How to end AW ban with public support

[Moved2Texas]

The public support for the ban is based on their belief that these are machine guns. They see a picture of a AR-15 and think it must be a machine gun. They do not know that the term “Assault Weapons” as defined in the act dose not mean fully automatic firearms.

All pro gun politicians need to do is agree to renew the ban in modified form such that it only applies only to fully automatic firearms.

When the press interviews Republicans it will accuse them of in effect not renewing the ban. Republicans MUST insist they ARE renewing the ban. In frustration, the press may even keep pointing out that the assault weapon ban has nothing to do with machine guns so the Republicans are trying to kill the ban. Republicans must always respond, “All assault rifles which are machine guns that were banned under the act will still be banned.”

Polls could be commissioned asking, “Should the renewed assault weapon ban apply to machine guns or other guns as well?” I imagine most would say machine guns, and if so, this could be used as further evidence of the reasonableness of the modifying language. Republicans might event try this poll before deciding to go forward.

I really believe this strategy is a checkmate to the anti-gun media. Either they go along with the AW ban only applying to machineguns--an effective repeal, or they loudly protest that the machine gun provision guts the act--therefore educating everyone that the debate is NOT about machine guns. It does not even matter if the anti-gunners know the game plan here. What could they do about it?

What are your thoughts? Would it be worth trying to get this idea to the attention of high-level pro-gun politicians? The only downside is it requires Republicans to have a small amount of backbone and the ability to stick to a story.

[Kaylee]

sounds clever.. I'd be careful there though.. the libs could easily expand that wording to cover existing NFA-covered stuff as well, and make all legally-owned autos verboten as well. Remember how the "Gun Owners Protection Act" bit us in the heiny on that one..

-K

[Brett Bellmore]

"The only downside is it requires Republicans to have a small amount of backbone and the ability to stick to a story."

Realistically, that's one heck of a BIG downside!

Our biggest problem in this is not public opinion, IMO, it's that the Republican leadership, (Lott, for instance) are covertly anti-gun, and will deliberately sabotoge any Republican effort to obstruct renewal of the ban. You'll recall that the ban wouldn't have passed in the first place if not for that sort of double-cross by Dole, and Lott is cut from the same stripe.

[tc556guy]

The ban shouldn't even cover machine guns. The illegal use of lawfully owned FA prior to the 1986 FA ban was so minimal it wasn't funny. There is no basis to keep the 1986 ban, and it too should be overturned.
I don't argue that the distinction needs to be made in the publics mind about whats covered under the 1994 law. I don't think the anti's are as stupid as you claim. There have been too mnay statements made about "raid-fire semi-auto's" by the anti's to make me believe that THEY have any confusion in their minds about what they are talking about.

[Moved2Texas]

I agree with all points made so far, but I still think the idea if carefully implemented has merit as part of an incremental and momentum building approach to getting rid of bad laws.

How does the current AW ban apply to legally owned autos? Not at all, I believe. So a simple modification exempting all non fully automatic weapons should have no negative effect on the current legal status of autos. Repealing the NFA would be a different fight.

Funny, when I wrote about backbone I was picturing Lott in my mind (and Hasturd [sp?]). On the positive side, the plan requires only Bush with his veto power and/or a pro-gun coalition in the House of Representatives.

I have not given up on Bush. So far, he is better then his father and even Reagan on the gun issue. For example, both his VP and attorney general picks could not have been much better. Imagine if he had chosen Ms. Dole as VP. :barf:

[Monkeyleg]

I like the idea. Maybe now is a good time to float it past someone like Ron Paul, Dick Armey or Bob Barr.

[Hard_Case]

Nice idea, but you need to think in terms of two things: target audience, and target response. And the two go hand in hand.

The anti-gun media can simply trump up an ad...say a background image of a table filled with things like AR-15's, AK's, G3's, couple of SPAS, throw in a few Uzi's, with half-fade transitions to the smiling faces of children.....all the while some motherly sounding voice quietly imploring 'this year, the NRA is fighting to put these assault weapons back on the streets....weapons that have taken the lives of these children...weapons that have turned our streets into war zones...weapons that have no purpose in our society. Don't let them get away with murder. Call your representative and tell them you will not allow more innocent children to die'.

I do not think this can be won in the media, or with the public. There's been too much demonizing of these "assault weapons". Giving these politicians reasons to vote aren't good enough. They've got constituents to appease, many of whom would be swayed by the ad above. We need to give them a good reason to vote against the ban. And I don't think trying to nitpick aspects of law will do that.

[RickD]

This tactic is already being tried, slowly. I have heard Dubya and other GOP using the same language for, my guess, the same purposes.

Rick

[WyldOne]

The public support for the ban is based on their belief that these are machine guns.

hmm. and the public who supports the ban see these guns as being scary and evil. regardless of if they're "assault weapons", "machine guns", or what. the logistics don't really matter as much as the intimidation factor. and to most (many?) anti's, those guns look MIGHTY scary.

[KimberLady]

Won't do us a darn bit of good in California....

[Malone LaVeigh]

The Repugs will never work to overturn the AW ban. Even the few that might favor such a move are petrified that as soon as they do so, some nutcase will shoot up a school somewhere. Then the Dems will forever paint them as putting weapons in the hands of child-killers. I'm afraid it's going to take a lot of education and reaching out to those you may disagree with otherwise. Maybe our children...

[Mithirium]

The reason many republicans wont actively work to repeal the assault ban is the fact that the demonRATS have won the spin war and managed to define in the public mind that anybody who is not in favor of the ban is a mass homicide craven nutzo. These sentiments favored ofcourse by most of the center left persuasion

[WyldOne]

well it also doesn't help matters when charlton heston himself is saying that nobody needs an ak 47....

[Mithirium]

Not to say it isn't so but please cite where and when Heston said "Nobody Needs an AK47" and also whether he was possibly describing a NFA machinegun or its semiauto cousin. I believe he stated this on his trip to Bill Maher's farce politically incorrect last year with Ted Nugent. And in that instance as i recall he clarified himself that he was taking about ak47 machineguns not the various semiauto versions.
I understand that the NRA is a compromising type gun org but I think its our job to change their policies as members and supporters of a true RKBA. The NRA is arguably the most effective Pro Gun group (largest) and most well known. Named also for the umpteenth time last year as the most effective lobbying group on capital hill.

[WyldOne]

here's one example....


source


note the bolded parts....

Interview with Charleton Heston by Ted Wygant (unedited)

Interview with Mr. Heston. Pay particular attention to how Mr. Heston thinks that no one should own an AK-47, the removal of so-called "rightwing" people from the Board, and the lack of desire to repeal Brady. May God have mercy on our souls:


The following transcript is verbatim, without alteration, and includes misspellings.

VMS TRANSCRIPTVideo Monitoring Services of America, L.P.720 Harrison Street, Suite 320San Francisco, CA 94107(415)543-3361 (415)543-6148 DATE May 6, 1997 TIME 8:00 - 9:00 AM (PT) STATION KGO-AM (ABC)LOCATION San Francisco PROGRAM Morning Drive Time

Ted Wygant, anchor: Well this is very appropriate to talk with Moses as we talk about it, at least. Now let's say good morning to the man who played it so well, Charleton Heston. Good morning, sir!

Charleton Heston (Actor/NRA Board Member): And good morning to you, Mister Wygant.

Wygant: Well, we're delighted to have you with us, and we appreciate your time because you have taken on a task that I think a lot of folks might have backed away with because a lot of concern about the National Rifle Association.

Heston: Our country belongs to Hercules, doesn't it?

Wygant: Yeah, right. What made you do it? How come you want to get in the middle of this?

Heston: Well, I've, of course, been- found myself in the arena, if you will, on a number of public sector causes. I suppose starting back when I started demonstrating for civil rights back in 1961. Long before it got fashionable in Hollywood. And then the Screen Actors Guild, and the National Endowment For The Arts, and the Separate Theater Group, and so on- and then the Presidential Task force, and the Arts and Humanities. And I've been a member of- of the National Rifle Association for, oh, twenty years or more. When I was a kid in Michigan, in the Depression, I lived in a little hamlet in Northern Michigan with about, oh, a hundred houses which contained easily two hundred and fifty, three hundred fire arms of various kinds. Mostly being used for hunting, of course- food for the table. But I was asked, as is true with all of the jobs I've done. Somebody asked me.

Wygant: Well, you've got quite a task. And- and you've been named first vice president. You- you're a member of the board at-at one point, and gee, you just zipped right up.

Heston: I just was elected to the board on Saturday.

Wygant: Yeah.

Heston: It's the primary defender of the second amendment of the Bill Of Rights, which is, of course, a core document. The Bill Of Rights is right at the basis of the American idea, those wise old dead white guys that made up the country knew what they were about. And you- it is a mainstream issue. Most Americans, in fact, support the second amendment's right to bear and carry arms, and there are, as you suggest, a few extremists, and some of them are- are on the board. And we have, however, we- they elected- or re-elected in the case of Wayne LaPierre, and elected in my case and Cain Robinson's case- police chief Cain Robinson is now second vice president. We re-elected Marion Hammer as president.

Wygant: Mister Heston, could I ask you to stand by here for just a moment? We have to get to traffic, but I- I do want to continue talking with you. Could you hang in for a minute?

Heston: Yeah.

Wygant: Okay, good. Thanks. ****************

Wygant: Okay, right now let's get back to Charleton Heston talking to us from his home in Southern California. Let me ask you, you mentioned that there are some right wing folks- far right wing, still around the NRA. Are you going to try to get them off the board and out of the picture?

Heston: That- that's certainly the intention, and I think it's highly doable. Wayne LaPierre is- is a superb leader, Marion Hammer's a strong president. And I think Cain Robinson and I can provide some useful support there.

Wygant: Now the image of- of the NRA has been an organization that supports the right of people to buy any legal firearms, and, of course, you go to any- any gun store- gun shop and you see things there that are big, and brutal, and deadly, and far more than you need for- for hunting or home protection. Do you stand by- I mean, the image is...

Heston: AK-47's are inappropriate for private ownership, of course.

Wygant: Yeah, but the image is that they're- the fire power of these weapons is far more than a hunter or a homeowner would need. Why is it necessary to have those guns available anyway?

Heston: I just got through telling you. The possession- private possession of AK-47's is entirely inappropriate.

Wygant: Right, but AK-47's one thing, but I've been in a gun shop- I've been in gun shops, and there's fire power there that doest's seem necessary and that people worry about being out there in- in the hands of, you know, potential criminals.

Heston: I'm not certain what you're point is- that there are guns available in gun stores?

Wygant: No, guns that go beyond what a hunter would need. In other words, why does the NRA support guns that have overkill? Let's put it that way. Shouldn't there be some sort of limit?

Heston: Well, for any certain time, AK-47"s are entirely inappropriate for private ownership, and the- the problem, of course, is not guns held by private citizens, but guns held by criminals. And where we have failed, where the government has failed is with entirely cosmetic actions like the Brady Bill, which is meaningless. I'm not even- don't even think it should be repealed because it doesn't do anything. and it's been in- on the books for more than two years. In the course of that time, I think it is, nineteen people have been arrested, and two have been imprisoned felons with felony records for trying to purchase a firearm.

Wygant: Well, we've- we gotta- I really appreciate talking with us. It'll be interesting to see- interesting to see how you handle the public image of the National Rifle Association and those in the far right in the group. And if you don't mind, we'd like to talk to you again.

Heston: I hope we can do that.

Wygant: Alright, thanks very much.

Heston: Mister Wygant.

Wygant: Thank you. Charleton Heston from his home in Southern California, and the KGO Radio News time is 8:23. # # #

*sigh*

[Jim March]

Ya, well, in 1997 I would have said the same thing. Hell, in 1990 I would have told you I was vaguely proud of never having fired a gun before.

So what? I've learned since, same as Heston.

If you look at the structure of what's in the Emerson decision, US vs. Miller and *especially* "State vs. Aymette 1840", you'll see that the trend is 100% our way on the AW issue.

Aymette set a standard on what is a "militia weapon" - "commonly used in civilized warfare". That standard was cited in Miller, something totally ignored by virtually all lower courts that tried to mutilate Miller into "we can ban any gun".

Emerson *properly* interpreted both Miller and Aymette.

You want a solution to the AW ban?

That's it...everything you could possibly hope for.

You want to kill off the politicians who support the Emerson decision and want to see it supported by the Supremes? Then keep right on ripping into Heston, Bush and Ashcroft. You want to make sure Bush doesn't stay in office to load up the Supremes with Scalia/Thomas types? Then force him to scare the sheeple by publicly supporting a type of gun the sheeple have been brainwashed into freaking out over.

Sarah Brady will applaud your principled stand.

[WyldOne]

You want a solution to the AW ban?

That's it...everything you could possibly hope for.

not entirely everything. for one thing, you're completely forgetting about public opinion. the anti-gun public either 1) doesn't care or know about the emerson ruling; or 2) thinks that the ruling was misguided.

and i thought this thread was about ending the AW ban with public support? my point in noting heston's comments, was that if the president of the nra doesn't even think that people need to own ak-47's, how are we going to convince the rest of the public--who are vastly intimidated by the way the guns look and tremendously un/miseducated about them--to support ending the ban?

(btw remember that the majority of non-gun people don't know the difference between auto, semi auto, assault weapons, or anything like that.)

[Mithirium]

Jim,
I see you're point and I will not publically rip on Aschcroft, Bush, or Heston. Mostly for those reasons. That is not to say that I agree with all their policies regarding the 2nd. I tried to state before that it is better to try to bend the policies of those who we have the most support from than discard them for candidates who have no chance of winning.
I realize that your logic is in forcing this argument on the pretend to be middle crowd of Bush/Ashcroft is potentially dangerous. As it may alienate middle of the road votes that are necessary for victory.
So is it better to push this on the Bush team and face possible loss in the future because of it. Throw support to libertarians who support us but can not win elections. Possibly pull one out and have our cake and eat it to. Compromise and face continued loss of some of the things we hold dear. Worst case scenario is dems/greens in power who want to make clinton restrictions look like nothing.
Definitely tuff decisions.