Gonzales on guns
Well, now we know:
Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales told the Senate on Tuesday that he supports extending the expired federal assault weapons ban.
Actually, the possibility for extension came and went. Now, a new one would have to be passed. And the Bush administration gets the NRA endorsement?
January 18th, 2005 at 6:31 pm
Well, duh. Of course the NRA endorses the guy who more or less supports the Second Amendment over the guy who opposes it in every way, shape and form. And why does anyone even care what Gonzales thinks about the issue? Last time I checked, Attorneys General don’t get to vote in Congress, sign bills into law, or influence the law-making process in any other meaningful way.
January 18th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
I care because he’s charged with, you know, enforcing laws and stuff.
January 18th, 2005 at 6:44 pm
As would I, if Gonzales had dropped even the slightest hint he would try to enforce any “laws” that weren’t passed by Congress, but in his opinion, should have been, and stuff.
January 18th, 2005 at 6:44 pm
Did we ever get an official position on the AWB from Ashcroft? Regardless, the election is over. If Gonzales can’t even measure up to Ashcroft on the RKABA, he doesn’t deserve any support from us.
I refuse to support someone who wants to take gun rights in the wrong direction, even when they are nominated by a generally-favorable (compared to the alternatives) administration.
January 18th, 2005 at 6:47 pm
Oh, xrlqy wrlqy, as though the AG has no influence on legislation at all? They tend to recommend things and the like. IIRC, the PATRIOT act was one gigantic justice department wishlist and stuff.
January 18th, 2005 at 7:03 pm
Yeah, but wasn’t a lot of that stuff on the Janet Reno DOJ wish-list, too?
January 18th, 2005 at 8:14 pm
That’s a fair point, uncly wuncly. A lot of famous people inside and outside government recommend laws they like, and stuff. The nation’s top law enforcer did indeed have some influence in passing the specific law you raised, a law enforcement bill. I don’t think they play much of a role in anything else, however. President Clinton pushed a lot harder for the original AW ban than AG Reno did at the time, or could have for that matter.
January 18th, 2005 at 8:37 pm
Another Bush appointee who is merely the lesser of two evils….and in Gonzales case, not by much.
January 18th, 2005 at 8:58 pm
NRA could have endorsed the Libertarian candidate, but since he had absolutely no chance of being elected this would have been stupid for 2 reasons:
1. It would have pissed off the Republican Adminstration if Bush won.
2. It would have pissed off all the Republicans in Congress if Bush lost.
Neither of these would have gone very far in advancing the cause of the 2nd Amendment.
And most NRA members were not going to vote for the Libertarian candidate even if the NRA endorsed him – just based on his views on the war on terror if nothing else.
Withholding an endorsement would not have worked either. If Bush had won without the endorsement, what leverage would the NRA have. If Bush had lost without the endorsement, how much blame would the NRA have shouldered? (Especially given what the hypothetical Kerry adminstration would have done or tried to do – just in the area of judicial appointments we would have been screwed.)
January 18th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
They’ve withheld noms before and were going to do so with bush until the ban expired.
January 19th, 2005 at 1:12 am
First of all, anyone calls me “publy wubly” will be treated to another introduction like this one that you assume leads to some admonition backed by consequences but in actuality peters out in a verbose run on sentence that could have saved eveyrone lots of time by skipping over it. & stuff.
An AG does have sway in certain areas where legislation is scene as effecting his sphere of influence. It would not be tricky at all for an AG to come before congress & plead for them to pass another AWB before more cops are gunned down & children are needlessly killed & dogs & cats start living together in sin because of “assault weapons” being legal.
Since Bush ain’t no AWB opponent then I can see him letting his AG do the talking for him. If it passes then he can claim credit or distance himself as he sees fit.
& the NRA – from a “what’s best for me” point of view Deb is right – the NRA played its cards so as to appear more influential than it may be & thus increased its real power by boosting its perceived power.
However considering that a lot if not most republicans haven’t really gone out of their way to not piss off gun owners such as myself I really could care less if they get upset that an aleged (yes alleged) pro gun group didn’t back them in an election.
ut practically speaking the NRA plays too much on its perceived power & not enough on its potentia actual power – specifically they compromise & choose the lesser of two evils to mae gains in clout when if they actually did the right thing & called a gun control supprter a gun control supporter then odds are their influence would increase.
I’m not saying they have to become as absolutist as I am, but if they acted a little closer to my views & further from elmer fudd’s ideology then their membership as well as capital would go up. & that would mean they have more of a body of voters to try to direct to or from a candidate, which translates into more actual influence in D.C. as opposed to the lip service-type influence they have.
But the AG’s views are not encouraging. If for no other reason than it could be a good indication of how he’ll treat the unconstitutional laws currently on the books. Odds are if he supports an AWB then he wouldn’t have qualms about revrsing the Ashcroft treatment (one day retention) of NICS records.