It's all over if this bitch and her bitch bill get through.

[url]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/05/07/state1811EDT0137.DTL[/url]

Gun-control backers split over strategy to extend weapons ban

MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

Wednesday, May 7, 2003  

(05-07) 15:11 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

People who want to keep assault weapons off the streets are divided over how best to extend the ban on those guns, which is set to expire two months before the 2004 elections.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday intends to introduce an extension of the assault weapons ban that she helped enact in 1994. The Bush administration has announced its support for continuing the prohibition on military-style assault weapons.

The issue promises to become mired in election-year politics, just as the original ban -- passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Clinton -- helped fuel the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.

Many gun-control advocates normally allied with Feinstein and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., are backing a measure that Democrats in the House also plan to introduce Thursday.

The bill by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is modeled on California law, which supporters of gun control point to as much more effective than the federal law in combating the effort by gun makers to evade the ban.

The difference is in the definition of an assault weapon. The current law and Feinstein's bill cast a narrower net than does the proposal by House Democrats.

Intratec, the maker of the banned TEC-9, now makes a model AB-10 to comply with federal law but can't sell the gun in California. Other gun makers have made similar changes to previously banned models.

"There are probably more assault weapons nationally on the market than there were in 1994," Kristen Rand, legislative director of the pro-gun control Violence Policy Center, said. "But they can't be sold in California because they strengthened their law."

Rand and others conceded that the federal law is not effective because it is easily evaded.

In a letter to Feinstein, the Consumer Federation of America and four dozen other civic and consumer groups said they can't support Feinstein's legislation, which they say "does not address the limitations in existing law."

Feinstein, trying to navigate a Republican-controlled Congress that is not favorably disposed to gun control measures, is proposing a bill more likely to draw support from moderate Democrats and Republicans, especially now that extending the assault weapons ban has the president's support.

Gun-rights groups said they will try to defeat both bills.

"Empirical evidence shows this gun ban has had zero effect on reducing crime," said Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association.

Both sides in the debate said it is unclear which side will prevail. While the bills are set to be introduced Thursday, a vote is unlikely to occur before next year.

In the meantime, the gun debate of the moment is over a bill to provide gun makers and distributors protection from being sued for damages resulting from their product. The House already has passed the measure, which is now awaiting Senate action.

Joe Sudbay of the Violence Policy Center said he was hopeful that Republican campaign efforts to win suburbs, where gun control sentiment typically is strong, will help the assault weapons ban in Congress.

"In swing districts, suburban districts particularly, a lot of members are going to have to decide whether they want to be on the side of supporting the assault weapons ban or letting it expire," Sudbay said.

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican and NRA director, said the debate over assault weapons next year could be the same catalyst it was in 1994.

"It could be a real rallying cry for conservatives right around the election," Barr said.

Which is why LA and SF are soooooo safe.

Actually, if you read the article (and others from today), it is clear that Feinstein has scaled back her ambitious plans.  She's smart enough to know that if the Senate passes a much more restrictive ban, Bush likely would not sign it (remember, he said he supports the "current" ban).  So, her bill will renew the ban mostly as-is.

In the House, however, Conyers and McCarthy are going to introduce a much more restrictive ban that stands virtually no chance at all of passing, or even making it out of the Judiciary Committee.

--Mike

The compromise bill will be back to the level that feinstein originally wanted. After bush signs it into law everyone wins. The socialists get their gun ban, bush is re-elected for a 2nd lame duck term, even though he loses a VERY VERY small number of progun votes the anti-gunners he picks up more than compensates. Oh and most importantly, the neo-cons get what they have wanted all along: keeping a republican in the white house!

So don't be so down on yourselves boys! Things are definitely looking up!

[b][red]This right here is the fucking truth and I hope you all have read it!

If W. supports this shit I say we call for an impeachment for violating the constitution and the safety of America[/b][/red]

I am leaving this country if George W. signs this crap.

Want to car/air pool?

But where would you go? Wish I could do that but I can't think of a better place...

Easy people... Starting to sound like a replay from the Dumbocrats and the 2000 election.

Well for me lets see what happens next. The NRA made the difference between winning and losing in many states for Bush. I hope he has enough see sense to see where is support is from. The Democrats pretty much got pommeled(it rather kind words) during the last election go-around. Poeple the espoused more gun control lost big-time. Only the news media is still believing in this BS. I hope the Democrat keep on believing their own hype, a sure formula for losing important elections. The voters aren't fooled.

it doesn't matter what she puts in HER new AWB bill.

she is NOT supporting the Constitution of the United States, (i.e. the Second Amendment) therefore she is NOT upholding the oath she took when she took office.
thus, TREASON against the office, and the United States.

When will people catch onto this?