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."
Classic socialist/communist M.O. It is called "creeping gradualism".
It is how the socialist are taking over our country from within. Hillery couldn't take over American health care in one fell swoop, so they decieded to start with the children. We now have the CHIP program (Child Health Insurance Program). Next, we expand Medicare and Medicaid, and before we know it, we have socialized medicine.
A clash is wishful thinking on the part of the RAT media. Pubs are have no desire to tear apart their base over this. It's pretty clear that in one thing the Brady Bunch is correct: Bush and Hastert have a working stategery that allows the ban to expire while Bush can say he supported it's renewal. The whining you hear from the antis is their frustration that the plan is working. Their bluster about a groundwell of anger of the ban's expiration is just impotent fantasy.
Another "the Republicans are as bad as the dems" hit piece.
The article said only ten Republicans are anti-gun. They're anti-gun because they are in liberal states. Does anyone understand that? If they weren't RINO's, they wouldn't be elected and the dems would have control over the Senate.
Facts are facts. Without the RINO's we wouldn't have senatorial contol. And the numbers still show the Republican Party to be Pro-gun and the dems to be the anti-gun party.
Too many Freepers willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
So the solution is to tell both parties if they don't work to sunset, they won't be elected. If and when the sunset occurs, we still have to vote for the pro-gun party.
I volunteer to help teach the lesson.
The GOP is not called the stupid party for nothing.
Also just as important, these so called moderates are not really Republicans. They are liberals who found a home in the GOP and we let them stay. It's time to kick them all out.
"Other House Republican who have bucked their party to support the ban include Reps. Doug Bereuter (Neb.),. . . "
This 'Republican' is the one who just came out to oppose the war in Iraq. He claims that it was a mistake and based on faulty intelligence and he's not sure if it was deliberate or not. He is retiring from the House after 13 terms and accepting a position with the Asia Foundation.
This is what I found by going to their site (www.asiafoundation.org):
"Islam has long been highly influential in Indonesia's social and political landscape. Recognizing the importance of reinforcing inclusive and pluralist values within Indonesia's Muslim majority population, The Asia Foundation has been supporting a diverse group of mass-based Muslim groups since the 1970s."
Thanks for the ping. This hideous useless law will soon be behind us, I hope. That will be one down, 20,000 + to go.
What p!sses me off is that more people drown in this country than are shot by a weapon. Therefore logic would follow that we should outlaw WATER!
But whenever the RINOs have a chance, they'll shriek constantly about "their issues." Why is it that *they* are never told to "suck it up" and just patiently endure more 2nd Amendment rights, for instance?
The "assault" weapons ban does not ban semi-automatic guns, it only bans certain combinations of cosmetic features of semi-automatic rifles and large capacity clips.
I expect better reporting from CNS News.
They are interviewing democrats to come to the conclusion that Republicans are divided. Now ain't that cute.
Amendment XIX ping.
19th Amendment. Womens right to vote. Inside joke with biblewonk?
With a few exceptions, like the certifiable Carolyn McCarthy, there's hardly anyone in the House willing to even talk about renewing the Ban. Certainly nobody willing to put there name down.
It's dead. 23 days, 14 hours, 52 minutes.
bump
Always happy to engage others in the discussion. In the past we've chuckled about how, if not for Amendment XIX, the Second Amendment would not need defending.
Why are left of center Republicans always called moderates? I don't see the term applied to the very few right of center Democrats. {/rhetorical question}
You can tell this isn't from the MSM, especially not Reuters or AP, they would never admit that AGS is a "Gun Control Group".
He'll get it, but not until Sept. 14th and then only if the AW ban belongs to the ages at the time.
And if he's a Jihadie, so much the better. It will be "Bush's" fault for failing to protect us. Never mind that the Dems, especially sKerry, oppose every proposal to increase the protection.
If he wanted to say that, he could have said it months or years ago. The mandated by law study, which showed the ineffectiveness of the ban, was completed some time ago, IIRC. He's just hoping the issue goes away without him having to act one way or the other.
But if by some Satanic miracle the ban should pass Congress. He should veto it, out of political pragmatism if for no other reason. Vetoing, even a pocket veto would be fine, it won't lose him many votes that he would have gotten anyway. Signing it *will* lose him a pot-full of votes (and good campaign workers as well) that he would have otherwise gotten. If he and his political advisers have any sense at all, he will not sign the bill, and then he will make a statement similar to what you postulate, it could even simpler. "I changed my mind because the study showed the ban was not effective in reducing crime".
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.