I don't think so.

Glenn notes that Bush has endorsed a renewal of the "assault weapons" ban. I don't think that it's as bad for him politically as the good Professor does.

I'd think that the chances of an extension passing are close to nil, even with a Bush endorsement, and he (and Rove) knows that (remember, it was a Democrat-controlled Congress that got the first one through). And remember who's majority leader in the House. Tom Delay probably won't even let it out of committee.

So it's probably a safe position to take. He can make himself look moderate to the moderates, while still allowing the thing to die, thus pleasing his gun rights constituency. The issue isn't what the administration's formal position is, but whether it actually provides any pressure to make it happen. I'll be surprised if they do.

The only real political danger is if it actually passes, and he then has to sign it so as not to appear to change his position.

I just wish that more (or all) laws were sunsetted (sunsat?) like this one.

I just wish that more (or all) laws were sunsetted like this one.

A requirment that legislation expires after a certain date was the most popular submission to Volokh.com ( May 09 2002. 7:04 PM), when ideas for a constitutional amendment were solicited (May 06 2002. 06:59 AM).

SUNSETS: Just getting back to going through the submissions (116 so far -- this is proving to be a popular item!).

One surprise for me: The most common suggestion, mentioned by seven people (John Allison, Robert Racansky, Paul Sand, Rand Simberg, Michael Williams, Ross Nordeen, and Neel Krishnaswami), wasn't gun rights or repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment or term limits (though all had their partisans), but rather a "sunsetting" requirement for legislation.

Sunsetting provisions, of course, mandate that legislation expire a certain number of years after it's enacted; then, if Congress wants to renew the law, it would affirmatively have to reenact it, and get it signed by the President or override the President's veto. And since reenacting a law requires a broader consensus than just retaining an existing law would, this might well have end up both generally reducing the volume of legislation that's in effect, and especially reducing possibly obsolete legislation. An intriguing and sophisticated idea; I'm not sure whether it would work out, but it might well be promising.

Re: Assault Weapons Ban

I think you're wrong about the effect of the President's position on his prospects for re-election. As a Florida voter who "crossed over" to vote for Bush in 2000, I can say he just lost me. Many supporters of gun rights are civil libertarians generally, and civil liberties is not exactly a strong suit for this administration. This will push many voters over the edge.

So, even if the bill never even makes it to the floor of the House, you'll still vote Democrat next time? Even for a Democrat that will actually work hard to get an extension?

More likely, not to vote at all. That's one mistake I've seen made by the Republican Party in the past, seeming to ask themselves rhetorically, "What are they going to do, vote Democrat? So they get mad at us -- where are they gonna go?"

In 1998 they got their answer: Nowhere. Not even to the polls on Election Day.

That said, there is a great deal to be said for doing something to keep the staunchly anti-gun Democrats from regaining the opportunity to extend -- and strengthen -- the ban.

Kevin's got it right. The Dems aren't the only alternative.

I must respectfully disagree. Bush took a lot more flack from conservatives for steel tariffs than Clinton did for not stopping the execution of a mentally retarded death row inmate. The right isn't as willing as the left to compromise to keep "their guy" in power.

He's possibly got enough popularity to survive and be re-elected by another narrow margin, but it's not enough just to survive. If he really wants to make the big changes in the tax code and education reform that he claims he wants to, he'll need to win by a large margin, and he'll need coattails to elect more GOP Senators so every bill doesn't get cut in half and another wad of cash dropped on the airlines to appease Daschle's lobbyist wife. And he won't get any moderate support for caving on gun rights to make up for what he loses in his base, any more than his Dad did for signing a tax increase.

I'm still having a problem with terminology here. "Caving on gun rights" would be to actually twist arms on the Hill to get a new extension passed. If he does that, I absolutely agree that he'll suffer for it politically.

But to simply say, "yeah, we'd like to see it happen" knowing that it won't just seems like smart politics to me, because the reality will be that the ban disappears before the election (and the spectre of a return will loom on the horizon if a Democrat is elected). Just what is it the gun rightists will be mad about again, under those circumstances?

"But to simply say, "yeah, we'd like to see it happen" knowing that it won't just seems like smart politics to me, because the reality will be that the ban disappears before the election (and the spectre of a return will loom on the horizon if a Democrat is elected). "

Does "campaign finance reform" ring a bell? Anyone?

The President cannot keep relying on the other branches of government to kill bad bills for him. That's part of his job, and it's about time he starts doing it.

I agree that the President has to kill bad bills. The question is, will he personally have to kill this particular one, or is it a non-issue because the House will never allow it to become law?

As I already said, if it ever actually reaches his desk, he's in deep kimchi.

I think that Karl Rove is betting that it will never come to that. Is it a pretty policy? No.

Are the odds that it won't happen, and that the position will get him reelected (thus preventing a president that actually would fight for a renewal of this idiotic legislation)? Yes.

Sorry, I'm with those who think this is just lame. Bush could have made just as much headway with the so-called moderates by issuing a more non-committal statement along the lines of, "I'm completely in agreement with the goal of keeping guns out of the hands of convicted criminals. There does seem to be some question whether this particular law is in fact helping in this regard, or not..."

Kirk's right. Bush could very easily have told a post-9/11 America that gunlaws like the semi-auto ban are a relic of a bygone era when Americans dared believe we could stop bad people merely by saying "you can't have a gun."

Some things about America really have changed. I would have hoped the Bush Administration would have realized this.

The GOP has been giving its core supporters - like me - screaming fits since 1996, and the election results from then on show it. Start fighting for us on more than just the military front! Grrrrrr!

I agree that it's lame, and even, as Glenn said, "Clintonian." I just don't think that it's enough to justify shooting yourself in the foot by allowing a Democrat into the White House, unless (s)he pledges to be better on gun rights than Bush (unlikely).

I agree with Rand. Not only do you have to worry about the gun control issue with a Democrat in the White House, but also the stance the Democratic presidential candidates and the party have been taking on the war on terror/ Iraq!

I don't approve of the President's take on the ban. I think he is using this stance to put himself in a favorable political position after the ban expires. I don't agree with him playing politics with this sort of issue, but there it is. The risk of placing a Democrat with an anti-gun and anti-war on terror stance in the White House is simply not worth sending Bush a message over one issue that is probably a non-issue

Oops. That was me above!

Assuming Rand is right on the purpose of the annoucement and assuming Dems would love to make an election issue of it, wouldn't a good question be; what would the Dem strategy have been absent the announcement, and what now, now that it's been made?

I suspect that their strategy will be to try to beat up the House Republicans, claiming that even the White House is for it, and that they're baby killing neanderthals.

I still don't think it will work.

"The risk of placing a Democrat with an anti-gun and anti-war on terror stance in the White House is simply not worth sending Bush a message over one issue that is probably a non-issue"

Combine that with Campaign Finance Reform, steel tariffs, jacking up federal education spending, cloning research opposition, federal funding of "faith-based" charities, and so on, and it makes one wish that primary challenges to sitting presidents were more common.

The way things are now, Bush just has to be a little bit better than his likely Democratic opponent, and his base will have to stick with him. But if he realistically had to worry about a primary challenger hammering him on domestic issues before Republican voters, he might clean up his act a bit.

Unfortunately, Ken, he also has not insignificant constituencies for a lot of those positions within his own party. The real problem is that two parties cannot encompass the much more complex political positions of individuals. All you can do is add up the columns, and decide which evil is lesser.

Of course, the nice thing about the electoral college is that if your state isn't close, you can vote for whomever you want, to at least make a statement.

Of course, while I'm a strong gun-rights advocate, my highest priority right now (even higher than the economy, even though I'm not doing well myself right now) is reordering the world to ensure that LA doesn't get nuked. My preference for Republicans over Democrats in that regard (at least this particular Republican) will trump all.

This bears copy n' pasting here:

108th US Congress -

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE -
(this is where all gun-control bills are introduced in the House)
Chairman - Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-WI: GOA rating: A

HOUSE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY -
(this is the judiciary subcommittee that is the first to vote on (or bury) all gun-control bills)
Chairman - Rep. Howard Coble, R-NC: GOA rating: A
Subcommittee Members -
* Rep. Tom Feeney, R-FL: GOA rating: A
* Rep. Rick Keller, R-FL: GOA rating: A
* Rep. Mike Pence, R-IN: GOA rating: A
* Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-VA: GOA rating: A-
* Rep. Randy Forbes, R-VA: GOA rating: A-
* Rep. Steve Chabot, R-OH: GOA rating: A-
* Rep. Mark Green, R-WI: GOA rating: B-
* Rep. Robert Scott, D-VA: GOA rating: F-
* Rep. Adam Schiff, D-CA: GOA rating: F-
* Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-TX: GOA rating: F-
* Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA: GOA rating: F-
* Rep. Martin Meehan, D-MA: GOA rating: F-

HOUSE MAJORITY WHIP -
(this is who is most responsible for "moving" bills or "sidetracking" bills in the House)
* Rep. Tom DeLay, R-TX: GOA rating: A

Just look at that straight-A line-up!

THIS is what a Republican-majority can do - but the battle's just beginning now!

This is our BEST chance to kill these kinds of bills.

Right now we got a
GOA-A-rated Committee Chairman,
GOA-A-rated Subcommittee Chairman,
MAJORITY of GOA-A-rated Subcommittee members, and a
GOA-A-rated House Majority Whip.

[mpuckett]P.S. A 'B' from the Gun Owners of America is as good as an 'A' from the NRA. The GOA grades to amuch stricter scale and this is well known inside the Second Amendment community.

An 'A' from GOA measn yo believe the only gun control is hitting what you aim at!

Mike presents a good argument. Whatever else I may have said about this, I have every intention of voting for Bush and the GOP in 2004.

Maybe if Bush were found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy (as an old Louisiana pol once quipped), I might reconsider -- but when I contemplate John Kerry or Dick Gephardt in the Oval Office, it would be a tough decision even then.

Vote for the non government party. If he says he's for the ban then he is my enemy. So should it be with you. It doesn't matter if he thinks it will die or not!!!!!!!!!!!

It iss a big mistake. Its far enough ahead of the election to possibly not matter, but its utterly stupid. Now, it takes focus away from his massively successful war/fight on terrorism, back to an issue that's not going to win him votes anyway.

The gun-grabbers aren't going to vote for him, but he can alienate the gun vote away.

His father did. A large part of the reason I didn't vote at all in '92 was the fact that I *could not* vote for Bush 41 after he backstabbed the gun owners with similar mealy mouthed platitudes. And since I wasn't going to vote for Clinton or Perot....

And now I'm forced to re-re-think my analysis of Bush the Politician... I didn't think he was a good fit for the white house, despite his accomplishments. Then he succeeded quite consipiciously, roping almost all his opponents into traps -and even if its his advisors, _he's still listening to them_. Now, he goes and does this, and why?

Its a stupid ban, and most critically thinking people understand that. So for him to support it...you have to ask then "on what grounds?" And it appears to be blantant vote-grubbing (which is even dumber, cause its attempting to pander to the groups calling him the next incarnation of Hitler).

Very, very bad move.

Addison