Senators try to extend assault-weapons b

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Senators try to extend assault-weapons b
8
Mon, 03-01-2004 - 9:10pm

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1153&slug=Congress%20Guns


Monday, March 1, 2004 · Last updated 2:23 p.m. PT


Senators try to extend assault-weapons ban


By JESSE J. HOLLAND
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER


WASHINGTON -- Senators pressed Monday for votes on the reauthorization of the nation's assault weapons ban, with Democrats and Republicans both close to winning one of the most contentious, closely watched gun votes so far this year.


Democrats think they have the votes needed to add the 10-year assault ban renewal to a popular bill that would keep gun makers and distributors from being sued over gun-related crimes.


They are taking no chances. Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards - locked in a heated Super Tuesday primary battle for their party's presidential nomination - are stepping off the campaign trail to add their votes to the Democratic side. A vote on the bill is expected Tuesday.


With the Senate split with 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and one independent senator, Democrats already are lobbying Vice President Cheney.


As the Senate president, Cheney would cast the tie-breaking vote if the vote ends up deadlocked, a very real possibility, said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., in a letter Monday to the vice president.


"I expect that should there be a tie vote on the assault weapons ban, you will fulfill the president's commitment to reauthorizing this important public safety legislation and cast the tie-breaking vote," Schumer said.


President Bush supports reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, which expires in September, and supports closing the gun show loophole. But the White House also wants the gun maker immunity bill to pass the Senate without amendments to ensure it makes it through the House and to Bush's desk for his approval.


"It's about stopping frivolous lawsuits," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Monday. "The president believes that the manufacturer or seller of a legal product should not be held liable for the criminal misuse of that product by others. So I think this is part of our efforts to stop lawsuit abuse and bring some more sanity to our civil justice system."


Democrats also are pushing for a vote on requiring background checks on everyone who buys weapons at gun shows, where unlicensed sellers do not have to check buyers' backgrounds. They also have won a vote to require all newly purchased handguns to have child safety locks.


"The semiautomatic ban, the gun show loophole, a variety of other kinds of issues could simply drag this bill down and deny us substantial tort reform," said Republican Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, the bill's main sponsor who plans to vote against both measures.


Republicans have already said that many of them will vote against an extension of the assault weapons ban, which would continue a ban on the manufacture and importation of at least 19 types of common military style assault weapons.


Other Republicans have allied themselves with the Democrats, including Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner of Virginia and Sen. Mike DeWine of Ohio. Warner was one of the senators who voted against the assault weapons ban a decade ago but now said that over "the past 10 years, it has reduced crime dramatically and has made our streets safer."


DeWine also supports reauthorizing the ban. "What is it that people and police officers fear?" DeWine said. "That someone will come in and shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot and no one can stop them."


The Senate is expected to pass the gun maker immunity bill regardless of the vote on the assault weapons ban.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 03-01-2004 - 10:47pm
Glad to hear the ban will continue.
cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Tue, 03-02-2004 - 8:52am
Why? It was a uselss, pointless piece of legislation which even it's own authors and backers openly admittedly was purely symbolic instead of having any real, practical value.

What's the use of having legislation on the books which changes nothing of consequence?


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Tue, 03-02-2004 - 11:32am

Other Republicans have allied themselves with the Democrats, including Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner of Virginia and Sen. Mike DeWine of Ohio. Warner was one of the senators who voted against the assault weapons ban a decade ago but now said that over "the past 10 years, it has reduced crime dramatically and has made our streets safer."


DeWine also supports reauthorizing the ban. "What is it that people and police officers fear?" DeWine said. "That someone will come in and shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot and no one can stop them."


Welcome back, Mark!


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Tue, 03-02-2004 - 11:46am

From what I've heard & read law enforcement supports the ban, that's good enough for me.


 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Tue, 03-02-2004 - 12:15pm
Sorry, but the esteemed John Warner doesn't have the first clue what he's talking about. Crime has gone down, no argument there, but the percentage of crimes committed with these "assault weapons" is virtually unchanged since 1994. They were seldom used in the commission of a crime back then, and it's no more seldom now. They've never been a favorite of criminals due to their bulk, being far to large to conceal on ones person even marginally inconspicuously.

As far as being able to, quote "shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot and no one can stop them." that hasn't been changed in the slightest by the 1994 AWB. High capacity magazines are still readily available, and there are more than sufficient firearms out there which can utilize them.

Like I said and these "public servants" have evidently forgotten IF they ever knew, that ban was a farce from the word "Go".

In any case, thanks for the welcome back. I've lurked from time to time, but nothing recent has really struck my fancy to jump into the fray. But, as to your questions...

>>>>"What is so wrong about an 'assault weapons' ban? What civilians in our country NEED an assault weapon?"<<<<

As I noted before, it's useless. Do you know the criteria used to enact this ban in the first place? Such irrelevancies as bayonent lugs, flash hiders, etc. Nothing which truly affects the functionality of the firearm itself. AND, the manufacturers took a look at the banning criteria, said "No problem", and began manufacturing firearms without the offending features. Net result? Pointless legislation dealing with a category of firearms which wasn't much of a problem to begin with.

As for "need", the right to keep and bear arms isn't any more "need" based than any other of our rights. And of course the firearms which were banned are functionally no different than new ones without those "evil" features like bayonet lugs. I mean seriously now, how many civilian bayonetings have you heard about in the last, oh, century or so?

>>>>"A question...how do you feel about Bush backing the requirement that background checks be done at gun shows? Do you think it's just 'election year rhetoric' or that he really wants to see the legislation in place?"<<<<

Two things here... First, I don't agree with such a requirement. The criteria for a background check has ALWAYS been who you're purchasing a firearm from, not where the transaction takes place at. And the federal government has no legitimate, constitutional authority to dictate how an individual can dispose of legally owned, private property.

Second, it's election year rhetoric in my opinion.


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Tue, 03-02-2004 - 12:19pm
LOL! A decent percentage of federal law enforcement supports even the more draconian aspects of Patriot and Patriot II. Is their support for those measures "enough for you"?

Think for yourself Libra, I know you're fully and well capable of it.

As for this ban, the same people in law enforcement who supported it before support it now, those who are in politically appointed positions, supervisory officers. Rank and file street cops mostly recognize the ban for what it is (and what it's authors publicly admitted it was right after it was enacted into law)... a symbolic gesture which accomplishes precisely nothing.


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Tue, 03-02-2004 - 2:54pm
EXCERPTS FROM:

Senate votes to extend assault weapons ban

Background checks at private gun shows also pass



>>WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Tuesday to extend for another decade a ban on military-style assault weapons and to require background checks on buyers at private gun shows, giving Democrats rare victories on gun legislation that would also deny crime victims the ability to sue gunmakers and dealers.<<


>>Hold up in House
House leaders said last year that they did not intend to renew the ban on the manufacture and importation of at least 19 types of common military-style assault weapons. Senate GOP leaders also argued against the ban, saying it was ineffective and unnecessary and could cause the House to kill the gunmaker immunity bill.<<


>>A few Republicans also voted with the Democrats to close the “gun show loophole.” Under current law, unlicensed gun dealers at private shows are not required to ask for government background checks before selling weapons. Democrats and a few Republicans argued that loopholes allow people who normally wouldn’t be able to buy guns to obtain dangerous weapons.


“Criminals and terrorists are exploiting this obvious loophole in our gun safety laws,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.


McCain, along with fellow Republicans Warner, Richard Lugar of Indiana, George Voinovich of Ohio, Charles Hagel of Nebraska, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted along with the Democrats. Democrats Max Baucus of Montana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska crossed party lines to vote with the Republicans.<<


I consider a gun to be a different kind of 'private property' than say, selling a car, a stereo, TV, etc.


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Tue, 03-02-2004 - 6:46pm
I'm going to presume that you added the red to emphasize certain things, so I'll try to address those points...

>>>"manufacture and importation of at least 19 types of common military-style assault weapons."<<<

"Military-style assault weapons" is grossly misleading. Either a firearm is a military arm or it's not. In this case we're talking about semi-auto firearms which merely resemble their military-issue fully automatic cousins. And yet again, this ban is based on cosmetic features, not on any functional basis. So what's really being accomplished.

>>>"Under current law, unlicensed gun dealers at private shows are not required to ask for government background checks before selling weapons."<<<

Another misleading statement, since there is no such thing as an unlicensed gun dealer. Either a person is a licensed firearms dealer, or they are an individual selling personally owned firearms.

>>>"Democrats and a few Republicans argued that loopholes allow people who normally wouldn’t be able to buy guns to obtain dangerous weapons."<<<

There is no "gunshow loophole". Again, it's the category of seller which is the determining criteria, not the location of the transaction. A private individual selling his privately owned firearm at a gunshow is no different than a private individual selling his privately owned firearm at his home.

>>>"I consider a gun to be a different kind of 'private property' than say, selling a car, a stereo, TV, etc."<<<

The Constitution makes no such distinction. And nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the authority to regulate the selling of legal private property. This law has no legitimate Constitutional basis in the slightest.

>>>"“Law enforcement has shown that it has reduced the use of these weapons in crime,"<<<

BS, pure and simple. I challenge Warner or anyone else to provide any definitive evidence that the 1994 AWB has reduced crimes committed with the firearms in question. That claim has as little basis (meaning none at all) as the original claim by the Brady Campaign that these weapons were "the choice of criminals". I can provide crime statistics from when the ban was first enacted which shows that none of the top 5 firearms used in crime were so-called "assault weapons". The most common firearm used in criminal activity, far from being a dreaded "assault weapon" was in fact a S&W .38 revolver.

Bogus arguments, from top to bottom. That isn't to say that your opinion on them isn't valid, as it most assuredly is. But the claims from that and similar articles have no basis in fact.


~mark~