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."
Did he bother to mention that the same guns, and more, will remain banned under California law? .... Never mind, stupid question.
No, Mr. Recklaus, (appropriate last name, by the way), it has to do with the right of the people as enumerated by the Second Ammendment of the Bill of Rights, to keep AND BEAR arms.
Even then it won't be over. The first time some wacko uses a newly purchased "Ugly Black Gun" to shoot up a public place, the circus will start again. Maybe even before, since gun banning elitists don't really need any excuses to try to ban buns.
Opening his big yap on the issue shouldn't be neccessary, his voting record, and bill sponserhip record (such as it is) speak for themselves. He'll ban any gun, anytime he can get away with it. He'll pack the Courts with like minded folks (which won't be hard since anyone he'd consider would probably already be "living document" type) and then steer a case or two to them to get the second amendment declared a "right" of the federally funded National Guard" once and for all. (But see my tag line)
It IS sunsetting next month; plan to vote for W on Nov 2, FRiend. I'm in the same foxhole, as you.
Thank Tom DeLay & Co.
Better for Bush to veto it, and retain the conservatives who'll vote for him, than to sign it, and still lose the moderate voters. Remember, at least two-thirds of these so-called "moderates" (and gun-grabbers) you mentioned are not going to vote for Bush no matter what. He could repeal the 2nd Amendment and they still won't vote for him.
These dumbass RINOs need to be flushed out of the party. That's what I'm worried about. An Olympia Snowe or an Arlen Specter will open their mouths about the need to "come together" or some other crap and force Bush's hand.
Which is why the only way it could concievably be renewed would be as an amendment to a bill originating in the Senate, which has too many RINOs and too few pro 2nd amendment Dems, to prevent passage on some "must pass" legislation. Maybe the Homeland Security budget, or another supplemental to pay for the war on the Jihadies. It only takes a sentence or two to renew the ban, and it could be something like:
"Section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (18 U.S.C. 921 note) is amended by inserting `, or in the case of the amendments made by section 110102, 20 years,' after `10 years'."
(In fact that exact language is in HR 3831).
Put that in as a last minute floor amendment at oh-dark-thirty, and no one will even know what it means. Just such a last minute floor amendment (to the Firearm Owners Protection Act) resulted in the ban on new production of machine guns for sale to individual citizens. Put that into the Homeland Security budget appropriations or authorization, and it might just pass. If the conference commitee meets soon enough after passage it might slip by that, and by the other house, which would probably be the House.
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.