Gonzales Backs Assault Weapons Ban

Heimdall

New member
Jan 18, 2:38 PM EST


Gonzales Backs Assault Weapons Ban


By JESSE J. HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales told the Senate on Tuesday that he supports extending the expired federal assault weapons ban.


Gonzales also said he wants Congress to get rid of a requirement that would eliminate part of the Patriot Act this year, despite complaints that it is too intrusive.


"I believe the USA PATRIOT Act has greatly improved our nation's ability to detect and prevent terrorist attacks," Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee in written answers to questions left over from his confirmation hearing.


Gonzales, who served as President Bush's lawyer during his first term, is expected to be confirmed when the Senate returns after Bush's inauguration on Jan. 20. He would be the nation's first Hispanic attorney general and replace John Ashcroft.

Democrats, including Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., pressed Gonzales for written answers to several of their questions during his daylong confirmation hearing. Those answers were delivered on Tuesday to the committee, which planned a Wednesday meeting to consider nominations.


Congress let the 10-year-old assault weapons ban expire in September. The measure outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons, banned certain features on firearms such as bayonet mounts, and limited ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.


Gonzales pointed out that his brother Tony is a SWAT officer in Houston.
"I worry about his safety and the types of weapons he will confront on the street," Gonzales said. "The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress. I, of course, support the president on this issue."

Antigun groups criticized Bush during the presidential campaign for failing to press for an extension of the ban.


Gonzales also said he supports the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, the post-Sept. 11 law that expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers.


More than a dozen provisions of the law are set to expire by late October 2005 unless renewed by Congress. These include authority for judges to issue search warrants that apply nationwide, authority for FBI and criminal investigators to share information about terrorism cases, and the FBI's power to obtain records in terrorism-related cases from businesses and other entities, including libraries.


"I believe the sunsets that apply to several provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act should be repealed," Gonzales said.


Opponents have called the law intrusive and contend that letting the FBI get library records undermines civil liberties and threatens to let the government snoop into the reading habits of innocent Americans.


Gonzales says people have misunderstood what parts of the Patriot Act does. "I am unaware of abuses under the USA PATRIOT Act," he said. "For this reason, I welcome an honest and real debate."


Gonzales said he is willing to consider tempering that part of the law.


The statute says business and library records must be "sought for" a terrorism investigation. Opponents have claimed that means the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court - the secret court that approves surveillance and wiretaps for espionage and terrorism cases - had no choice about whether to grant the subpoena.


"I would be happy for the statute to be amended to state the investigators may ask the FISA court for an order requesting the production of documents 'relevant to' an ongoing foreign intelligence investigation," Gonzales said.
 
And again, I point out it's one thing to say "If it crossed my desk I'd sign it", and quite another to actively write/push anti-gun legislation and agenda (ala Kerry).

Tell me how Kerry would better preserve our gun rights?
 
So you admit that Kerry is anti-gun, yet are quite willing to vote for him?
confused.gif
 
Please read this and post your thoughts. I'm very disappointed...

WASHINGTON — Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales (search) told the Senate on Tuesday that he supports extending the expired federal assault weapons ban (search).

Gonzales also said he wants Congress to get rid of a requirement that would eliminate part of the Patriot Act this year, despite complaints that it is too intrusive.

"I believe the USA PATRIOT Act (search) has greatly improved our nation's ability to detect and prevent terrorist attacks," Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee in written answers to questions left over from his confirmation hearing.

Gonzales, who served as President Bush's lawyer during his first term, is expected to be confirmed when the Senate returns after Bush's inauguration on Jan. 20. He would be the nation's first Hispanic attorney general and replace John Ashcroft.

Democrats, including Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., pressed Gonzales for written answers to several of their questions during his daylong confirmation hearing. Those answers were delivered on Tuesday to the committee, which planned a Wednesday meeting to consider nominations.

Congress let the 10-year-old assault weapons ban expire in September. The measure outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons, banned certain features on firearms such as bayonet mounts, and limited ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

Gonzales pointed out that his brother Tony is a SWAT (search) officer in Houston.

"I worry about his safety and the types of weapons he will confront on the street," Gonzales said. "The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress. I, of course, support the president on this issue."

Antigun groups criticized Bush during the presidential campaign for failing to press for an extension of the ban.

Gonzales also said he supports the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, the post-Sept. 11 law that expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers.

More than a dozen provisions of the law are set to expire by late October 2005 unless renewed by Congress. These include authority for judges to issue search warrants that apply nationwide, authority for FBI and criminal investigators to share information about terrorism cases, and the FBI's power to obtain records in terrorism-related cases from businesses and other entities, including libraries.

"I believe the sunsets that apply to several provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act should be repealed," Gonzales said.

Opponents have called the law intrusive and contend that letting the FBI (search) get library records undermines civil liberties and threatens to let the government snoop into the reading habits of innocent Americans.

Gonzales says people have misunderstood what parts of the Patriot Act does. "I am unaware of abuses under the USA PATRIOT Act," he said. "For this reason, I welcome an honest and real debate."

Gonzales said he is willing to consider tempering that part of the law.

The statute says business and library records must be "sought for" a terrorism investigation. Opponents have claimed that means the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court -- the secret court that approves surveillance and wiretaps for espionage and terrorism cases -- had no choice about whether to grant the subpoena.

"I would be happy for the statute to be amended to state the investigators may ask the FISA court for an order requesting the production of documents 'relevant to' an ongoing foreign intelligence investigation," Gonzales said.
 
keep in mind this is just political pussyfooting. If both houses are as republican controlled then the AWB may never get back to the whitehouse. If thats the case you can kiss ass in one hand saying "oh I'll support it if it comes to me" and turn around and know fully that it wont get to you.

Doug
 
If thats the case you can kiss ass in one hand saying "oh I'll support it if it comes to me" and turn around and know fully that it wont get to you.
Like the "Campaign Finance Reform" that didn't "reform" the "finances" but infringed the 1st Amendment?
 
Yep, unfortently.

Im not saying that its good what Gonzales is doing, far from it. It part of the reason I just try to stay away from politics, most is bs the rest pisses me off.
 
Sheesh, this is like 2000 all over again.

Yes, Bush said he would sign the AWB renewal...if it reached his desk.

Yes, Gonzales has now said that he favors a renewal.

Nothing happened last September, and nothing will happen in the next four years.
 
Who controls congress? Who controls the supreme court? Why would i worry about my second amendment rights if kerry was elected? Thats like wrrying about sunburn in the artic circle during winter time.( there is barely any sunlight)

The lack of political knowledge here is astounding.

First off, in the last election the senate was nearly a 50/50 split...and thats just based on the democrat/republican label. The blue dogs and RINO crossovers probably balance each other out too though. How many votes does it take to get a bill on to the president? Do you like playing odds with your gun rights with a nearly 50/50 split in the Senate and a democrat in the Oval Office? Hell, if the Senate went democrat (and it could have) Joe Biden could have been chair of the Judiciary Committee! The House had more republicans and pro-gun support, but it did in '94 too and we all know what happened then.

And your comment about the Supreme Court? Are you high? The next president will likely have 2 nominations to the Court. I suppose you's like to place your trust in John Kerry to nominate strict constructionist judges?

Face it, Gonzalez said what he did to get through the Senate hearings. Get it? Does the name "Bork" mean anything to you? Or would you prefer he hande the democrats the ammo they use to shoot him down with?
 
If gun owners would pull together and organize like the million mom march maybe we would get something done. I hear alot of gun owners bitch and complain all the laws and regulations imposed on us. We find time to post our comments and complaints on this and other forums, take the time to write to our government officials. I understand that life can be hectic with work and family and other interests. Guns have been a life long hobby but the last 4 years has taken a back to other things.

I talk to gun owners all the time about getting involved. What do I get?

"That's what the NRA is for."

"They won't take our guns."

"What good would it do, the Gov. will do what they want."


If we don't pull together and stand up for our own rights nobody will.

If you meet an anti gunner don't waste your breath arguing with them. Invite them to go shooting (not to hold the target). They might decide they had fun and might decide to change sides. I've taken people shooting that could care less about guns, after that first time they would ask me when they could go shoot again.

We need have our own marches, rallies, and voice our opinion to the people that matter.

Remember It's our Country, not the Govs. The work for us. Make them work for us.

Or we can sit back and let someone else fight for our rights and not even try to help and let the anti's pick us off one at a time!
 
Same point, different thread

I said before in a similar thread, this is called "politics." You say what people want to hear even if it is not what you would actually do, hoping that the eventuality never presents itself. Like GWB saying he would sign another AWB. He knows one is unlikely to cross his desk. If it were to cross his desk, there is the next phase of politics: Making/finding excuses for not signing a bill you said you would sign. A good excuse is the addition of undesirable riders.
 
For what purpose is Bush taking an anti-gun perspective in the first place? Why is there shame here? You can't flip-flop on something as essential as gun rights.

Appeals to suburban women? Just what is he thinking?

We elected a conservative here, yet this man is simply unwilling to play his part.

It's highly unlikely that Alberto R. Gonzales, with the power of Attorney General, will be toothless. He has vast resources and power at his disposal. He should be opposed AT ALL COSTS.

It's time gun owners smack some sense into Bush so that he remembers who elected him.
 
I, of course, support the president on this issue.

Gonzales, regarding the AWB.

Not a bad plan if he wants a job working for said president.

Nonetheless, I wish GW could have found a better candidate, and the same applies to the HSA.
 
Back
Top