Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 5/13/2002 8:46:14 AM EDT
Here is another win for the gunners, a tacit admission by anti-gun L.A. Times. It is one thing for them to whine about pro-gun laws, but another thing when they raadily admit it. But everyone should always keep in mind that the anti-gunners are relentless and perserving when it comes to more anti-gun laws. Remember how long it took them go get the '94 Assault Weapons Ban and Brady Law in place, it was like 10 years. Geo. Bush Jr. won't be in office forever, and we could get Hillary Clinton as the novelty former-first-lady to be first woman pres in the future since she pretty much knows all the ins and outs of being prez. You can see that in Hillary's U.S. Senatorial campaign in New York by the news media.
=====================================================

Los Angeles Times: Bush Gets Chance to Balance Books on Guns

[url]http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-000033918may13.column?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dnation[/url]

WASHINGTON OUTLOOK
Bush Gets Chance to Balance Books on Guns
Ronald Brownstein

May 13 2002

Whatever happened to President Bush's gun control agenda?

No, that isn't a trick question, like whatever happened to Madonna's sense of
modesty.

As a candidate in 2000, Bush offered a modest but tangible series of gun control
proposals meant to convince voters he'd strike a reasonable balance between the
interests of gun owners and the demands of public safety. [b]But in office, his
administration has focused almost entirely on gun owners' rights--most
dramatically last week when the Justice Department adopted an expansive
interpretation of the constitutional right to bear arms long sought by the
National Rifle Assn. [/b]If Bush really hopes to produce a balanced record, he'll
need to beef up his record on the public safety side of the ledger. As it turns
out, an upcoming legislative fight may offer him a chance to do just that.

Let's start with the history. Candidate Bush received guns-blazing support from
the NRA. But he was also determined to avoid the impression he would religiously
follow the NRA line. In his final debate with Al Gore, a voter asked Bush about
an NRA leader's boast that the gun lobby would operate out of the Oval Office if
Bush won. Bush told him not to worry: "I'm a pretty independent thinker," he
insisted.

No one was going to mistake Bush for a gun control crusader. He shared the NRA's
conviction the federal government should place its priority on enforcing
existing gun laws rather than passing new ones. And he portrayed Gore's gun
control proposals as excessive. "I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be
allowed to protect themselves," Bush declared.

But Bush also tried to reassure centrist voters uneasy about gun violence. Bush
renounced earlier Republican efforts to repeal the ban on assault weapons
President Clinton squeezed through Congress. And he offered several new gun
proposals of his own, many echoing Clinton's ideas after the Columbine High
School massacre in Colorado.

"I believe that we ought to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't
have them," Bush said in that final debate with Gore. "That's why I'm for
instant background checks at gun shows; I'm for trigger locks....I think we
ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun."

-- continued --
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 8:47:55 AM EDT
Since the election, though, Bush hasn't been nearly as enthusiastic about these
ideas. He's moved forward on only one of them. As a candidate, Bush promised to
spend $75 million annually to provide free trigger locks that could keep
handguns from being used by children; he's fulfilled that pledge in his first
two budgets.

The rest of Bush's gun control agenda, though, has been conspicuous by its
absence. He said he would support raising the age for handgun ownership from 18
to 21. But he's offered no legislation to do so. Likewise, he said manufacturers
should be required to install child safety locks on all new handguns, but he
hasn't offered a plan to do that either. Nor has he proposed a bill to close the
legal loophole that exempts purchasers at gun shows from the background checks
required on those who buy their hardware at gun shops.

Instead his administration has emphasized the priorities of gun owner groups,
led by the NRA. Today, the government maintains the records of all background
checks run through the national database of gun purchases for 90 days, so it can
audit the system for fraud or irregularities. Gun groups consider that an
invasion of privacy. The Justice Department has now proposed to destroy the
records after one day.

Last fall, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft refused to allow the FBI to use the database
to check whether any of the 1,200 people detained after Sept. 11 had bought
guns. Then last week, Ashcroft aligned the government more unequivocally than
before with the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. In a filing to the
Supreme Court, the Justice Department broke from decades of federal policy to
declare that the amendment guarantees the right of gun ownership to individuals
and not just those engaged in military service (the Revolutionary era
"well-regulated militia" cited in the amendment).

Ashcroft insisted the Justice Department will continue to defend the
constitutionality of all existing federal gun control laws. But critics fear
he's given gun owner groups a powerful new legal club against restrictions on
gun ownership at the federal, state and local level.

Given the NRA's ferocious work for his election, it was inevitable that Bush
would respond to some of its priorities. But he also promised he would maintain
his independence from the group. Now, two old rivals are offering the president
an opportunity to prove he meant it.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) signaled last week he'll soon force a floor vote on
legislation he's co-sponsored with Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) to close
the gun show loophole, which they say is being exploited not only by criminals
but also by suspected terrorists. Bush insists he's for closing that loophole
too, but only if the background checks are conducted within 24 hours. The
problem is, that's like endorsing daily shuttles to Mars. No state now has the
computer capacity to research the background of gun buyers that fast; the checks
most likely to take longer are precisely for the people we most want to keep
away from guns.

Many experts would accept 24-hour checks (which the NRA prefers) as a reasonable
goal, once they are practical. The question is what to do in the interim.

-- continued --
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 8:48:38 AM EDT
McCain's solution: For the next three years, provide law enforcement three days
to run the checks. After that, states could petition the Justice Department to
switch to an instant check once they've demonstrated the capacity.


The bill is landing in a cross-fire. The NRA hates the three-day checks; the
most ardent gun control groups oppose the eventual switch to a 24-hour standard.
But the proposal may be the only way to break the logjam that has blocked action
on the gun show loophole since Columbine.

It will also be a revealing test of Bush's intentions. He routinely scolds
Congress for stalling his priorities. Will he demand that it send him a bill
that closes the gun show loophole and then work to fashion a compromise that can
win a majority? Which is another way of asking whether Bush was shooting
straight in 2000 when he told that voter, and a huge national audience, that he
would always think for himself about guns.

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at
latimes.com/archives. For information about reprinting this article, go to
www.lats.com/rights.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 9:59:28 AM EDT
Interesting article...thanks.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 11:06:44 AM EDT
This is an interesting spin by an obviously leftist newspaper:

Today, the government maintains the records of all background
checks run through the national database of gun purchases for 90 days, so it can
audit the system for fraud or irregularities. Gun groups consider that an
invasion of privacy. The Justice Department has now proposed to destroy the
records after one day.
View Quote


So, the federal government illegally keeps records for 90 days rather than destroying them immediately as required by law and the LA Times says that they aren't breaking the law enough.

Here's another good one:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) signaled last week he'll soon force a floor vote on
legislation he's co-sponsored with Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) to close
the gun show loophole, which they say is being exploited not only by criminals
but also by suspected terrorists. Bush insists he's for closing that loophole
too, but only if the background checks are conducted within 24 hours.
View Quote


Once again McCain shows that he's a RINO & it looks like GWB is walking the line on this one.

Have there actually been any documented instances of terrorists using the "gun show loophole?"  I've never heard of any.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 12:33:14 PM EDT
As a candidate in 2000, Bush offered a modest but tangible series of gun control
proposals meant to convince voters he'd strike a reasonable balance between the
interests of gun owners and the demands of public safety
View Quote


Is this true?  Or are they confusing him with Gore?  I cannot remember him saying anything even similar to this statement, even in jest...
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 2:05:37 PM EDT
[b]"McCain's solution: For the next three years, provide law enforcement three days
to run the checks. After that, states could petition the Justice Department to
switch to an instant check once they've demonstrated the capacity."[/b]

Yep, I can see states like NY, CA and MA [b][i]working furiously[/i][/b] to get their instant check systems working...
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 2:13:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 2:21:19 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 2:35:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 2:50:09 PM EDT
. "Nor has he proposed a bill to close the legal loophole that exempts purchasers at gun shows from the background checks required on those who buy their hardware at gun shops.
View Quote


Would that be the "loophole" that allows individual sales between two law abiding citizens anywhere, including gun shows without going through the instant check?

Has anyone found the loophole that lets individuals buy from dealers at gun shows without the background check?  I must have missed that and would really like to take advantage of it.  No biased reporting there.

"McCain's solution: For the next three years, provide law enforcement three days
to run the checks."
View Quote


Well, since most gun shows rarely last more than two days, or about 36 hours, max, that would pretty much be the end of firearms sales at gun shows, eh?  Unless you want to drive to the dealer's store on Tuesday or Wedsnesday to pick up your new find.

Great reasons to join the NRA and GOA ASAP!

Link Posted: 5/13/2002 2:51:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy:
Originally Posted By warlord:
In a filing to the
Supreme Court, the Justice Department broke from decades of federal policy to
declare that the amendment guarantees the right of gun ownership to individuals
and not just those engaged in military service (the Revolutionary era
"well-regulated militia" cited in the amendment).
View Quote

I don't expect the news media to be fair and objective, I think as long as people keep that perspective in mind, everything is will be just dandy. For me personally, I would be genuinely concerned with new media like LA Times, Wash. Post agree with the NRA, then I know we definitely have problems. As long as the media is railing the NRA, the NRA is doing its job. We don't pay Wayne LaPierre & Charllton Heston to be nice guys to the media.

They go out of the way to stress over and over "the NRA opinion", to make it seem like the NRA is the only entity that supports the observance of our RIGHTS, then they report this oft-proven-false opinion (that the militia mentioned by the Constitution is the same as the federal government-controlled military) as fact.

Fair and balanced reporting, right?

-Troy
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 4:45:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/13/2002 4:46:49 PM EDT by muzlblast]
perhaps the LA Times is too stupid to realize that Bush has been a little busy protecting the country to worry about a bunch of left wing whiners who want nothing more than to deprive all Americans the right to defend themselves.
Go GW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [50]

Edited to add... my sig says it all!
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 5:09:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/13/2002 5:15:27 PM EDT by warlord]
Originally Posted By muzlblast:
perhaps the LA Times is too stupid to realize that Bush has been a little busy protecting the country to worry about a bunch of left wing whiners who want nothing more than to deprive all Americans the right to defend themselves.
Go GW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  all!
View Quote

You have to remember gun is a very high priority to the socialist/democrats even on the federal level, that is why they are whining so much. Here in Calif, we are Billions of $ in the hole because of the electrical energy crisis, yet Gray Davis still had the legislators work on and write more stringent gun control laws; so you can see how high the priority is on the state level for more gun control. I guess "they can't take away your rights and property until they have taken your guns."
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 5:39:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By warlord:
But Bush also tried to reassure centrist voters uneasy about gun violence. Bush
renounced earlier Republican efforts to repeal the ban on assault weapons
President Clinton squeezed through Congress. And he offered several new gun
proposals of his own, many echoing Clinton's ideas after the Columbine High
School massacre in Colorado.
View Quote


someone should point this out to all the people celebrating the upcoming sunset on the AW Bill
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 5:57:41 PM EDT
The rest of Bush's gun control agenda, though, has been conspicuous by its
absence. He said he would support raising the age for handgun ownership from 18
to 21. But he's offered no legislation to do so.
View Quote


This writer needs a civics lesson, anti-2ndamend opinions are one thing - free speech, but since when does the Executive Office write legistlation as well as sign them into law?
Top Top