Assault Weapons Ban Lacks Democratic Votes to Pass Senate

[Pullo]

A proposed ban on sales of assault weapons would be defeated in the U.S. Senate today unless some members changed their current views, based on a Bloomberg review of recent lawmaker statements and interviews.

At least six of the chamber’s 55 Democrats have recently expressed skepticism or outright opposition to a ban, the review found. That means Democrats don’t have a simple 51-vote majority to pass the measure, let alone the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster to bring it to a floor vote.

Link

Administration already backing away from gun ban fantasies?

Yesterday Vice President Joe Biden, who led the president’s panel that issued recommendations for curbing gun violence, downplayed the debate over what constitutes an assault weapon and said it’s more important to limit ammunition capacity.

“I’m much less concerned, quite frankly, about what you call an assault weapon ban than I am about magazines and the number of rounds that can be held in a magazine,” Biden said.

This most recent push for gun control appears to be hitting the wall of political reality. Yet I am worried the prospects for Democrats maintaining control of the Senate in 2014 continue to dim as gun control remains a top priority for the party. Is it worth the price, especially considering there is no chance of a weapons ban becoming law? Not to me.

[villager]

1. Thanks for your concern. We'll start with background checks and limiting magazine capacity.

No one thinks it will be anything other than a series of steps.

[Eleanors38]

3. Where will your "series of steps" end?

[Lizzie Poppet]

24. *sound of crickets chirping*

The one good thing to come out of the Sandy Hook atrocity: neither side is pretending any more.

[Eleanors38]

25. Paranoia! No one wants to ban your guns! No one is going to take 'em! NRA talking point! Etc!

[villager]

28. Hopefully with the slaughter of fewer children. I realize that prospect terrifies you.

n/t

[Eleanors38]

31. Does it terrify you? Go ahead, be honest.

[villager]

45. I'm not the one living in fear of losing my lust-object military hardware.

n/t

[virginia mountainman]

20. Yep it is a series of steps...

Much like the march of gun RIGHTS in the states... The CCW map shows this plainly... Do your really think it is going the other way? In the vast majority of the nation I can assure you that it is not..

[dogman]

2. Magazine ban is more relavent.

That will be the test.

[spin]

21. It might pass but what real good would it do?

When you watch the news you get the impression that it takes a few seconds to swap out a magazine but the reality is that with just a little practice you can swap one in a second.

Hi-cap magazines have a nasty tendency to jam the weapon. In the case of the Colorado theater shooting this was very fortunate.

AP Source: Assault rifle jammed in Colo. attack
Posted: 07/22/2012

The semiautomatic assault rifle used by the gunman in a mass shooting at a midnight showing of the latest Batman movie jammed during the attack, a federal law enforcement official told The Associated Press, which forced the shooter to switch to another gun with less fire power.

Read more: http://www.kypost.com/dpps/news/national/ap-source-assault-rifle-jammed-in-colo-attack_7699735#ixzz2J2CnIP6N

Also there are literally millions and millions of magazines that hold more than ten rounds in civilian hands already. I doubt that any law could pass at the national level that would require all such magazines to be turned in and even if it did many gun owners would simply not comply.

Let's focus on improving our laws in a manner that will at least do some good. I favor passing a law that requires an NICS background check for the sale of any firearm including private transactions. Passing such a law will be a daunting task but I feel that it is quite possible.

I also favor:

1) Increasing the penalties for anyone caught illegally carrying a firearm.

2) Stronger penalties for anyone involved in the straw purchase or smuggling of firearms and better enforcement of the laws against such activity.

3) Reconsidering our failed War on Drugs which we lost decades ago. The profit motive from drug sales leads to turf warfare between competing drug gangs and contributes significantly to the level of gun violence in our nation. Chicago is a prime example of such violence.

4) Improving our mental health care services.

5) Requiring anyone who buys a firearm or ammo to have a photo ID proving that they have had firearm safety training and possibly a comprehensive criminal background check. This would be similar to the card a SCUBA divers has to fill his tanks or a sky diver has to have before he boards an aircraft to jump at the drop zone.

Of course the cost of a photo ID to purchase firearms or ammo and the fee for an NICS background check for the sale of a private firearm should be reasonable. The idea should not be to limit firearm ownership to only the rich and the privileged. Many poor people are forced to live in crime ridden areas and have a valid need for a firearm that they can use for self defense.

These ideas would face opposition from the NRA and some gun owners. Still I feel many gun owners if not the majority would agree with at least a few if not most.

Perhaps I should mention that I have enjoyed target shooting handguns for over 40 years and have a concealed weapons permit in Florida. Consequently I know a number of gun owners and regular shooters.

I also do not own any firearms that would be considered an assault weapon at this time. I mainly own revolvers and a couple of target grade .22 caliber target pistols with 10 round magazines. I also own three Colt .45 ACP pistols with 7 and eight round magazines, a 12 gauge coach gun and a bolt action Swedish Mauser rifle. These firearms suit my needs well at this time.

I MIGHT consider buying an AR-15 style rifle if I move to a far more rural area of Florida with some acreage.

Feral pigs are a significant problem in Florida and AR-15 style rifles are commonly used to hunt such pests. However I probably would be satisfied with a lever action rifle and one of my .357 magnum or .44 magnum revolvers in a belt holster in case I shot a hog and he chased me up a tree which has been known to happen. Feral hogs have long sharp tusks, are the fourth most intelligent animals on the planet and are also known to have a bad temper when injured. It is also wise to avoid coming between a mother boar and her babies.

When prepared properly hog meat is very tasty. I personally prefer it to store bought meat or venison.

[Bonhomme Richard]

4. I agree with Biden. The magazine capacity ban would be the most....

relevant step besides requiring background checks on all sales and some way to deal with the mentally disabled that should not have access to guns.
If I am forced to buy new magazines then so be it. It's a small inconvenience for a greater good.

[hack89]

9. You won't have to buy new mags - the law will not be retroactive.

they won't ban possession - just manufacturing and sale. If it works like the old AWB, there will be high cap mags on sale for several years as stores get rid of their inventory manufactured before the cut off date. And you will always be able to buy them from private sellers. My recommendation is to stock up before the ban goes into effect.

[jmg257]

12. McCarthy's bill halts tranfers...grandfathering is OK, just can't move them. nt

According to the govtrack prognosis, this also looks like it will not pass.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr138

"SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OR POSSESSION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
(a) Definition- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (29) the following:

‘(30) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’--

‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but

‘(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.’.

(b) Prohibitions- Section 922 of such title is amended by inserting after subsection (u) the following:

‘(v)(1)(A)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

‘(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.

‘(B) It shall be unlawful for any person to import or bring into the United States a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--"

[Pullo]

14. Not to mention unenforceable n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

18. Isn't she worried about Due/Just Compensation violations?

Property does not always need to be physically seized or outright banned/prohibited to qualify for due compensation. If the value of the property in question is significantly or completely lost due to government action, then you may also have just cause to sue for reasonable compensation.

[SayWut]

32. There's one small problem with that.

There's no exemption or waiver for magazines originally designed (or that are interchangeable with their semi-auto counterparts), for full-auto firearms.

A lot of Class III owners, buyers and investors aren't going to be very happy when a $15,000.00 + firearm
can be legally transferred, but any magazines can't go with it.

[Dr_Scholl]

15. There won't be any ban on magazine capacity.

It might scrape by in the Senate, but would be DOA in the House.

[Pullo]

16. That's my prediction as well

although a mag ban stands a better shot at passing compared to any type of firearm ban.

[Straw Man]

11. Where would you draw the line?

If I am forced to buy new magazines then so be it. It's a small inconvenience for a greater good.

They're talking ten rounds now, but certainly that will not be the end. At what point would regulation become a deal-breaker for you? Seven rounds, as in New York State? Five rounds, as for rifles in New York City? No semi-autos with detachable magazines? No semi-autos allowed? No repeating firearms at all, even manual ones? How many times have you heard the mantra that the Second Amendment only protects muzzle-loaders?

Some of these are already in force in some jurisdictions, while others have only been proposed. The degree to which they serve the greater good is arguable. When does the "small inconvenience" become a large one? When does the large one become intolerable?

[Bonhomme Richard]

38. My feelings...

As far as I am concerned I wouldn't have a problem limiting mags to ten or even seven rounds. My 9mm came with two 17 round mags and my .32 has a 7 round mag.I am not going to get into the "where does it end meme" because that is speculation and a waste of time. You can worry about that. I won't unless it were a serious suggestion. The fact of the matter is that larger magazines, 99.99% of the time, are simply a matter of convenience. Nothing more.
I also would not be interested in confiscating or buying back anyones magazines that did not conform to a new law. I would say that you can keep your high capacity mags ( grandfathered) but they better not leave the house or it would be a felony. That way if you think you are going to be attacked by a group of Zombies or the Russians, whatever, you can still use all that firepower.....in your home. You just can't buy another large capacity mag.
The "Assault Weapon" ban is just theater to me. Limit the magazine size and you limit the potential damage or, at the least, give someone a chance to get to the person while changing mags.
Is any of this perfect? Not by a long shot but we have to start somewhere.
The bottom line is that there is a contingent that refuses to discuss any change at all. Whether that is access, mental health care, background checks, etc.

[iiibbb]

44. I like one specific recomendation in your post

That in your home there is no capacity limit...

...but outside of your residence a mag limit can apply, as you suggest.

It kind-of covers all bases. More workable than these bans where people have to sell of things and perhaps not get the money they paid for.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Yes, it's worth the price. Who are the 6 Dem senators opposed?

[Pullo]

6. Here's what the linked article states

The five Democratic senators from traditionally pro-gun states who have recently expressed skepticism about the bill are Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Independent Senator Angus King of Maine, who is caucusing with Democrats, also said he opposes a ban.

Maine Senator Susan Collins, a Republican who supported similar legislation in 2004, has indicated she is unlikely to back the proposed ban.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Thanks.

[mikeysnot]

8. wishfull thinking on your part?

Perhaps?

[nick of time]

10. Not wishful thinking, just reality.

Even Reid, who is strong pro gun, has said he won't allow a vote if it has no chance to pass in the repuke controlled House.
And with the lack of filibuster reform, the AWB is pretty much DOA.

[mikeysnot]

33. Forget which ID you logged in with?

Don't recall responding to you now did I?

[nick of time]

34. Open discussion board.

Don't recall that?

[mikeysnot]

35. Don't recall which ID you logged in on.

Figures...

[nick of time]

36. Only ID I have.

Don't recall that? It's right there, "nick of time". Not hard to miss.
Quit beating around the bush and come out and say what you really mean.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

39. it should be alerted on but, I wouldn't be surprised to see it allowed to stand so why bother.

[nick of time]

40. I don't even bother to alert.

Not worth it in my opinion.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

41. me either. pretty much a joke, yep.

let the stinkers lay for all the world to see.

[DonP]

42. Be kind to Mr. Snot. He's not a good loser on these issues. N/T

[Tuesday Afternoon]

43. alright then, I will settle for a beer.

[Pullo]

37. Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning

"Pullo" is the only ID for me here on the DU

[Pullo]

17. Joe Biden Silent On Assault Weapons Ban At Gun Violence Event

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Joe Biden pushed several pieces of President Barack Obama’s gun violence package on Friday, particularly the need for universal background checks -- one of the few items with a chance of moving through Congress.

But during his remarks after a two-hour roundtable with cabinet heads and Virginia officials, Biden noticeably omitted the two most ambitious, contentious pieces of Obama’s package: an assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity gun magazines. His silence on those fronts comes amid signs that neither stands a chance of becoming law, despite some Democrats -- and the president -- forging ahead anyway.

Link

Not.Going.To.Happen.

[Clames]

19. A year from now it'll be interesting to see what is said...

....when the net result of all the hype going into laws that will never come to fruition is the panic-buying they caused put millions of more of the weapons and magazines into the public's hands. And with the market saturated and those who are regretting over paying for a rifle or handgun they didn't really want anyway trying to sell them off it will create another boom as people take advantage of buying practically new guns for considerably less. Except this time is will be mostly private transfers and no 4473's involved.

[krispos42]

22. How about a wall of reality reality?

That the problems that an AWB is allegedly designed to address are not solved by banning protruding pistol grips.

[dizbukhapeter]

23. I dont think theres going to be a massive dump of guns

Alot of people paid up to twice or three times the pre-panic prices. I think most of those people are just going to hang onto their guns instead of dumping them at a huge loss.

[BlueStreak]

26. This is just more bullshit from Obama. Empty rhetoric.

Feinstein knew there was no way she would get that bill through the Senate, especially after torpedoing the filibuster reform. It is all grandstanding and nothing else.

If there were serious about doing anything, they would start with the thing that will make the biggest difference and also happens to enjoy extremely high public support, even from Republicans -- and that is mandatory background check for all gun sales.

They didn't start with that. Why not? Because they aren't serious about passing anything. It is all bullshit, just to act like they are trying to be progressive. Just like all of Obama's bullshit today about getting tough on the Banksters. It has been 4 years and not a single Bankster has gone to prison. Reagan put hundreds of banksters in prison after the Savings and Loan scandals. It is a really bitter pill to see that Reagen was actually far more progressive than Obama, at least in this one area.

[virginia mountainman]

27. yep, all it was was simple political posturing..

It is something to watch it all fall apart.. I wonder if the voters will forget about it by the midterms?

[Simo 1939_1940]

29. "I wonder if the voters will forget about it by the midterms?"

This is the question that is sending a chill up my spine.

[BlueStreak]

30. They'll forget about it by Valentines Day

A country of damned ADD juveniles.

Obama has already decided he can't get any legislation passed except under the shock doctrine, so there will be some action at the budget/sequester time. But other than that, it will be 4 years of grandstanding.

I could live with that if he were to aggressively go after the Republicans in Congress and really work to win back the House. But he did absolutely nothing to win the House in 2012. He set up his own organization and told the party, basically "I'm looking out for Obama. Y'all are on your own."

What good does that do anybody? I'll admit it blocks Republicans from further stacking the SCOTUS, but it does not move the country forward.