Both Sides Seem Undecided On Future of 1994 Gun Ban
June 10, 2003
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
On May 7, Associated Press reported that people who want to keep the 1994 Clinton/Gore ban on so-called assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are “divided over the best way to extend the ban,” which is set to expire two months before the 2004 elections.
But they might not be the only ones divided, and the issue is further confused by the presence of another important piece of gun legislation, HR-1036 and S-659, a measure which would prohibit frivolous liability suits against gun manufacturers and marketers because of third-party misuse of their otherwise legal products.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has introduced legislation that would extend the “assault weapons” ban that she sponsored in 1994 and which is due to sunset in September 2004. The Bush Administration has announced its support for continuing the prohibition on military-style “assault weapons,” but no one at the White House has suggested that President Bush will actually push for renewal of the ban, let alone for an expansion of the number of guns it prohibits.
Election 2004
The issue promises to become mixed up with election-year politics, just as the original ban—narrowly passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Clinton was. Backlash to the law helped fuel the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, and is linked to Al Gore’s defeat in the 2000 presidential election.
Many gun-control advocates who are normally allied with Feinstein are backing a more sweeping measure introduced in the House by Democrats Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (NY) and John Conyers (MI), which is modeled on California law. Gun control proponents point to the McCarthy-Conyers bill as “much more effective than the federal law on assault weapons in combating gunmakers’ efforts to evade the ban.”
The difference is partly in politics and partly in how the bills define an “assault weapon,” a term which is totally subjective once the definition of the Defense Department (DoD) is ignored. The official DoD definition excludes all of the hundreds of semi-automatic firearms which are included in the expiring ban.
While Feinstein once said on television that she would have preferred to ban all guns if she could have gotten a majority of senators to agree back in 1994, today she seems willing to simply renew the present ban. But McCarthy and Conyers, who are by no means alone in their agenda, want more—a whole lot more as previously reported in these pages.
On the other hand, there are many of their Democratic colleagues in the House and Senate who really don’t want to fight a “gun battle” on Capitol Hill before a major election. While many of them may still harbor the anti-gun positions favored by the liberal core of their party, a lot of Democrat officeholders don’t want to give the Republicans any more fuel, particularly in traditionally union-strong Democrat states. On top of which, there are Republicans from key suburban districts who would prefer not to face a vote on a gun issue because it would force them to take a stand that could prove costly to their careers.
Public Lobbying
There is also a lot of grassroots and public opinion lobbying going on.
As an example of the current public and private lobbying over the ban, Consumer Federation of America (CFA) on May 9 announced its “strong support” for the “Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003,” legislation introduced by Conyers and McCarthy.
CFA said it supports the McCarthy-Conyers bill because it will not only make the 1994 assault weapon and high-capacity magazine ban permanent, but “will significantly strengthen the current law.”
The McCarthy-Conyers bill redefines the term “assault weapon” to include any semi-automatic rifle, shotgun or pistol that can accept a detachable magazine and includes one listed additional cosmetic feature, such as a pistol grip, forend grip or collapsible stock. The 1994 law included a looser definition that requires at least two cosmetic features to be part of the design before a gun is banned.
Proponents like the Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center and the CFA want the narrower definition so they can prevent manufacturers from offering essentially the same product with different cosmetics. They claim these are “loopholes.”
Their bill also would ban importation of high capacity magazines no matter when they were made and would prohibit private sales at gun shows unless there is a background check with recordkeeping.
CFA, by the way, claims to be a non-profit association of more than 285 groups, which, since 1968, has sought to advance the consumer interest through advocacy and education.
But the Democrats aren’t the only ones sending mixed signals on the gun and magazine ban. As previously mentioned, the White House has signaled support for a continuation of the present ban, a message consistent with Bush’s 2000 campaign statements.
However, other GOP leaders see things differently from the White House and each other.
In mid-May, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) predicted that the House of Representatives will not extend the 1994 assault weapons ban when it expires.
“The votes in the House are not there to reauthorize it,” said DeLay, a staunch foe of gun control.
However, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) later said that Republican leaders have not decided whether to schedule a vote to renew the ban.
“The bill hasn’t been discussed by the leadership yet, and I haven’t had a discussion with the President yet so I’m not ready to make that decision” Hastert said.
Hastert claimed DeLay was “caught off guard” when he made the comment about a vote, but he would not commit to a vote and refused to say whether he supported a renewal of the ban. Hastert had voted against it in 1994, before he was the Speaker. However, DeLay kept repeating that there were not enough votes for an extension of the ban in the House.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), a supporter of the ban and almost any other gun restriction, said she hopes Bush presses Republican leaders to schedule a vote.
“I hope the President will use his good offices and his considerable political capital to have the assault weapon ban brought up on the House floor,” Pelosi said.
According to some reports, congressional aides say there is a growing list of Democrats from Southern and rural districts who oppose banning the guns.
Opposition
The National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun groups oppose reauthorization of the ban, saying it has done nothing to curb crime.
“Congress is going to look at this, do an impartial examination, and I believe the issue will die on its merits,” Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, told CNN. He said two studies have shown the ban has had no impact on crime.
Privately, some Democrats are grumbling that the president is trying to have it both ways—supporting the extension in word, but doing little in deed to accomplish it.
One aide to a senior Democrat said the President would have to push for a reauthorization of the ban if he wants it.
“We’re not gonna take a bullet for it,” he said.
Another top NRA priority, a bill giving gunmakers and gun sellers broad protection against lawsuits, recently passed the House and is pending in the Senate, and it could become one of the playing pieces in this huge chess game over guns and politics. Key anti-gun Senate Democrats have promised to filibuster the Senate to prevent a vote on the liability reform measure. Others have proposed linking the two gun-related measures and offering an extension to the gun ban as an amendment to the liability bill for gun manufacturers.
Such a move could put pro-gun Republicans in the Senate in a tough spot. They would have to vote against a bill they support if the ban extension is adopted as an amendment.
Return to Archive Index
