtedly a post-ban gun. It was probably missing a bayonet lug, a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher, and a collapsible stock. It probably had a pistol grip.
The anti-gunners could have found themselves having to explain how the AWB failed to regulate what they are claiming justified the law. Further, they would have to explain how relevant the military features and appearance of a rifle fired from hiding in single-shot mode would contribute to the sniper's success. There has never been a hunting rifle made that would not have been just as effective.
Then they discovered repeating shotguns, etc., were also on the list. Then they got excited.
The gun grabbers are following their mother ship's (i.e., the former Soviet Union) protocol, viz., expansion in stages.
That's why we oppose gun laws.
thanks for the ping.
BTTT!
Even the Democrats are running from this issue now- why would republicans touch it.
Oh yeah. That is the truth. Needs to be repeated.
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.