March 29, 2024
BANGOR DAILY NEWS (BANGOR, MAINE

It seems President Clinton has banned “assault rifles” again, a response he states, to foreign gun makers “making minor cosmetic modifications” to firearms banned by a 1989 Bush administration decision, in an effort to skirt the law. In fact, the firearms banned recently were specifically designed to comply with the 1989 decision were found “suitable for sporting puroses,” and have been approved for importation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for the past 8 1/2 years.

Since these firearms were being imported for several years prior to 1994, one wonders why they were not allowed under Clinton’s 1994 “crime bill” with its assault weapons ban. Could it be because these firearms fit none of the criteria chosen by either the Bush or Clinton administrations to define assault weapons? Why then is Clinton ignoring his own administration’s legislated definition of assasult rifles by referring to these firemars as “assault rifles”?

Some light is shed on these questions by Jose Cerda, a White House “specialist” on gun control, who states, “We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.”

It will be interesting to see which is “bent” next.

I am told Congress has 30 days to overturn Clinton’s directive before it has the force of law. Readers who object to seeing the law “bent” should contact their congressional representatives immediately. Larry Balchen Jonesport


Have feedback? Want to know more? Send us ideas for follow-up stories.

comments for this post are closed

You may also like