Assault weapons ban renewal picks up Republican support.

[feclnogn]

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Three Republican senators agreed Tuesday to support renewal of the soon-to-expire assault weapons ban, a small victory for gun control proponents as the Senate prepares to wade into several contentious gun issues this election year.

The GOP-controlled Senate plans to take up legislation Wednesday that would immunize gun manufacturers and distributors from lawsuits that arise from crimes in which guns were used.

Senate Republicans have enough votes to approve the legislation. Democrats plan to force votes on at least two other gun issues they want to attach to it, however, amendments to renew the assault weapons ban and to require background checks for all purchasers at gun shows.

Gun rights groups plan to urge majority Republicans to defeat both measures. The GOP-controlled House already has said it does not plan to approve the extension of the assault weapons ban.

"To protect the future of America's millions of gun owners, it is vital that the Senate pass (the lawsuits immunization bill) without any antigun amendments," the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action said on its Web site.

The White House also urged the Senate to pass the legislation without amendments.

"The administration urges the Senate to pass a clean bill, in order to ensure enactment of the legislation this year," the White House said in a statement. "Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable."

Getting the 1994 assault weapons prohibition renewed has been a Democratic priority this year. They picked up support Tuesday from GOP Sens. John Warner of Virginia, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

"Although I voted against the ban a decade ago, over the past 10 years it has reduced crime dramatically and has made our streets safer," Warner said. "The legislation also has protected the rights of gun owners better than many of us predicted."

The three GOP senators' support does not guarantee the amendment's approval in the Senate, but "this gives the effort to renew the assault weapons ban new momentum," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a sponsor of the original assault weapons ban.

Republicans, along with several Senate Democrats, have been pushing for the gun immunity legislation for some time. Gun advocates say firearm makers shouldn't be forced to spend millions of dollars fighting off lawsuits designed to win large rewards and bankrupt them for making legal products.

"The manufacturer or seller of a legal, nondefective product should not be held liable for the criminal or unlawful misuse of that product by others," the White House said.

Democrats like Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota agreed to get behind the legislation after gun supporters accepted a specification that firearms manufacturers and distributors would not be protected from lawsuits that involved defective products or illegal sales.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040225/ap_on_go_co/gun_lawsuits_1

If this goes through and Bush were to sign this bill I think I will be looking to vote for Nader. Gonna have to give Pete Domenici's office a call.

 

[dgibson]

Democrats plan to force votes on at least two other gun issues they want to attach to it, however, amendments to renew the assault weapons ban and to require background checks for all purchasers at gun shows.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. The industry protection bill should have been wrapped up before the "assault weapon" ban renewal came up as an issue. Now, the gun control puppets are going to try to tie it all together into one big bill. That way they'll win a battle regardless of which way the vote goes. Connecting individual pieces of legislation together like that ought to be against Da Rules!

 

[Hangar18]

...They picked up support Tuesday from GOP Sens. John Warner of Virginia, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

"Although I voted against the ban a decade ago, over the past 10 years it has reduced crime dramatically and has made our streets safer," Warner said...

Reduced crime?? There was never any crime related to semi-automatic rifles in the first place.

No hard data exists to support his statement. The only affect this and the Brady bill have had on anything is a slight reduction in suicide of people 55 or older. What a waste of time and money.

Yeah, I know, preaching to the choir...

 

[pawclaws]

Actually I would think that including or excluding the assaults in schools since the ban would affect the overall stats in terms of numbers of incidents and deaths. You are right though; that statement is a pretty bold one to make without supporting evidence which I presume simply does not exist. By the way did you guys know that informal study results strongly indicate that felatio reduces the risks of breast cancer in women?

 

[Tom]

Here's the list of "assault weapons" bills in the house and senate.

S.2109 by Finstein (and 11 others), To provide for a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c108372EgG::

S. 1034 by Finstein (and 8 others) To repeal the sunset date on the assault weapons ban, to ban the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:3:./temp/~c108372EgG::

H. R. 143 by Nadler (alone),To prohibit the importation of dangerous firearms that have been modified to avoid the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons .
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:4:./temp/~c108372EgG::

S. 1431 by Lautenberger (and Corzine), To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:5:./temp/~c108372EgG::

H. R. 2038 by McCarthy (and 69 others) , To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:6:./temp/~c108372EgG::

Now, the status of them? Its at the web site, if we want to follow them and do something usefull, like write our representatives. Suggestions anyone?

 

[Tom]

That one with 70 sponsors (HR2038) wants to ban the M1 Carbine, an SKS with a detachable magazine, and a Sturm,Ruger Mini-14 and a whole list of other guns. Man, that's bad stuff.

 

[feclnogn]

I sent a letter to Senator Domenici and expressed my concerns about this bill. I let them know that if this goes through and Bush sign it that more than likely they will loose both the Presidency and the senate. I have not heard back from them. From a pure politacal move by the dems this is brilliant on there part. It was stated above by dgibson that no matter what Bush does he loses. Bush can not afford to loose his base. If he signs a bill with this shit attached to it he is toast.


If you want your M1 ya better get it quick, looks like they might be next.

****ers

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by pawclaws:
Actually I would think that including or excluding the assaults in schools since the ban would affect the overall stats in terms of numbers of incidents and deaths.

Now there is a brilliant statement of the obvious...

Also, including/excluding the number of hang nails each gun owner gets while shooting an assualt weapon would affect the numbers. It would seem like any 3rd grader would be able to tell somebody that including or removing numbers would change the answer.

Hey Fecl,

So if Bush signs, who do you vote for? Are you forced to start picking among the "lesser of two evils", or do you not vote?

If you can't vote for Bush because of this, and you can't vote for Kerry because of Viet Nam, then what?

Not trying to start a flame war, just trying to understand other's thought processes. The two issues you use for lithmus tests don't register on the list of issues I evaluate candidates on, so I am just looking for differing perspective, as I have yet to decide/eliminate anybody.

 

[feclnogn]

and you can't vote for Kerry because of Viet Nam

Actually what Kerry did in VN is not going to influence my vote. What he did after he got back does. I grew up in a Military family, my father is a fighter pilot. My father was also in the Guard and was called up and he flew F-100's in 68 and 69. (I can tell you there will not be very many VN era fighter pilots voting for Kerry) Any one who would associate themselves with someone who would be photographed with an individual smiling in an anti aircraft gun is not worthy of my vote. Nor are they worthy of being Commander in Chief. About 20 years ago my dad introduced me to a pilot who flew 105's into NVN and was shot down. When he bailed out he broke both arms on the cockpit rails of his plane. The VC made sure while he was in Hanoi that his arms never quite healed the way they should. He was permanetly disfigured by that. He had to listen to JF tell them they were baby killers and all of that crap. That left an impression on me BIGTIME. That is enough reason not to vote for Kerry.

As far as who to vote for if Bush signs a loaded bill? Dont know there. I have voted every election since I was 18. Maybe I will write in Mickey Mouse. I will not vote for people who chip away at the 2nd amendment. Is that shallow? Hell I dont know.

scott

 

[JoseCuervo]

"Is that shallow? Hell I dont know."

I am not sure if it is shallow either. It does look like it ends up "painting you into a corner". With no options.

Do you call it a "Draw", and then look at your 3rd most favorite issue?

The thing with your Dad, and other pilots is interesting. I look at it as a choice between somebody who went to Viet Nam, did their job, earned their medals, came home, decided they didn't like what they saw, and tried to stop it. Or, somebody who did not want to go, pulled strings, and may or may not have spent time reporting for duty in a Guard unit.

If I would have been asked, I would have guessed the guy who hung out in Texas would be less likely to get the vote of the Vets than the guy who served and then protested.

Hey Cali,

Can you provide any insight on this? What is the "Honorable" thing? To avoid service via the Guard , or comply, serve, and then protest?

Again, not trying to start an argument (I can do that on plenty of other issues...) just trying to understand/educate myself on an issue that seems like a "million years ago" to me.

 

[MarlandS]

Gunner , it might seem like a million years ago to some of us but there are others who still relive it almost nightly.

If you don't mind, I'll answer your question to me from the other thread here. I never vote my wallet, I've been able to make money and prosper or survive no matter how the economy is going.

I'm not convinced that the economy would be any better had Gore won the election. I'm pretty positive we would not have gone to War, but I also tend to believe the path of inaction the alternate administration would have likely taken would have hurt the economy just as badly since there would have been a greater possibility of more attacks on our soil.

I tend to believe the
War has helped the economy by giving the consumer a sense of security, I know this sounds weird but give it a bit of thought.

 

[dgibson]

Gunner, let's take a slightly different tack to your interesting questions. We all know your opinion of Bush's environmental policies (and they are legitimate concerns). What do you think Kerry will do to improve Your Own Private Idaho? Has he gone on record about environmental issues at all? The generic "I want to improve the environment" doesn't count...any idiot can say that. Is Kerry's position strong enough to justify abandoning other issues?

 

[Tom]

Wow,

Anti-s 3, pro 0.

I understand it better now, but its wierd.

1. The stop the frivolous lawsuit bill, S1805, was a pro-gun bill supported by 55 senators, a majority.
2. They added an trigger lock ammendment last week.
3. They added the Finstien ban guns ammendment yesterday.
4. They added the McCain gun show loophole yesterday.
5. Then they voted on the lousy ammended S1805 and killed it all big time. 8 for 90 against.

None of it passed.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113046,00.html

[ 03-03-2004, 08:05: Message edited by: Tom ]

 

[Nemont]

EG,
Did you vote for Bill Clinton who took a student deferment to England as a Rhodes scholar? Is service in Vietnam is the acid test to be president? I happen to think Kerry is to be lauded for his heroic service but does not mean he should be president. Have you looked at his voting record in the Senate? It would be difficult to pick out anything that was beneficial for anywhere in the West. Anyway Dubya is still a better alternative, IMO, to Kerry.
Nemont

 

[feclnogn]

Gunner I can almost guarantee that "most" VN vets will not vote for Kerry. As far as Bush in the Guard, my dad was in there also and served. He joined in 1960 before the VN war and was called up in 68. He retired in 1997 or 8, dont remember which year to be exact. My dad has a great deal of respect for Bush. None for Kerry. This holds true for all of the guys I know who served in the war. I asked my dad about all of this to get his perspective and he said he does not think most folks will really give a shit one way or the other what Bush did or what Kerry did after the war saying it was 30 to 40 years ago depending on what year you served. Time goes on a people forget or just plain move on.

On a side note I just saw on the news that the Republicans killed the bill thus my above worries are now a mute point. Too bad they could'nt get it through clean. To date I think that all of the suits against gun makers have been thrown out so hopefully that will continue.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by dgibson:
Gunner, let's take a slightly different tack to your interesting questions. We all know your opinion of Bush's environmental policies (and they are legitimate concerns). What do you think Kerry will do to improve Your Own Private Idaho? Has he gone on record about environmental issues at all? Is Kerry's position strong enough to justify abandoning other issues?

D-Gib,
That is a fair point and a good question. Unfortunately, since I live in Idaho, we are not allowed to participate in Presidential Elections.

There are just not enough delegates for the Candidates to come and make promises to us. Dean did come twice, so he was at least going to earn my research into his positions. Just before the Idaho Caucus, both Kerry and Edwards trade E-mail with a reporter from the Idaho Statesman.

I was hoping to have some choices, but it looks like Edwards just bowed out, so now it is either Bush, Kerry, Sharpton, or Kocinich.

We know that Bush is Anti-Hunting and Anti-Fishing, so we can use his as a "baseline" to compare others.

Here is Kucinich's Position on Welfare Ranchers.

Public lands ranchers have permanently destroyed millions of acres of lands in the arid regions of the West, yet they provide only 3 percent of the nation's beef supply. The cost for a rancher to use public land for grazing is a mere $1.35 per month for a head of cattle, compared to approximately $10 per month on private lands. According to the Cato Institute, a conservative D.C. think tank, public lands ranchers receive $200 million in direct subsidies yearly. Indirect subsidies and public assets liquidation cost the taxpayers billions per year. The Bush Administration has just extended water rights to ranchers that feed on public lands. President Kucinich would stop the ranching on public lands.

I tried to find Sharpton's stance on Hunting and Fishing, but could not. I did, however, find the picture of him with the Honeys.

As for Kerry, He has came out in favor of a "Salmon Czar" who would report directly to him. He has said he is not willing to discuss breaching the dams yet. (In contrast to Bush who said "NEVER".) His wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry is not only credited with saving the historic Galena Lodge from the wrecking ball, she is a major backer of other causes in central Idaho.

John Kerry will enter into a “Conservation Covenant” with the American people to tread lightly on the public lands and protect and restore our nation’s parks and other treasures for the benefit of future generations. As part of the covenant, John Kerry will implement the Endangered Species Act in a cooperative manner that extends the benefits of wildlife and habitat protection to public and private lands. He will put new teeth into requirements that private companies who lease public lands return the land to its original state. The Covenant will reinvest royalties obtained from extracting resources from public lands back into protecting our lands, and require that before remote public lands are opened up to new resource development, the federal government evaluate the long term economic and environmental costs associated with such actions.

I then went to Bush's Environmental Website and tried a Find on the word Hunting. Found nothing. Tried Salmon, found nothing. Tried Welfare Ranching, found nothing. I did find the excerpt from his speech last summer:

But thanks for coming. It's such an honor to be here at the Ice Harbor Lock and Dam. I find it interesting that another Texan came to dedicate the dam. Vice President Lyndon Johnson dedicated this unbelievable facility in 1962. He said it's "an asset of astounding importance to the region and to America." He was right in 1962. And when I tell you its an asset of astounding importance to this region of America in 2003, I'm right, as well.

Given that Ice Harbor is one of the Dams I am planning to have breached, we seem to be at odds on this issue.

So D-Gib, now it looks like, on the Democrat side, I have to decide between the Vison and Leadership of Kocinich and his call to end Welfare Ranching or confidence in Teresa Heinz-Kerry on the other side being able to convince John Kerry about the importance of My Own Private Idaho.

On the GOP side, it looks like my choice is just Bush. So I have to decide if being a beneficiary of the Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest 2% have helped me enough to overlook his other shortcomings.