PDA

View Full Version : [NEWS] Killings unlikely to ease way for weapons ban



zero7one
27 March 2009, 15:32
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/26/MN4D16MVF0.DTL


John Wildermuth, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, March 27, 2009

In 1994, Sen. Dianne Feinstein used the tragedy of San Francisco's 101 California massacre to push a decadelong ban on assault weapons through Congress. But even the horror of Saturday's slayings of four Oakland police officers is unlikely to break through the bipartisan opposition that blocked the renewal of that ban in 2004.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and dozens of House Democrats have said they oppose efforts to bring back the national ban, either because the timing is wrong or because they oppose gun control.

Pelosi said she hasn't even discussed the possibility of a renewal with President Obama and his staff, who face urgent issues from fixes to the nation's economy to health care reform.

"Let's start out enforcing the laws we have now," she said at a Feb. 26 news conference, echoing the argument of the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun activists.

But the political roadblocks aren't going to stop Feinstein.

With the pain of Oakland's fatal shootings still fresh, Feinstein declined to comment directly on plans to renew her long-running quest for a new ban on the sale of assault weapons. But Gil Duran, a spokesman for the senator, said Feinstein is preparing a new bill.

"I am prepared to wage the assault weapons battle again and I intend to do so," Feinstein said in a speech to the Senate last month. "I have been quiet about this because there are many other pressing needs of this nation. But with the help of the president, the administration and the people of this great country, we do need to fight back."

Obama's position

Feinstein has support in high places. During last fall's campaign, Obama said he wanted to reinstate the ban, and last month Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged that it remains part of the administration's agenda.

"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum," Holder said in a Feb. 25 news conference in Phoenix.

The Mexican government has complained that the easy availability of high-powered weapons in the United States has resulted in guns pouring across the border and ending up in the hands of that country's violent drug cartels.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton echoed those sentiments in Mexico City on Wednesday. She said that while she supports a new assault weapons ban, "politically, that is a very big hurdle in our Congress. But there may be some approaches that are acceptable, and we are exploring those."

Still, Holder admitted there are plenty of other issues higher on Obama's priority list.

In 1993, an assault weapons ban also was off the table in Congress. Then, on July 1 of that year, Gian Luigi Ferri walked into the law firm of Pettit & Martin at 101 California St. with a pair of assault weapons and started shooting.

Eight slain, six wounded

Ferri who had a long-standing grudge against the firm, killed eight people and wounded six others in the high-rise office building before killing himself as police closed in.

Feinstein, who had only been in the Senate for months, pushed hard for a ban on the type of weapons used in that massacre. The ban passed the House on a 216-214 vote after an Indiana congressman switched his vote from "no" to "yes" in the final seconds of balloting.

But Feinstein wasn't so lucky when the ban came up for renewal in 2004. Although then-President George W. Bush said he supported the ban, he made no effort to push for reinstating it.

In an election year, many Democrats from conservative parts of the country were reluctant to back a gun-control measure that could be used against them.

Pro-gun lobbyists argued that the assault weapons ban was ill-advised and ineffective, targeting sportsmen and hobbyists even as criminals continued to find and use the weapons.

Democrats aren't any more eager to buck the gun lobby this year. Reid voted against the assault weapons ban in 1994, against the renewal in 2004 and let it be known he would oppose it again this year if it came up for a Senate vote.

In a letter to Holder last week, 65 House Democrats signed a letter that said they would "actively oppose any effort to reinstate the 1994 ban or to pass any similar law."

NRA ready to fight

Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the NRA, said that now isn't the time to talk about the politics of an assault weapons ban, but left little doubt that the organization would battle Feinstein's efforts to push a new ban.

A national assault weapons ban would have no direct effect on California, which already has the nation's toughest rules on the weapons. But law enforcement authorities say a nationwide law would keep California criminals from crossing the border into neighboring states where the high-powered weapons can be purchased legally.

"It would bolster California's gun laws if the federal government adopted legislation similar to what California has enacted," said state Attorney General Jerry Brown.

Stickman
27 March 2009, 16:36
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and dozens of House Democrats have said they oppose efforts to bring back the national ban, either because the timing is wrong or because they oppose gun control.

Pelosi said she hasn't even discussed the possibility of a renewal with President Obama and his staff,


The only reason they aren't pushing it is to save their own hides right now.

MMG
27 March 2009, 16:51
Agreed. Don't think it isn't going to happen. This is frightening indeed and it may get to the point where some very tough decisions will have to be made.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/obamas_sights_on_second_amendm.html

federalist22
27 March 2009, 17:46
just stay vigilant...................and be sure to spam the crap out of your house/senate reps and the president--get on Congress.org and start writing them.

TehLlama
27 March 2009, 20:14
"Don't let a good crisis go to waste"... they're just trying to preserve what little political capital they have left after the succession of nomination boondoggles, tanking market, AIG nationalization failures, and frequent off-teleprompter gaffes. i.e. what Stick said.

waterdoor
3 April 2009, 23:04
A national assault weapons ban would have no direct effect on California, which already has the nation's toughest rules on the weapons. But law enforcement authorities say a nationwide law would keep California criminals from crossing the border into neighboring states where the high-powered weapons can be purchased legally.

WTF WTF WTF!!! And nobody raises the red Fing flag on that last statement. These stinking libtards are too stupid to make a legitimate excuse.

Stick I know you are a leo, but man some of the worst offenders of this propaganda B.S. are higher level LEO's

First a criminal can't just cross state lines and legally buy a weapon. Second with the laws of Kalifornication, they would be breaking the law the second they tried bringing it back into California. This however never stops a criminal from doing what they want. What is so damn hard to understand here LibTards.

Criminals don't buy weapons legally!! 99% percent of these reporters are complete morons and have no clue how the background checks work.

ARRGHH my frustration level with the MSM has hit the boiling point. I only wish I had Bill Gates money and I would buy up some of these news sources and it would be a FOX nation.