Gun-Grabbers Renew Drive For ‘Assault Weapon’ Bans
January 20, 2004
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
September of 2004 can be a very important month for American gunowners and their firearms freedoms. That’s when the 1994 ban on so-called assault weapons and so-called high capacity magazines is due to expire.
But will it?
The anti-gunners began pushing for a permanent extension of the ban with some additional restrictions a couple of years ago, but that got into high gear in 2003 and they will be pulling out all the stops this year, especially since it is an election year.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, they have tried to link a continuation of the Clinton Administration’s “assault weapon” ban and an expansion of the background check system to include private sales at gun shows to the threat of terrorists. They not only want the ban made permanent, they want it expanded and rewritten to include imported large capacity magazines made before the Sept. 13, 1994 cut-off date. The regulation of transfers of firearms between non-dealer, private individuals at gun shows, matches and flea markets would be a major bonus for them.
So the anti-gun cabal in the US Senate—Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI), and Jim Jeffords (I-VT)—have filed S-1034, a measure to renew and expand the gun ban.
S-1034 was filed last year along with a similar proposal in the House of Representatives, and the Brady Bunch tried to get the Republican-controlled Congress to bring the proposals to a vote. While there might have been some bi-partisan interest in the measure in the Senate, House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) made in clear last year that there were not enough votes to pass it in the House so it was not going to go to committee or the House floor.
Political Hot Potato
The “assault weapon” ban as currently on the book is a problem child for both Democrats and Republicans. In part this is due to the fact that the public never understood the whole debate and never differentiated between true assault weapons and the bogus “semi-automatic assault weapons.”
Back in 1988 and 1989, the anti-gunners based their whole attack on military-style look-alikes on the public’s inability to tell the difference. If it looked like a machinegun, how it operated made no difference.
Whether gun rights activists admit it or not, the public in 2004 is as confused about such technical nuances as it was back in 1994. A large segment of the public supports such bans because they never caught on to the whole “assault weapons” hoax, and they still haven’t. In addition, there are a lot of gunowners, particular rural folks and hunters, who never owned or shot one of the banned guns, so they were never worried by the ban nor affected by it.
Thus during the almost 10 past years, a lot of people have gotten used to the fact that the ban does not affect their guns.
Faced with the public’s willingness to support the ban, even in a post 9-11 era when people are more concerned with preserving their right to guns for personal and family defense, candidates, including President George Bush feel safe in saying they support the renewal of the ban. Bush has said he would sign such a measure if it reached his desk.
And Democrats, some of whom have claimed they want to bypass or downplay the gun issue this year, feel safe in saying they are pro-gun and pro-self-defense but support the ban.
Delay as Horatio
Delay was successful in playing Horatio at the Bridge last year and keeping the anti-gun rights Vandals from sweeping across with the ban’s extension and expansion. But will he be able to keep the anti-gunners on their side of freedom’s bridge during the 2004 presidential and congressional elections?
Of course, Bush is not Clinton. The White House is not pushing for an extension of the ban. There has been no arm-twisting and deal-making by this Administration like that of Bill Clinton in 1994. Clinton had to put a lot of his own power, prestige and personal time into securing the last couple of votes to pass the bill, even in an era when the public might have been more supportive of the ban than today. Bush has merely said that he would support the ban and would sign it if it got to his desk.
The operative word is “if.” Most members of Congress, including a substantial number of Democrats, don’t want to deal with the gun issue in an election year. However, the anti-gunners and their friends in the general media, universities, and some well-financed nonprofit organizations plan to make this a big issue. The Brady Campaign is really geared up to make this a pivotal election year issue. They are getting a lot of financial support from well-healed contributors, and they are busy attacking not only the pro-gun message but the pro-gun messengers. Their biggest target, of course, is the National Rifle Association (NRA), the largest pro-gun organization.
In the past, they have run ads attempting to link the NRA with the Ku Klux Klan, criminals and drug-dealers. Their news releases and speeches follow that same general approach. Rather than debate the issue rationally on its merits, the anti-gunners are resorting to personal character assassination.
Here’s a sample from the latest “Million” Mom March (MMM, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Brady Campaign) pitch to supporters.
“Dear Million Mom March Supporter,
“Last time we contacted you, we promised that January would bring a flurry of activity on the gun issue. It has begun. Here’s what NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre has to say about our efforts so far: ‘In my 25 years in Washington Politics, I’ve never seen such a carefully calculated and coordinated assault.’ Well, he’s just seen the beginning.
“Thanks to you, we’ve been able to launch a new site (www.nraleaders.com) as the first move. We’re exposing the NRA for what they have become: one of the most extreme organizations in this country and now, once and for all, totally out of sync with the values of Americans.
“We thoroughly researched the NRA and could not believe what we found, so we posted the facts on a new site. It will be clear to you just how outrageous the NRA has become.
“The NRA cannot get a free pass. Clearly, board members who have espoused racist, homophobic, and violent views should be forced to resign. Public officials, like Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), Reps. Barbara Cubin (R-WY) and Donald Young (R-AL) have an obligation to denounce those statements and should resign from the NRA’s board of directors. Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s CEO, who is responsible for everything the NRA does and says, should resign. . . .
“The new NRA Leaders site is just the beginning. We’re going to continue our public relations and ad campaign with more print ads and a TV spot.”
Anti-Gun Spin
The Moms and Brady leaders continue by putting their own spin on the NRA agenda.
They claim that the NRA wants to: 1.) “Destroy Background Record Checks;” 2.) “Give Bad Gun Dealers Immunity,” and 3.) Block Renewal of the “Assault Weapons Ban.”
That’s only a sample and this is January. You know what you can expect the rest of this year.
And that’s not all. The attacks will come at the state level, too, especially if it looks like the federal ban will sunset.
Currently, seven states—California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York—have state “assault weapons” bans. As state legislatures go into session, you can expect more on this issue.
In Ohio, Senate Minority Leader Eric Fingerhut (D-Cleveland) and six other senators have filed a new “assault weapon” bill that also affects more commonly-owned guns. It’s a one-house bill which may be more politics than legislative fodder, but it is an indication of what is to come in 2004.
Return to Archive Index
