Irking N.R.A., Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons

[codeorama]

Irking N.R.A., Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons

Thu May 8, 9:02 AM ET Add Top Stories - The New York Times to My Yahoo!

By ERIC LICHTBLAU The New York Times

WASHINGTON, May 7 President Bush (news - web sites) and the National Rifle Association, long regarded as staunch allies, find themselves unlikely adversaries over one of the most significant pieces of gun-control legislation in the last decade, a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons.

At issue is a measure to be introduced by Senate Democrats on Thursday to continue the ban. Groundbreaking 1994 legislation outlawing the sale and possession of such firearms will expire next year unless Congress extends it, and many gun-rights groups have made it their top priority to fight it. Even some advocates of gun control say the prohibition has been largely ineffective because of its loopholes.

Despite those concerns, the White House says Mr. Bush supports the extension of the current law a position that has put him in opposition to the N.R.A. and left many gun owners angry and dumbfounded.

"This is a president who has been so good on the Second Amendment that it's just unbelievable to gun owners that he would really sign the ban," said Grover G. Norquist, a leading conservative and an N.R.A. board member who opposes the weapons ban. "I don't think it's sunk in for a lot of people yet."

Advocates on both sides of the issue say the White House appears to have made a bold political calculation: that the risk of alienating a core constituency is outweighed by appearing independent of the gun lobby, sticking to a campaign promise and supporting a measure that has broad popular appeal. The president has claimed the middle road supporting an extension of the current ban but not endorsing the stronger measures that gun-control supporters say would outlaw many "copycat" assault weapons. That position has forced Democrats in the Senate to reject plans for a more ambitious weapons ban.

Mr. Bush's position "cuts against the N.R.A.'s position," said Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation, "and it will put the president for one of the first times since he signed the campaign finance reform bill at odds with his own political base."

"He's built up enough positive political capital in other areas that it won't be fatal," Mr. Franc added, but the issue could hurt Mr. Bush in Middle America, considered critical to his re-election chances in 2004.

The assault-weapons issue puts the president in a precarious political spot. When Mr. Bush was campaigning for president in 2000, a top N.R.A. official boasted that the group's relationship with Mr. Bush was so "unbelievably friendly" that the N.R.A. could practically claim a seat at the White House. The N.R.A. has been a major donor to Mr. Bush, and the gun lobby and the Bush administration have been in lock step on most major gun issues, including the current push to limit lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The Justice Department (news - web sites) under Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) has been a particularly close ally of the gun lobby, pushing an expanded view of gun rights under the Second Amendment and initiating law enforcement changes sought by the N.R.A.

But White House officials said the assault-weapons ban was one case in which the president and the N.R.A. did not see eye to eye.

"There are times when we agree and there are times when we disagree," said Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman. "The president makes decisions based on what he believes is the right policy for Americans." Mr. McClellan added that the ban was put in place as a way of deterring crime and that Mr. Bush "felt it was reasonable."

The White House position has heartened gun-control advocates. Matt Bennett, a spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety, which supports an extension of the weapons ban, said, "I think Bush realizes that, number one, this is the right thing to do, number two, he promised to do this in the 2000 campaign, and number three, he knows that it's good politics and this is an extremely popular measure."

The N.R.A. has maintained a polite civility toward the White House, even though it insists the ban is a violation of the Second Amendment that deprives hunters and sportsmen of many high-powered rifles.

Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A's chief lobbyist, said in an interview that while the defeat of the assault-weapons ban would be one of the N.R.A's top priorities, the group's focus would be on convincing members of Congress to vote against it so that it never reaches Mr. Bush's desk. "Do we agree with the administration's position on this? No, we don't, but the real fight is going to be not at that level, but in Congress," he said.

A bill will be introduced in the Senate on Thursday by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, that would extend the ban for 10 years in much the same form it exists today. House Democrats expect to introduce a toughened version of the bill next week. That version, rejected by Senate Democrats as too politically risky, would significantly expand the class of banned weapons.

Mr. Schumer said he believed Mr. Bush's support could be critical in what he predicted would be a hard-fought campaign to renew the assault-weapons measure, which bans 19 types of firearms and others that meet certain criteria.

"We hope the president will not just say he supports the ban but will work to get it passed," Mr. Schumer said in an interview. "This will be a good measure of the compassion in his compassionate conservatism."

Senate Democrats ultimately decided that a stronger version of the ban would not pass muster with the White House and thus stood little chance of gaining passage, officials said. As a result, the Senate proposal will not specifically ban the Bushmaster rifle type that was used in last year's Washington-area sniper attacks. The House version would, because it includes a broader definition of an assault rifle, officials said.

"I would like to strengthen the bill" beyond what will be introduced in the Senate on Thursday, Senator Feinstein said today. "But I don't want to lose the bill, and important to that is the president's support."

Mr. Schumer said that even with the White House's public support, "I am worried that the anti-gun-control forces in the administration will conspire to kill this measure in the dead of night without a vote."

He noted that Mr. Ashcroft gave a noncommittal response two months ago when he was asked before the Senate several times whether he would support the reauthorization of the assault-weapons ban.

Mr. Ashcroft said Justice Department studies had found that the ban's impact on gun violence was "uncertain," and he said more study was needed.

The question of the gun ban's impact over the last nine years will be a crucial point of debate.

A report due to be released soon by the Violence Policy Center a liberal Washington group that supports an expansion of the ban examined the killings of 211 law enforcement officers from 1998 to 2001 and found that one in five were done with assault weapons, often copycat models that did not fall under the 1994 ban.

"Unfortunately, the firearms industry has been very successful at evading the ban," Kristen Rand, the group's legislative director, said. "Assault weapons remain a huge public safety problem."

Gun-rights groups insist that the assault-weapons ban has had little or no impact in fighting crime, and they maintain that their opponents are wrong to depict high-powered rifles as the weapon of choice for gangs and rampage killers.

"None of these weapons are used for crimes, and the Democrats know that," Mr. Norquist said.

For many gun owners, the issue is visceral, and Mr. Bush's stance has made the debate more emotional.

"There are a lot of gun owners who worked hard to put President Bush in office, and there are a lot of gun owners who feel betrayed by him," said Angel Shamaya, an Arizona gun owner who runs a Web site called "keepandbeararms.com."

I don't see a need for assault weapons, but I see the NRA's point. They are afraid that when the first step is taken, it will start the ball rolling and make it easier for future bans and more restrictions.

I would rather have too many gun rights than not enough.

[Sarge]

This is gonna please a lot of liberals out there, but could hurt the President next year. Before 9/11 he signed on to a lot of crap that was very "un-conservative". The education bill, the Farm bill to name a couple. Now this. This type of stuff, done in the name of bipartisanship" had the effect of pissing off a lot of the conservative base, which has only grown since 9/11. Hopefully someone will talk sense to him.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Air Sarge

This is gonna please a lot of liberals out there, but could hurt the President next year. Before 9/11 he signed on to a lot of crap that was very "un-conservative". The education bill, the Farm bill to name a couple. Now this. This type of stuff, done in the name of bipartisanship" had the effect of pissing off a lot of the conservative base, which has only grown since 9/11. Hopefully someone will talk sense to him.

Bipartisanship was my first thought too.. The NRA is not the group you want to get on your bad side... Every redneck in the US will be against him.

[Sarge]

Thing is, he doesn't have to be bipartisan here. The President is riding a 70% approval rating. Granted, it's bound to come down, but why help it? The President tried to be bipartiasan when he first came into office, and what has it gotten him? Nothing. Dems questioning the war, saying diplomacy is a complete failure, b!tching about his flight to the Lincoln etc, etc. His mission politically should be to drive the Dems into an even smaller minority and to get rid of moderate republicans like Olympia Snoww. If he keeps up crap like this, me and all the other redeck members of the NRA might not show next Nov, even though that's like voting Democrat, and not likely on my part anyway.

[Kilmer17]

I see it as Bush leading, not by the polls, but by his convictions. I applaud him for that.

[Sarge]

But it makes it hard for me to get ammo for my AR-15

[Golgo-13]

But come on now, I'm all for the right to bear arms, but do people REALLY need to have Ak-47's and the like? Isn't a shotgun or a rifle still more than sufficient to go hunting with?? Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I don't see what they can complain about here.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

You guys need to stop thinking about this administration as "conservative". They are fascists, and one thing fascists certainly don't want is a well-armed citizenry who can oppose them and resist them.

[Kilmer17]

You know ASF, it's one thing to start threads with your insane conspiracy crap. It's another thing to litter other legitemate threads with this garbage.

Keep your tin-hat bizarro world creations confined to your own threads or at the very least relative threads.

[Sarge]

You guys need to stop thinking about this administration as "conservative". They are fascists, and one thing fascists certainly don't want is a well-armed citizenry who can oppose them and resist them.

You ASF, I actually agree with you here, although I thought clinton and reno and that gang were a bigger threat to the second amendment than anyone else. Plus, it's kinda "to each his own". Some of us like shooting the biggest, baddest guns we can get our hands on. Some of us like to sit in our basements with a big "X" made of masking tape on the window and dream up theories about evil empires.

[codeorama]

I'll be the first to admit that I would buy an AR-15 if given the chance. I enjoy shooting and would love to have one.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Air Sarge

This is gonna please a lot of liberals out there, but could hurt the President next year. Before 9/11 he signed on to a lot of crap that was very "un-conservative". The education bill, the Farm bill to name a couple. Now this. This type of stuff, done in the name of bipartisanship" had the effect of pissing off a lot of the conservative base, which has only grown since 9/11. Hopefully someone will talk sense to him.

Air Sarge, I think you're more right than you appreciate. And I hope they *don't* talk sense to him.

This is Bush 43's version of raising taxes after "no new taxes". It's precisely the sort of lightning-rod issue that will galvanize the true conservatives (who are not fascists) into realizing that Bush 43 is not of their own, and might be a (theoretical) threat to them and their way of life. And from that visceral anger can grow a rethinking about everything the administration has been telling us about 9/11, the "war on terror" and the Iraq War.

If the NRA breaks with Bush vocally on this, and Bush pushes through the law, this could be the flash fire that grows from what is now only smoldering suspicion.

Come on, Bush. Step on that land mine.

[codeorama]

I actually agree with ASF on this. Several Redneck friends of mine were talking about it already, they are Bush supporters but would vote the other way over this issue alone. Kind of like how the Left feels about abortion sometimes.

I've often compared abortion and gun control. They are both issues that people feel strongly about. But the similarity doesn't stop there.

Most don't want any new restrictions on either of these issues because they feel once you restrict it in some small way, that opens the door for more, ultimately leading to the elimination.

[Posse81]

I'm not a Bush fan, but I'll give him credit when he deserves it-and he does here. I think this is a fairly resonable policy to implement.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by codeorama

I actually agree with ASF on this. Several Redneck friends of mine were talking about it already, they are Bush supporters but would vote the other way over this issue alone. Kind of like how the Left feels about abortion sometimes.

This is just the sort of issue that will give momentum to an independent conservative candidate, such as Buchanon. Buchanon can thunder like Lord God on the New World Order stuff, so it wouldn't surprise me to see him run, and the gun issue could put some gas in his tank.

Bush will certainly win the Republican nomination (absent a meltdown if this 9/11 conspiracy ever goes mainstream). I expect him to be opposed by a conservative Democrat, probably Kerry, whose war record will help neutralize Bush's advantage as commander in chief.

Nader will almost certainly run as well, particularly if the Democrats continue to refuse the frontal assault on Bush that is clearly there for the taking. Whatever you think of Nader, he's got the corporate corruption deal nailed. He'll run on Halliburton-style issues and once again divide the Democrat vote. He's also the most likely of these four candidates to begin vocally questioning the official 9/11 story. However, he will take intense heat from mainstream Democrats who hate him over 2000. Expect to see a lot of "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" slogans.

That's four candidates who could get traction. The wild card would be if a fifth, Perot-style candidate emerges. If a 9/11 plot emerges late in the game, implicating both Republicans and Democrats for their joint venture in Iraq, the explosive blow back could hit both parties hard. Buchanon and Nader would each benefit, but each has baggage.

If that fifth candidate were Rudy Giuliani, however, he could win the big prize. He would be the man on the white horse, the crusading former district attorney and hero of 9/11, riding back into town to purge all of Washington of the worst conspiracy in history.

He'd get my vote, in this scenario. McCain also has a shot at being this fifth horseman of the apocalypse.

[Sarge]

I won't vote the other way on this, but I may not vote, which to a degree is the same thing. Any Democrat is going to make a worse gun grab than this. This is, after all, Democrat legislation. One of the big reasons I am so Pro Second Amendment is that gun control simply does not work. One only need look to DC. Guns are outlawed, but it continues to have a high crime rate. Look at the crime rate in Va compared to MD. When VA initiated the conceal carry, crime dropped, because criminals know they are more likely to get shot commiting a crime in VA, so they go to MD to do thier business, where they know that people don't carry guns.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Air Sarge

Look at the crime rate in Va compared to MD. When VA initiated the conceal carry, crime dropped, because criminals know they are more likely to get shot commiting a crime in VA, so they go to MD to do thier business, where they know that people don't carry guns.

Ain't that the truth. I pity the fool that breaks into my house.

You would think they would have learned something from prohibition wouldn't you? Amazing to me.

[tex]

There is not a nickel's worth of difference between the two major parties. Both are taking the country down the same road. The only difference is the dems are hammer down whereas the republicans are in the granny lane.

So you have to ask yourself, do you want to go where they are taking us quick or slow. So far I have voted for the slow ride into the hell of an utterly controlled society devoid of individual freedoms.

[tex]

Ties go to the hall of famer. :cool:

[OrangeSkin]

Right, ASF...Bush wants to piss off his staunchest ally, the redneck, to PREVENT a popular uprising.

The only place a rebellion would come from is the left, and how many of your buddies own AK-47s?

Are you Wacky Ralph incarnate? You arrived about the time he disappeared. I can't help but think that you're a conservative, trying to destory the left from inside.

Either that, or you're one hell of a comedian.

Your insane conspiracy talk is just too ridiculous to take seriously.