Sen. Reid Proposes Sandy Hook Legislation

[Tom Servo]

Soooo...that's basically the contents of the President's executive orders, but made redundant via legislation?

I think Mr. Reid is just treading water because folks expect him to swim.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That doesn't sound like new laws but just support of generalities.

There are specific bills out there like Lautenberg's ban on more than 10 cap mags.

If Reid supports those - that will be an indicator. It will be hard for him as he doesn't want to lose the Senate. It was dicey that they kept it this time - not to be too political but crazy candidates sunk the GOP retaking the Senate.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Harry voted against extending the last AWB

He voted against the original AWB as well, though once that vote was on the record and the amendment passed anyway, he was one of two yes votes that passed cloture and prevented some other amendments that could have killed the original AWB.

[dayman]

Boy, "common-sense" is a subjective term isn't it?
Reid is a savvy politician, and I can't disagree with any of the posted points at face value, but it will certainly be interesting to see how he feels his goals should be attained.

I honestly hope that they split some of this stuff up.
Some of the things being suggested I actually agree pretty strongly with - streamlining the process for identifying/reporting the dangerously mentally disturbed, better information sharing, and expanding access to mental health services for instance.
Some of the suggestions I can live with - like universal background checks.
Some of them I am adamantly opposed to - bans for law abiding citizens, and federal registration.

I just wish we could decide on them on a point by point basis as apposed to having to go all or nothing. But sadly we're a nation governed by the moralistic equivalent of a bunch of flea market salesmen.

[Webleymkv]

The text is finally available and it's pretty much exactly the same as what was said on the Senate floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.2:

I, personally, am leaning towards the notion that Reid is trying to pay lip service to the anti-gun base without actually doing anything at all.

[Alabama Shooter]

So the whole thing is so vague as to be meaningless? Glad they are not wasting time and money up there.

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

You didn't already know they were wasting all our time and money?

[Al Norris]

Before anyone gets complacent about this, I would remind you that Reid said the bill would be open on the floor for amendments.

Do you understand that literally anything can get attached to this bill? I would suggest that we maintain a careful watch on this.

[gc70]

As Al said, Reid's bill is eventually the one to watch.

Reid's bill is a shell that covers everything on Obama's wish list. Other bills addressing specific topics can be attached as amendments to Reid's bill and then the whole thing can be amended during floor debate just before a final vote. Reid's bill will be passed because it will be the container for the no-brainer topics such as mental health, training, preparedness, etc. The real question is whether -or what- controversial stuff will slip into the bill.

Just as a point of reference, Feinstein's 1994 AWB bill was inserted as an amendment into Biden's omnibus crime bill, which was itself passed as an amendment in the form of a substitute for a previously passed House bill.

[Hal]

Reid's bill is a shell that covers everything on Obama's wish list. Other bills addressing specific topics can be attached as amendments to Reid's bill and then the whole thing can be amended during floor debate just before a final vote. Reid's bill will be passed because it will be the container for the no-brainer topics such as mental health, training, preparedness, etc. The real question is whether -or what- controversial stuff will slip into the bill.

Lautenberg has four such bills.

1. S.22 : A bill to establish background check procedures for gun shows.
Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] (introduced 1/22/2013) Cosponsors (15)

2. S.33 : A bill to prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] (introduced 1/22/2013) Cosponsors (17)

3. S.34 : A bill to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists.
Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] (introduced 1/22/2013) Cosponsors (10)

4. S.35 : A bill to require face to face purchases of ammunition, to require licensing of ammunition dealers, and to require reporting regarding bulk purchases of ammunition.
Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] (introduced 1/22/2013) Cosponsors (6)

Feinstein has one also:

S.150
Latest Title: A bill to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] (introduced 1/24/2013) Cosponsors (17)

[Webleymkv]

Before anyone gets complacent about this, I would remind you that Reid said the bill would be open on the floor for amendments.

Do you understand that literally anything can get attached to this bill? I would suggest that we maintain a careful watch on this.

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, could not the same be said of any bill open to amendments? It seems to me that if they really wanted to push gun control, adding those amendments to an unrelated bill (such as a budget bill) would be a shrewder way to go about it. Also, adding amendments is a double edged sword. For example, if an AWB amendment was added, someone from the other side of the aisle could add an amendment for nationwide CC or a repeal of the NFA as a "poison pill" could they not?

[Kevin Rohrer]

I am shocked to see someone from both WV and OH on that list, I always thought of both of those states as very Pro 2a; though I know through my brother in law you have anti enclaves in Ohio like Cleveland and Cincinnati

Sherodd Brown is a Dem and has always been anti-2A. I wrote him and a got a BS reply.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, could not the same be said of any bill open to amendments?

The amendments offered have to be relevant to the bill being offered. Typically, that is interpreted broadly anyway; but as you can see from the language above, the Reid bill offers a lot of opportunities given the vague language and number of subjects.