*  *  *  *     2ndAmendmentNews   *  *  *  *

WHITE HOUSE UNRESPONSIVE ON GUN BAN SUNSET
By Weldon Clark

This affects the nation. So far the Bush White House has refused to
answer the following letter from South Carolina Representative Dwight
Loftis. It is published here with his permission. They have also
refused to answer my personal letter on the same subject. It is up to
you to send in your letters to President Bush and your own congressman
to get them to stand up for our rights. E-mail will not do the job here.

DO NOT ASSUME THEY WILL TAKE OUR SIDE. Place them on record with your
own US mail letter. Also send your own letter to your own Congressman.

This ban effects almost all the rifles used in rifle competition (except
small bore) including the state and national matches, collecting and
guns used for hunting.


President George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Bush:

It has come to my attention that some of your White House staff has
indicated that you support continuation of the so-called assault
weapons ban of 1994. I understand this band will sunset in 2004.

In 1994 Congress passed an importation and manufacture ban on the very
type firearms that the U.S. Supreme Court said were protected by the
Constitution in their U.S. vs. Miller decision in 1939.

The America people rewarded this unconstitutional behavior in Congress
by electing Republican majorities in both Houses in 1994 for the first
time in 40 years.

Your Attorney General John Ashcroft was reported to have said that an
exception to allow support of firearms laws is of compelling
government interest. I submit to you that in the case of the so-called
assault weapons ban, no such compelling government interest exist.

In the South Carolina General Assembly, I was the House sponsor of a
successful repeal of a ban on the ownership and possession of rifles,
pistols and shotguns that were made under contract to the United
States Government. This law covered many more firearms than the law in
California and the federal ban on so-called assault firearms.

Firearms owners were very pleased and there was no protest from the
media or anyone else. No additional crimes were credited to this
repeal. Nothing bad happened.

I would ask your consideration to allow this ban to sunset as
scheduled in 2004.

Sincerely, Dwight A. Loftis

I think that recent events will either be used to arm us heavier, or disarm us totally.  Given that many many people who were anti-gun at one time are out buying guns, ammo, and chem-warfare suits, things may very well go our way.


If this war starts to get ugly, and I think it has only just begun.  I really don't think there will be a major call for disarmament.  Especially once people see how vulnerable they are.

Of course, that is my hope, if the masses think it is best to disarm everyone.   Well then God help us all because if we go down that road.  Were %%^ked!!!

He is a fool for NOT revealing his position.
Making no statement only indicates he either doesn't want a sunset, or is going follow the direction of public opinion. Why is it so hard to say "I believe in the right to keep and bear arms and the "assault weapon" ban should be allowed to sunset and not renewed."

Rather than try to figure out Bush's postion on this issue, maybe it makes more sense to write him letters (snail mail will get more notice than e-mail) supporting the sunset.

Whatever Bush does regarding the sunset, we are much better off with him than with Gore. Brown was never a serious contender.

My guess is that Bush [i]will[/i] sign the ban if it passes his desk, but that he isn't going to put any effort pushing it through congress. We might tip the scales in our favor if we make enough noise--something that wouldn't work with Gore.