President Bush didn’t say it himself, nor was the announcement made by a top political or policy official. Nonetheless, a White House statement that the President favors a renewal of the 1994 ban on “assault weapons” and “large-capacity” magazines has gunowners buzzing angrily on the Internet.
Most commonly heard are cries of “betrayal” by the President and the Republican-controlled Congress, both of whom serve largely because of the grace of the firearms civil rights movement.
The surprise news came in the form of an Apr. 12 Knight Ridder Newspapers story by Shannon McCaffrey. It may not have appeared in many newspapers, and there was little play in the broadcast media, but it has created a stir.
McCaffrey reported that “The Bush Administration is bucking the National Rifle Association (NRA) and supporting a renewal of the ‘assault weapons’ ban, set to expire just before the presidential election.
“‘The President supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law,’ White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.”
With the Brady Act, the ban on a wide range of semi-automatic firearms and ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds—both enacted during the Clinton Administration—are the crown jewels of the anti-gun movement. The Brady Act became as permanent as any law can be, but when the gun and magazine ban was enacted in 1994 it included language unsetting the measure in September 2004.
While some political observers noted when the bill was passed that the 10-year sunset provision offered little since restrictive laws seldom, if ever, sunset, and an end to the ban has always been a political possibility. It seemed even more so after gunowners helped the GOP gain control of Congress and the White House. After the 2000 elections, many gunowners and their organizations made a reversal of the ban their top priority.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush said that he supported the current ban, but it was less clear whether he would support an extension, or an expansion of the ban which has been the top item on the gun controllers’ agenda.
The White House comment appears to come at an odd moment—just after the House approved legislation that would prohibit frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry and just before the NRA’s annual convention. It also comes during a period in which the perennial public policy debate over firearms has been on the back burner.
Republican control of the House, Senate and White House has been seen by many gunowners as an opportunity to breathe new life into the stalled pro-gun rights agenda. Thus, the White House statement indicating support for a continuation of the ban is seen as a betrayal.
But what the statement really means is unclear. Attorney General John Ashcroft, who like Bush is a staunch gun rights supporter, muddied the waters in a recent appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee when he refused to say whether the Administration supports an extension. Ashcroft cited a 1999 Justice Department report that said the ban’s impact on deadly gun violence is unclear.
By allowing a lower level staffer to make the statement suggests that the White House is not really committed to a position, but is testing the waters of public opinion. The President has several options in either case. He can say he would sign a bill to renew the ban if it came to his desk, but not push for the renewal. If Congress failed to re-authorize the ban, it would simply sunset, and he would be in a political middle ground. The prospects for passage of such legislation are different in the House and Senate, but in either case, the power to extend the ban clearly rests on Capitol Hill.
Even so, citizen input on the ban—pro and con—would probably not be unwelcome at the White House which can be e-mailed at: president@whitehouse.gov. The White House switchboard number is: 202-456-1414, and the fax number is: 202-456-2461.useless.
Return to Archive Index