Bad News for Gun Owners

[tex]

(Monday, April 14, 2003) -- In a surprise move this past weekend, the Bush administration announced its support for keeping the Clinton-Feinstein gun ban on the books.

The law, which bans common household firearms, is set to expire in September, 2004. But the Knight Ridder news agency had a startling revelation for readers on Saturday.

"The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

The "current law" McClellan was referring to is the ban on semi-automatic firearms and magazines (over 10 rounds) which was introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and then-Representative Chuck Schumer of New York.

The ban narrowly passed in both houses and was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

Most bad legislation lives on forever. But in an effort to corral fence-sitters in Congress, Senator Feinstein inserted a "sunset" provision into the bill. This provision means that the ban expires in ten years -- specifically, in September of 2004.

At the time, the sunset provision didn't seem like much of a victory. But it soon became clear that this provision would be our best hope for repealing the notorious gun grab. Recently, it was beginning to look like gun owners would have a better than average chance of winning.

Until the announcement this past weekend.

The White House's statement means that people will not be able to rely upon a presidential veto if Congress musters enough votes to extend the ban in the near future.

Despite the fact that both the House and Senate are controlled by Republicans, the majority of Congressmen are either fence-sitters or anti-gun.

It is quite possible that the gun grabbers can get 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House to reauthorize the semi-auto ban and make it permanent.

This makes the recent announcement all the more distressing. But Bush's position is not written in stone -- at least not yet.

Because the above quote was not made by the President himself or by his primary spokesman, Ari Fleischer, there is still some "wiggle room" that will allow the President to reverse course and do the right thing.

THAT IS WHY IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT EVERY GUN OWNER WRITE THE PRESIDENT AND URGE HIM TO REMAIN TRUE TO HIS CONSTITUTIONAL OATH OF OFFICE.

George Bush is President today because gun owners went to the polls and voted for him over Al Gore in 2000. Pro-gun voters delivered three key Democratic states -- Tennessee, West Virginia and Arkansas -- and with those states, the victory went to Bush.

This would be a horrible mistake if the President were to turn his back on gun owners and take a page out of the Clinton-Gore playbook. Perhaps this statement over the weekend was a "trial balloon." We can only hope so. If it was a trial balloon, then we need to "shoot it down" in a hurry.

It is absolutely vital that we succeed in inundating the White House in opposition to this ban. This unconstitutional law must be repealed. Otherwise, it will be used as a precedent to ban even more guns.

TOOLS FOR ACTION: Please use the pre-written letter below and contact the President today. Please visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written e-mail message President Bush.

------ Pre-written message ------

Dear President Bush:

I oppose the Clinton-Feinstein ban on common household firearms.

And that is why I was surprised to hear White House spokesman Scott McClellan say that you support the current ban, along with its reauthorization (Knight Ridder newspapers, April 12, 2003).

I am taken aback for a few reasons. First, you clearly ran on a pro-gun platform in your race for the White House in 2000. As a result, you were elected President because gun owners all over the country went to the polls and voted for you. Most notably, pro-gun voters delivered three key Democratic states into your column -- Tennessee, West Virginia and Arkansas. Without these three states, Florida would never have been an issue.

Second, former President Bill Clinton has repeatedly stated that passage of the 1994 semi-auto ban cost him control of the Congress. In other words, many Democrats lost their jobs because they voted for this ban. Gun control is a losing issue politically.

Third, the Clinton-Feinstein gun ban is clearly unconstitutional and outlaws the very guns and magazines that millions of people have relied upon to defend their homes and families. The website of Gun Owners of America gives the statistics showing that these banned firearms are rarely used to commit crimes or murders -- in fact, more Americans are killed by knives.

I hope that Scott McClellan was in error and that his statement does not represent your views. And so I trust you will be open and honest with me. Will you OPPOSE the Clinton-Feinstein semi-auto ban and OPPOSE its reauthorization?

Please let me know.

Sincerely,

****************************

[Tarhog]

Actually tex, Bush clearly stated when he was campaigning that he fully intended to extend the Feinstein bill. Not only that, but John Ashcroft who takes an incessant beating from non-conservative groups supports extending the ban (he said that on the record at his confirmation hearings and has supported similiar measures for his own state). I also take a little issue with characterizing this as an issue of 'common household weapons'. Assault rifles are common in collectors houses, but not the average Americans, and this does not impinge in any way on the right to own a standard pistol as a defensive weapon.

Don't get me wrong. I own weapons. I support gun owner rights. As I've stated before, my Dad is one of the top gun owner rights attorneys in the United States (as well as a former ATF and Dept of Justice agent). Generally, I'd be hard pressed to support any gun control legislation. The truth is that the government, including the ATF can't catch or control the real criminals (manufacturers, importersm and smugglers of truly illegal weapons) so they go after the average citizen on technicalities and victimless 'crimes'. I have first hand knowledge of some of their heavy-handed tactics. But I don't see the Feinstein bill as all that big a deal (I know many would disagree) because defending my home does not require an assault rifle.

[DIESEL TROLL]

Thanks for the tip TEX, glad to help out any way I can-:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

[codeorama]

Tarhog... Good points.

I don't need an assault rifle either. I'm not bothered by bans or limitations like that, but if I had to choose all or nothing, I would side in favor of gun ownership.

[Kilmer17]

It's a tough issue for me. On one hand I think the Constitution is pretty clear. But at the same time I think limitations are fine, and certain weapons should be banned. But once you start down that hill how do you stop? I certainly dont want national lists. BUt I think background checks should be mandatory and even take a few days. Nobody needs a gun RIGHT NOW!!!!!! Those people scare me.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

It's a tough issue for me. On one hand I think the Constitution is pretty clear. But at the same time I think limitations are fine, and certain weapons should be banned. But once you start down that hill how do you stop? I certainly dont want national lists. BUt I think background checks should be mandatory and even take a few days. Nobody needs a gun RIGHT NOW!!!!!! Those people scare me.

Kilmer, that's kind of where I was going... Each time that I have purchased a gun, the lengthy background check and so on didn't bother me at all. But I do understand some people's fear that once you start limitations, you are down the road to banning guns. I equate it to the abortion issue... it's not black and white. Some may not have problems with certain limitations, but again, once you start down that road, people fear that it will be made illegal, so when it boils down to a yes or no question, they would rather have abortion with no limitations only because of their fear that the limitations will eliminate it...

[joe]

I really don't think it is too tough to tell the difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle. Why does anyone need an automatic weapon? Why does anyone need a teflon bullet? This is why I canceled my NRA membership. To that organization, any incursion into the right to bear arms, which, btw, the NRA agrees does not stem from the 2nd amendment, unless you are talking about forming a militia, is bad. I don't see it like that. A bullet, the sole purpose of which is to go through a bullet proof vest, should not be sold. ditto assault rifles, which are not common even in the homes of gun collectors such as myself.

[codeorama]

joe, I have no problems with any of your points, if those bullets or assualt weapons were banned it wouldn't effect me one bit...

However, the other side of the argument is that IF you make limitations, they will grow and in time, guns will be banned all together. Most of us are smart enough to realize that it is doubtful that it would happen like that, but that fear is what causes the NRA to have the stance they do.

[Riggo-toni]

Actually, this ban doesn't involve any automatic weapons. The term "assault rifles" is a misnomer, or more accurately, a soundbite term only. Virtually all these so-called "assault rifles" were not really significantly different from other rifles in anything but appearance. As I understand it (and I admit, I am no gun aficionado), nearly all these rifles later re-emerged in similar forms on the market with just enough cosmetic changes to get them past the ban. So the bottom line is whether they repeal or renew this law is substantively irrelevant. It is simply window dressing - a rallying cry for those on each side of the gun issue.

The NRA was largely credited for the GOP winning back the house, including unseating majority leader Foley. I'm guessing the Dems might not be looking forward to any more self-inflicted wounds. By the same token, when the GOP held a vote to repeal the ban, it cost them several seats in moderate districts (Long Island, for example). I'd bet both sides are secretly wishing now there'd been no sunset clause built in....

[tex]

Tarhog is in a unique position in having access to high quality information. Very glad his father is working so hard for gun owners rights. I appreciate his efforts.

Is it necessary for everyone to own a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a high capacity magazine? The answer is no. Is it ok to accept limits on our second amendment rights? Again the answer is no because limits are nothing more than the camels nose under the tent. Soon the whole camel will be in the tent. Or perhaps all privately owned weapons will be banned. It has happened to the Aussies and it could happen to us unless we speak up.

How Terminology Influences the Gun Control Debate

The ability to control the terminology in a debate conveys a powerful advantage. In the national gun control debate, this principle has been expertly exploited by gun control advocates. The emotionally charged, but technically meaningless term, "assault weapon", is a perfect example. The term "assault rifle" dates from WWII Germany, where it was intended to be less powerful than a normal rifle so that soldiers could more easily use it in fully automatic mode and carry more rounds of the smaller ammunition. These guns started life with the unimposing, but technically correct name, "machine carbine".

These fully automatic rifles of reduced power were not favored by Adolf Hitler, because his experience in WW1 convinced him that rifles must fire powerful, long range ammunition. Only after the machine carbines had been produced without his permission, did he angrily sanction the project, assigning the more heroic title, "assault rifle" (sturmgewehr). It was a sensationalist name, chosen for propagandistic reasons. It is not known for sure if Hitler invented the term himself or if it was offered by his officers to appease the propaganda loving dictator. It is ironic that anti-gun groups have appropriated Hitler's dramatic term for their own purposes today.

This less-powerful, fully automatic rifle concept was copied by the Soviets immediately after the war, resulting in the AK-47. (The '47' stands for 1947) The US and other countries followed suit after military theorists decided that a smaller caliber, less lethal, automatic rifle could be an asset on the battlefield, since a wounded soldier weakened the enemy forces more than one who was killed.

Civilian ownership of assault rifles has been extremely rare in the Unites States, since they are capable of fully automatic fire and have therefore been regulated to near non-existence by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Unfortunately, weapons that look even vaguely like AK-47's are now labeled as "assault weapons" by journalists and gun control advocates, implying that a ban is needed to stop an epidemic of automatic weapons, when such a ban has already been around for over six decades. Semi-automatic variants of the AK-47 and other assault rifles are properly called carbines. They are sold and used for a variety of legitimate civilian purposes, including hunting. In fact, they are functionally similar to many common hunting rifles, except that they fire a less powerful cartridge. When gun control advocates call for a ban on "powerful assault weapons", hunters are justifiably concerned about their right to own their even more powerful hunting rifles and shotguns.

Although many experts have pointed out that "assault weapon" is a confusing and illegitimate term, it lends drama to media stories. Therefore, sound bites from gun control organizations are heavily laced with such misleading terms. Emboldened by their media victories, anti-gun groups fabricated another new oxymoron, "semi-automatic assault weapon", to aid their attacks on other types of weapons. The media loved it and added their own variations. One reporter for NPR recently made up the bizarre term, "large caliber urban assault rifle."

Where will this blatant misuse of terminology stop? Even some handguns are now miscast as "semi-automatic assault weapons". One example is the Tec-9, which is a rather low-tech pistol that fires a low-powered cartridge (the 9mm). The 9mm cartridge, exaggerated in the press as a deadly high-tech bullet, was put in service in 1898, but the media often specifies this cartridge by name, implying that it is especially modern and deadly, or worse, "high powered". Media reports now routinely mention the fact that a particular crime was committed with a semi-automatic firearm, as if this somehow makes the crime more alarming.

Gun control advocates and poorly educated journalists have mis-labeled many very old and ordinary firearms with intimidating, technical-sounding, multi-syllable terms. The result is that the public has been led to believe that a wave of high-tech, military arms and machine guns are flooding the streets, when these weapons have been heavily restricted for decades and very rarely involved in crimes. Anti-gun groups use these misleading messages to frighten the general public and dupe journalists into promoting their real agenda, which is to ban guns one class at a time. Each time they declare that they are only targeting this one class of particularly evil weapons. Each time they say that this is the "criminal's weapon of choice". The definitions are kept deliberately vague, but with catchy titles, like "Saturday night specials", "junk guns" or "assault weapons". Later, those vague definitions can be expanded to include all guns.

Since most Americans do not support total gun prohibition, the deliberate misuse of terminology is a brilliant tactic to both promote and obscure the ultimate goal.

http://www.rkba.org/comment/brown/terminology.html

[Tom [Giants fan]]

I have always wanted to own a gun for safety purposes but I keep hearing these horror stories on how having a gun in the house increases the likelihood of someone friendly being killed by the exact gun which is meant to protect.

I am also going to admit that I still live with my parents even at the age of 32 because I was laid up for a few years with back surgeries and just got myself together. What does that matter you ask? Well, my mother is against guns but she was robbed today at a local supermarket. The thieves took her wallet out of her pocketbook without her knowing. They charged $1700 on her debit and credit cards before she was able to report them stolen. The big thing here is that they also took her license. This now means that there are people out there who knows where she lives. If they think they can get more by coming to the house, what is going to stop them from trying? The police told us to be aware of the possibility because this is apparently a group of people who are doing this and going to a certain mall to use the credit cards. They haven't gone to homes as of yet but this is also the first time they have taken a driver's license. And my mother looks like the weak, easily taken advantage of type.

My point to all of this is that everyone should have the right to choose how to protect themselves in their own home. The idea of someone I know getting hurt by the gun I would own worries me tremendously. But I think there are ways to avoid that. Hey, if someone breaks in and I don't see a gun I will freely kick their @sses with my nun-chuks, kendo sticks or just my bare hands. But if I see a gun, I want the option to have one myself to protect me and my family.

Hmmmm, have I rambled on enough about this? If you read all of this you have a ton of patience!!!

[panel]

I can put you at ease, about these "horror stats" about guns, they are the most misleading stats ever.

You may hear that there 12 "children" are kill with guns a day. But what they don't tell you that the definition of children includes 18 - 21 year olds, so that the high rates of drug related murders and suicides that happen in this age group. Under this definition, there are 1.2 million children in the US Armed forces, there are 16 million children eligible to vote, and there are 350,00 children, serving time in adult correctional facilities. After those are eliminated from the equation, the number is reduced to 5 a day, and still, the vast majority of those are upper teenage suicides, and drug murders. That comes from the Center for Disease Control.

Another myth about guns is that you are more likely to accidentally shoot yourself or a family member then to save your life in midst a violent crime. But according to The Washington Weekly there are only 1,500 people killed by gun accidents a year, while there are 2 million successful gun defenses a year according to The Journal of Criminal law and Criminology. The reason people can get away with saying this is because there is no way to prove that if not for the gun, they would have been killed, even though 15% of the people who defended themselves say they almost certainly would have died had it not been for the gun.

You also may hear that you are more likely to harm yourself than better your situation in midst a violent crime if you are to use a gun in defense. This however is not true, in actuality you are 66.7% more likely to better your situation if you use a gun in self defense, and only 8.4% more likely to harm your situation. Those stats are according to the US Department of Justice.

The last stat that scares people is that guns are more likely to kill someone in the house than protect the people than who are in it. This is theoretically true, because the suicide rate is so high. There is a significantly higher amount of suicides than homicides. This is according to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. When you factor out intentional suicides, it is safer to own a gun for self defense.

[codeorama]

I keep loaded guns in my house mostly for my wife. She is home on many occasions when I am not and we both feel better knowing that we have loaded guns hidden in various locations throughout the house. We live in a nice neighborhood, but crime happens anywhere. I think the dangerous part about using a gun for self defense comes if you are not prepared to use it. Then, you could have the gun turned against you. It is very important to understand the laws related to self defense with a firearm in you state before you consider a gun. Once you present the gun, you better be prepared to use it or your own life will be in jeopardy.

We don't have children in our house yet, but the guns that I own are equipt with an internal device that disables the firing pin. Anyone that is purchasing a gun for the first time really needs to take a gun safety class.

[The Sisko]

Assault rifles are common in collectors houses, but not the average Americans, and this does not impinge in any way on the right to own a standard pistol as a defensive weapon.

Wow, I never knew I was a "collector" I only own 4 guns one of which is an AR-15 that I've owned for almost 15 years. Strangely enough, even though I've heard of how evil these so called assault weapons are, its never sneaked out of the house and killed anyone. Hmmmm, go figure.

As for you Tom, I would highly recommend a gun with a safety device. Any gun shop would probably be able to recommend one to you with your purchase.

[Burgold]

Are you sure, Yusuf? Those guns are notorious for being sneaky. I hear they wander around head to bars when their owners are asleep just so they can get loaded.

Sorry. Bad humor alert.

[NorEastNCFan]

Outside of the military, and in certain instances the police, I don't see the point for an average citizen to have an assault rifle. Or does a person need a pistol that can hold more than ten bullets? I don't think so. If you can't hit what you're shooting at the 1st ten times, what the extra ammo going to do for ya? It is easy to tell the difference between a hunting rifle and an assault rifle, except when the manufacturer tries to skirt the law and make a hybrid weapon that it passes off as used for hunting. Look in any gun magazine and you will see them. I am a gun advocate, but I also know that certain weapons have no business in the average persons hands. I own 6 guns myself. None are handguns, only long rifles and shotguns. I have considered purchasing a pistol for personal protection, but haven't as of yet. I feel alot more comfortable using my 12 gauge with 00 buckshot on a home intruder than squeezing off shots with a 9mm. A shotgun has a lot wider pattern that any pistol or rifle (i.e. easier to hit what you're shooting at).

[codeorama]

Originally posted by NorEastNCFan

Outside of the military, and in certain instances the police, I don't see the point for an average citizen to have an assault rifle. Or does a person need a pistol that can hold more than ten bullets? I don't think so. If you can't hit what you're shooting at the 1st ten times, what the extra ammo going to do for ya? It is easy to tell the difference between a hunting rifle and an assault rifle, except when the manufacturer tries to skirt the law and make a hybrid weapon that it passes off as used for hunting. Look in any gun magazine and you will see them. I am a gun advocate, but I also know that certain weapons have no business in the average persons hands. I own 6 guns myself. None are handguns, only long rifles and shotguns. I have considered purchasing a pistol for personal protection, but haven't as of yet. I feel alot more comfortable using my 12 gauge with 00 buckshot on a home intruder than squeezing off shots with a 9mm. A shotgun has a lot wider pattern that any pistol or rifle (i.e. easier to hit what you're shooting at).

All excellent points... I just wanted to add that I have a 12 gauge but choose to go with pistols for protection because I have pets and trust my wife with a pistol more.

[NavyDave]

I'm down to 4 guns my other half is quite a shot herself.

IMO the NRA looks at any gun law as incrementalism which is how a legal business like cigarettes became the scourge now started out.

Imagine back in 92 if the liberals came right out and said smoking will not be allowed anywhere (g'town tried passin anti smoking in public outdoor areas) and if you smoke at home you better not have kids living with you.

Now we are seeing fat people suing Mc D's for them being fat and its a matter of time before some lawyer wins one case in court and then the flood gates will open.

So while the NRA agrees there shouldnt be certain bullets in the hands of you regular citizens they dont want an opening that can lead to the major stuff down the road

[joe]

Tom,

I believe that the best self-defense weapon is a 20 guage pump shotgun. It will blow an intruder away at short range, which you will likely be faced with, but at the same time, the buckshot does not have the power to penetrate two layers of common wallboard. That way, you can shoot the burgler, but not hit your kid, or mother, in the next room.

As far as the camel getting into the tent, I think that that is paranoid thinking. I think that there is a clear distinction between weapons that can be used for sport or self-defense and those whose sole purpose is to kill cops.