http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50358-2003May13.html


By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 13, 2003; 6:00 PM


The Republican-controlled House will not renew the federal ban on Uzis and other semiautomatic weapons, a key leader said today, dealing a significant blow to the campaign to clamp down on gun sales nationwide.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said most House members are willing to let the ban expire next year. "The votes in the House are not there" to continue the ban, DeLay told reporters.

His spokesman, Stuart Roy, said, "We have no intention of bringing it up" for a vote.

As majority leader, DeLay decides which bills get voted on in the House. Because the 1994 assault weapons ban expires next year, the House and Senate must pass legislation renewing it by Sept. 13, 2004. If Congress fails to act, the AK-47 and 18 other types of semiautomatic weapons that were outlawed by Clinton and a Democratic-controlled Congress a decade ago would be legal again, handing a major victory to the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups.

Past votes and an NRA survey of lawmakers before the 2002 elections suggest that a majority of House members oppose the ban's renewal, GOP officials said. But several Republicans, who requested anonymity, said some pro-gun GOP leaders worry that if members are forced into a rollcall vote, they might switch under pressure from gun control advocates.

President Bush, whose support of the assault weapons ban dates to his 2000 campaign, has drawn rebukes from NRA members and some GOP lawmakers on the issue. But several Republicans close to the White House said Bush has no plans to lobby lawmakers aggressively to extend the ban. That would allow him to officially oppose the NRA without completely turning against the powerful gun lobby by fighting hard to maintain a ban on semiautomatic weapons.

"The White House seems to think that the bill will never reach the President's desk," said a recent alert sent to members of the Gun Owners of America, a pro-gun group with close ties to Republicans. "At least that is what top officials are counting on. In pursuing this strategy, they are trying to please both sides and are playing a very dangerous game."

Congressional Republicans said Congress will renew the ban only if Bush publicly and firmly insists. "If the president demands we pass it, that would change the dynamics considerably," said a House GOP leadership aide. "The White House does not want us" to vote.

In a letter to Bush, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) said: "It is now time for us to stand up against the unconstitutional gun-grabbing and help our nation in this time of great need by allowing law-abiding citizens to use the weapon of their choice."

It's unclear how much pressure Bush and congressional Republicans will be under to bring up the volatile gun issue, especially in the 2004 election year. While many leading Senate and House Democrats are pushing legislation to renew the ban, the issue is not sharply partisan.

Many rural and southern Democrats, including a few who voted for the ban in 1994, oppose its renewal, reflecting a notable shift in the politics of guns during the past decade. An aide to a Senate Democrat who voted for the ban in 1994 and faces reelection next year said many Democrats "hope it never comes up."

The reason for the turnabout is rooted, in part, in the fallout of the 1994 vote and vice president Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign loss.

In 1994, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate narrowly passed the ban on the sale and possession of 19 semiautomatic, rapid-fire guns and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds. Proponents of the ban said those weapons -- and copycat versions that don't fall under the ban -- are frequently used in violent crimes, including the deaths of scores of law enforcement officials. Opponents said the ban violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

The Democratic-controlled House passed the Clinton-backed gun ban by two votes in May 1994. A few months later, House Speaker Thomas Foley (D-Wash.), Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks (D-Texas) and several other Democrats who supported the ban were voted out of office after the NRA and other gun activists targeted them with a relentless political campaign.

The NRA's power ebbed and flowed throughout the rest of the 1990s, hitting a highwater mark following Gore's narrow loss in 2000. Gore lost pro-gun bastions such as Arkansas, West Virginia and his home state of Tennessee, in part, some Democratic analysts believe, because he was seen as hostile to gun owners. In this year's first debate among Democratic presidential hopefuls, only Al Sharpton vigorously endorsed the registration and licensing of handguns.

Most congressional Democratic leaders and presidential candidates strongly support the assault weapons ban and appear ready to wage a public fight over an issue they believe may pack a political punch with independents and women, in particular. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently introduced legislation that would extend the Clinton gun ban with only minor modifications. If the House rejects the renewal, however, Senate action won't matter.

In the House, Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) last week introduced a tougher bill that would ban a larger number of guns. "I don't want to put my members in any trouble. But if we actually face this, the American people [will support] keeping assault weapons from going back on the street," said McCarthy.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

I  always love the hyperbole
UZIs and AK-47s
A Victory for the NRA
Assault Weapons back on the streets..
yadda yadda yadda
DIE GASPUMPER........

Let's hope he's right.

this sounds good

:) :) :) :) :)

I think Im gonna buy an AR-15 with a collapsible stock, flash suppresor, bayonet lug and as many 30 round mags as I can afford.

For all you naysayers and pessimist out there. Do you think we would be better off with a Dem. House, Senate, and Pres. I think not. This is probably as good as it will get. Now all we need to do is repeal the machine gun "ban" (a man can hope cant he?).

These goddamn retards.

UZIs?!?

The 1994 AW Ban has NOTHING to do with UZIs. They were banned in 89 by a Import Ban. The sunset will not allow UZIs to once again be imported.

Cripes, even the Republicans can't get it right. Maybe it is the Washington Post speaking for him (they don't make crap up do they?) and adding false statements to his comment.

But it will be worth it if the damn thing sunsets.

If that happens im gonna be buying as many as I can because it wont last forever

me to (on stocking up)

i'm trying to do it now, and if this thing even remotely looks like it's going to get voted on, i'm going to max out my visa card on nasty toys

Guys, lets not celebrate just yet. The battle has barely started and some of you think the war is over and won. Never mind the present situation; one ass with a hard-on and an AK or AR in a schoolyard or office building will upset things more than you or I care to imagine. I'm keeping my champaign on ice until Sept 14, 2004 00:01

This will probably be a war that is fought once every 4 years from now on...

Me thinks I'll invest some of my savings in something along the lines of an M17s (IT will have a flash surpressor, lug, and all the goodies if AWB is killed), with all the 40-round mag's I can carry.

Probably a SIG550, and an SVD to boot (I think its AWB that bans import of SVD, correct me if im wrong) :)

The Sig550 amd SVD were banned from importation as a result of the 89 Import Ban.

IF Bushmaster decides to offer a M17 with flash hider and bayo lug you will be able to buy one.

Why doesn't Bush do the right thing and say he made a mistake and come out against renewing the ban? If he is [b]all[/b] that many claim he is then that would be the thing to do.

You got me. It would be the obvious thing to do. The only think I can think of is that he wants the most-likely Democratic canidates to go on the record against it first.

Probably.

Start collecting your "RARE" post ban rifles NOW.  They were made only in for brief period of American history from 1993-2003.

WoooooHoooooo!

No matter what happens, I'll probably still live in the PRK so it will still suck for me...
I'm graduating next month with a BS in CS. Anyone know of any companies (way the fuck away from PRK) hiring entry-level software engineers or programmers?

... [url=http://www.orbital.com/Template.php?Section=SearchJobPostings&NavMenuID=128]Orbital Sciences[/url]

In a letter to Bush, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) said: "It is now time for us to stand up against the unconstitutional gun-grabbing and help our nation in this time of great need by allowing law-abiding citizens to use the weapon of their choice."


God bless Texas!

In a letter to Bush, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) said: "It is now time for us to stand up against the unconstitutional gun-grabbing and help our nation in this time of great need by allowing law-abiding citizens to use the weapon of their choice."


God bless Texas!

The reason why Bush Jr. won't rescind the '89 import ban is that he don't want his dad to look bad. To alot of people, looks is everything.

The Washington Post(Pravda on the Potomac), L.A. Times(Pravda WEst), NY Times, they are going to be thourghly disappointed that the '94 AWB is going away, BUT the antis are not quitters, how many years did it take to get the Brady Law and AWB in place, try something like 10 years, so we defeat the renewal in 2004, the antis will be back in 2005 etc.

When the AW ban goes its gone. They anti-gun lobby will never have the muscle again. They will allways have to face the perception in the future that gun control was a failure any time they bring up a new bill. It would be like trying to bring back alcohol prohibition.

Even a arch-Liberal like Howard Dean has seen the light and given up. He is taking the "Steven Douglas" approach and falling back upon "popular soverignty" and States Rights. In short the Federal AW ban should not be renewed-but the States and local jurisdictions should be allowed to ban what they want, even though this would violate both the Full Faith and Credit provision of the Constitution AND the Equal Protection clause of Amendment XIV.

Arch-Liberals are no friends of gun owners, but they are giving up on trying to force their beliefs on the country, and instead are trying to just controll the little fiefdoms that they live in.

Like I said before, the next shooting incident will get alot of the politiicians to vote for a ban and/or the BATF will make more rulings and reclassifications.

I wanna get a framed picture of bush signing the new AWB in the rose garden ceremony! WOO HOO!!!!

That will be my 56th birthday.  A nice present.

Heh, heh, beatcha!! Mine's this Friday the 16th.....

Then Happy Birthday, you old fart.

Sounds like we have a good chance of getting what we want (the sunset and lack of replacement of the 'AW ban')... but we cannot slack off.  We still need to support organizations that fight for our cause (GOA, NRA, etc...) and let our congresscritters and reps know how we feel.

We need to make it KNOWN that the AW Ban didn't do diddly SHIT to reduce crime.  We don't need laws that don't DO anything.

First thing I want to do is get my barrel threaded and get a supressor on it.  ARs sound like .22s with a can.   :D

AWB Spin

[b]http://www.pressherald.com/news/state/030514assault.shtml?survey12176

According to a statement from Feinstein's office, assault weapons accounted for 8.2 percent of all guns used in crimes in 1993. In 1996, the latest date for which statistics are available, the number dropped to 3.2 percent.



Bill Harwood, president of Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence, said the ban should go further. "It has had some effectiveness, but it's not nearly what it could be," he said.
"Manufacturers are very, very successful at finding ways of getting as close to the line as possible," Harwood said. "Bushmaster's a good example. They've learned how to work around the assault weapons ban and still supply firearms to people who are capable of doing things like those done by the Beltway (Washington) snipers."
[/b]

They act as if it took a think-tank and team of engineers to remove the flash hider and bayonet lug.

Amen to that!  Ron Paul is a good man.  I wish more Republicans were like him.  They'd be a much better party.

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...

I think I'll wait before I take my unused pre-ban 25 round mags for my 10/22 out of their packages.  Right now their market price is ridiculous ($65 las time I saw them at gun show) and it sounds strange to the average Joe that I wish they drop back down to $8!

I'm worried they'll tack on a bunch of feel-good stuff on bill to make it real bad to oppose.  Las time they tacked on provisions for creating for LEO jobs.  When a politician votes against it, he'll be accused of being anti-law enforcement and pro-puppie drowning.

I'll bet $$ that SOMETHING will just "HAPPEN" to push passage of the renewal.

Anybody want to bet against it?

SOMETHING.....like a massive "Columbine" type massacre.

Soemething will happen!!!!