I think the press is gearing up for All Assault Weapons, All The Time. Newsday:

In the decade since the Long Island Rail Road shooting and the nine years since Congress enacted a law to ban assault-style semiautomatic weapons, the world has changed, according to Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-Mineola). And not for the better.

That’s why she and other gun-law advocates are pressing to extend the assault weapons ban enacted in 1994, a year after the LIRR shootings that killed six and wounded 19. The ban will expire in September unless Congress and the president act.

McCarthy, whose husband, Dennis, was killed and son, Kevin, gravely wounded in the shootings, and other backers of the law are facing an uphill battle.

House Republican leaders say they won’t bring it up this year. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) does not have it “on the radar screen right now,” said spokesman John Feehery. “We’ll re-evaluate priorities for next session, but it’s not on his priority list now.”

President George W. Bush, who pledged in his campaign he would sign an extension of the weapons ban if it reached his desk, seems unenthusiastic about pressuring Congress to get it there. The president has “made it clear he supports the extension of the assault weapons ban,” said White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan. But she listed Medicare and fighting the war on terror as the president’s “highest priorities” and wouldn’t say where the assault weapons ban ranked on that priority list.

To McCarthy, extending the assault weapons ban fits nicely into the war on terror. She cited both the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and last year’s Washington-area sniper shootings as two reasons the ban needs to remain in effect.

Now, we see the attempt to label the ban as a terrorist measure. One case where the press gets it wrong again:

John Muhammad has been convicted in one of the sniper shootings and his alleged accomplice, 18-year-old Lee Malvo, is currently on trial in another. The gun used in those attacks was a copycat of an AR-15 assault rifle banned under the 1994 law.

The last sentence is confusing to me. Are they saying the weapon used was banned? They may be implying it. However, the gun used was not banned by the Assault Weapons ban. Regardless, the assault weapons ban is useless at banning guns and serves merely to keep the proverbial foot in the door.

Posted in uncategorized on December 9th, 2003 by SayUncle | RSS 2.0 |