Sen. Feinstien (Calif) to intro gun control bill

[Al Norris]

It's started.

House Democrat pushes gun reforms backed by NRA members - The Hill

While not yet introduced, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) has signaled he has legislation ready that is "popular among members of the National Rifle Association (NRA)."

From poll data (by Frank Luntz), Rep. Moran has found that

• 74 percent of NRA members support criminal background checks on all potential gun buyers — as opposed to current law, which requires background checks only on those who buy from licensed gun dealers;

• 79 percent of NRA members back requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees;

• 71 percent of NRA members would bar those on the FBI's terrorist watch-list from buying and owning guns;

• 64 percent of NRA members support requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms.

Add to this that there is a push to bring forward HR 308 (which has been sitting in limbo since Jan. 2011, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY4]), a magazine limit/ban bill and a new bill, HR 6680 (Bobby Rush [D-IL1]) that would purportedly register "certain firearms" (the text is not yet available).

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Technosavant

I really don't think we can assume this one is going to be party line split one way or the other. Some Republicans will certainly support a ban, some Democrats will certainly fight one.

That's, in essence, what I was saying. Neither party can really do much of anything right now without at least some support of the other due to the split in control of the House and Senate. Even if every single congressional Democrat voted for a new AWB, which is highly unlikely, it would still need some Republican support since that party controls the House. The point of my earlier comments was that if President Obama wanted to gather bipartisan support for a new AWB, which he would have to in order to get one passed, I think there would be much more effective people to convince Republicans and moderate-to-conservative Democrats to do so than Joe Biden.

I simply find it odd that the President would suddenly choose Joe Biden to spearhead an important part of his agenda because, thus far, that has not been Biden's role within the administration. As I think back over Obama's first term, every single important part of his agenda including the automotive bailouts, financial regulation, debt limits, and foreign policy has been spearheaded by the President himself, other members of the cabinet such as the Attorney General or Secretary of State, or prominent congressional Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Thus far, Biden's only newsworthy role has been the traditional VP role of campaign attack dog. It just seems strange to me that the President would suddenly change up his roster if gun control were as important to him as the media would have us believe.

Originally posted by Al Norris

While not yet introduced, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) has signaled he has legislation ready that is "popular among members of the National Rifle Association (NRA)."

From poll data (by Frank Luntz), Rep. Moran has found that


Quote:
• 74 percent of NRA members support criminal background checks on all potential gun buyers — as opposed to current law, which requires background checks only on those who buy from licensed gun dealers;

• 79 percent of NRA members back requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees;

• 71 percent of NRA members would bar those on the FBI's terrorist watch-list from buying and owning guns;

• 64 percent of NRA members support requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms.

I'd very much like to see Luntz's data, but given the criticisms he's recieved from the AAPOR, National Council on Public Polls, Media Matters, and PolitiFact, I'm not going to hold my breath.

Add to this that there is a push to bring forward HR 308 (which has been sitting in limbo since Jan. 2011, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY4]), a magazine limit/ban bill and a new bill, HR 6680 (Bobby Rush [D-IL1]) that would purportedly register "certain firearms" (the text is not yet available).

That's not surprising as I would classify both McCarthy and Rush as "usual suspects" when it comes to gun control.

[Tom Servo]

I'm not so sure of the veracity of such polls. A better way of Luntz putting would be:

74 percent of people who claimed to be NRA members and agreed to take the survey rather than hanging up support criminal background checks on all potential gun buyers — as opposed to current law, which requires background checks only on those who buy from licensed gun dealers

And so on. I'll bet a gulf exists between Luntz's data and what politicians are hearing from their constituents.

Then there are the phone calls to legislators the NRA makes.

The Feinstein and Rush bills are the same thing they've been proposing year after year. McCarthy's bill has been on the docket every year since 2004, and Rush's bill (once called the Blair Holt Act) has been advanced every year since 2000.

The McCarthy bill has been in limbo since January of 2011, and according to GovTrack, its chances are 10% of getting past committee and 2% of being enacted. The Rush bill has even worse chances.

[Al Norris]

I quite agree, Tom. However...

We've been waiting for the fallout. Now we have something to actually refer to.

My assumption in reporting these bills, is that with the current emphasis of, "Do Something, Anything!" emotionalism, they stand a better chance than before the tragedy.

[HarrySchell]

I think Biden's selection is due to the tenuous status of Holder and the tainted reps of Feinstein, McCarthy et. al.

IIRC, Biden has some reputation as being anti-gun.

For his abilities to see a bill through, I suspect them to be minimal. This insulates Obama from responsibility for the ultimate failure of a bill of any significance, puts it onto Biden.

Obama likes applause, not responsibility.

[Technosavant]

Originally Posted by Al Norris

My assumption in reporting these bills, is that with the current emphasis of, "Do Something, Anything!" emotionalism, they stand a better chance than before the tragedy.

I think you're right, but even then it isn't saying all that much. It's like saying your "snowball's chance in hades" has just been upgraded to "when pigs fly."

IMO, the more bills introduced, the better... if there's a dozen or so muddying the waters, those will take time to be reconciled before moving anywhere. What would worry me more would be if there is ONE bill that they all get behind. However, I think that the ultra leftist ban crowd (Feinstein, McCarthy, etc.) are going to be pushing for things that the more moderate members (who may have even had good NRA credentials beforehand) cannot support. This is also going to throw a wrench into the works and undermine eventual support.

On top of this, I don't see gun control being the first priority in a reconvened Congress... they still haven't come to any conclusion on the fiscal cliff/tax/spending issue, and that's a more urgent and important issue. Until that one is handled, I don't see Congress doing anything of any substance on anything else, and that time works for us, not against us. The more time that passes, people cool off and think more logically, which lessens the felt need to DO SOMETHING.

[Tom Servo]

This insulates Obama from responsibility for the ultimate failure of a bill of any significance, puts it onto Biden.

That's the whole point of panels.

I think that the ultra leftist ban crowd (Feinstein, McCarthy, etc.) are going to be pushing for things that the more moderate members (who may have even had good NRA credentials beforehand) cannot support.

That's why I want them to continue to talk about confiscation, as Feinstein and Cuomo have been doing the last couple of days.

That said, we're veering too far into direct politics. Let's keep this on topic and off left/right wing issues.

[nate45]

That terror watch list, may sound good to some, till all those opposed to fill in the blank are declared terrorists. NRA members who own guns are thought of as terrorists by some right now. If they prove someone has ties to an organization that has declared war on the USA, or someone has committed terroristic acts, that is one thing. However, I see a high potential for this to potentially get abused though.

Here is another reason not to like it. We've already heard of abuse of the Patriot Act and everything else they passed. I'm not really that worried for myself, the Homeland Security has my whole file and just did my every so often background check. I can prove I'm not supposed to be on a watch list. Not everyone can though, some perfectly innocent people, have never even been finger printed. They might not have such an easy time proving that it was a mistake and in the mean time pleading please don't take my guns, I'm not a terrorist. It sure can happen too, I read about people on the no fly list by mistake all the time.

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

The whole concept of a terrorist watchlist is immoral and draconian to me

but then again i believe in individual responsibility. silly me

[nate45]

Yeah, look at my sig line, thats not free speech, Thomas Jefferson was a terrorist that rebelled against the state. Molon Labe? sounds more than just symbolic, some might claim. The whole NRA, GOA, JFPO, etc are too scary, they are terrorizing soccer moms.

If the above paragraph sounds far fetched and ridiculous to you, you haven't been seeing and hearing the same antis I have.

[JimPage]

Stall as much as possible. Let the emotion calm down then possibly we can get some analytical thinking in the process. As it stands now I am not confident we can prevail.

[wayneinFL]

71 percent of NRA members would bar those on the FBI's terrorist watch-list from buying and owning guns;

This is one that's especially ridiculous. They can put literally anyone on that list.

[Mezzanine]

The debate about "assault weapons" and hi-cap mags is what i call a bandwagon talking point. Theres pro-gun and anti-gun folks out there, but without major coverage of a shooting or other tragic event its not on most peoples minds. Once a tragedy occurs, such as the elementary shooting, everyone feels like firearms have an impact on their daily lives. This then creates a temporary group of pro and anti gun supporters. The temporary supporters or (bandwagon supporters) are those that are dangerous to our culture. Misinformation and preconceived notions plague this topic. Thats how they get support for a new AWB i guess. What i wonder is if a company like Bushmaster is benefiting from getting its name out there or hurting from the negative association. Personal note my sporting goods stores and online suppliers are sold out of mags and the "AR's" are pretty depleted on the shelves. Now personally i dont think an AWB is going to happen, the government cant shut the doors on a domestic industry that is growing under these difficult economic times. But that doesnt mean i havent sent letters to my local politicians and renewed my NRA subscription.

[kenny87ky]

well here is a summery if you are curious.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...2-ac8ca4359119

to sum it up she wants to make these firearms regulated the same way machine guns are today, thrown in the NFA and production of new weapons stopped.

[8MM Mauser]

I see this dying in the House of Representatives. Though I do find it surprisingly conservative (by which I mean not as overreaching as expected). It's still egregious, don't get me wrong; but I figured that she would go for more. I beleive it was Feinstein who said she would confiscate all Guns if she had the votes.

Anywho, thanks for posting this! The idea that any firearm would be basically classified as NFA simply because of some cosmetic features is wrongheaded. It's disappointing to see that no real action has been taken at all, and that Washington is simply throwing out the same tired ideas to "control" Guns, when a basic google search would reveal how scare the type of gun in questions is actually used in crimes.

Typically, Washington is missing the point!

[Webleymkv]

Though I do find it surprisingly conservative (by which I mean not as overreaching as expected).

I don't know, I think the part about making currently-owned guns into NFA items is pretty overreaching. As a matter of fact, that particular part may prove to be the poison pill as it will likely lose her the support of people who wouldn't otherwise oppose an AWB because they already own what they want or are hoping to turn profits once it's passed. Likewise, placing such onerous restrictions on firearms that are already legally owned may not sit well with the courts.

[drail]

Politicians have figured out that if they can't repeal the Bill Of Rights then all they have to do is redefine the definition of what was banned previously. (some guns are bad but some guns are OK - oh wait, we decided that ALL guns are bad. And magazines. And ammuniton). This is why the National Firearms Act of 1934 SHOULD have been thrown out by the Supreme Court. I have been waiting for years for them to go this route. Once you start down that path there is no limit on what they can get away with.

[Stressfire]

Though I do find it surprisingly conservative (by which I mean not as overreaching as expected). It's still egregious, don't get me wrong; but I figured that she would go for more. I beleive it was Feinstein who said she would confiscate all Guns if she had the votes.

Of course it's "conservative." It's just as start. No point going all out right out of the gate. We start off with "small" and "reasonable" restrictions. Then, when those don't work we will have the inevitable "There must be more we can do. Won't someone think of the children" and more "reasonable" restrictions will follow.

[Tom Servo]

This is the press release for Feinstein's new bill.

This time around, it goes after even guns with fixed magazines holding over 10 rounds. Bullet buttons and thumbhole stocks would be banned, as would any gun capable of having more than one "military feature."

She quotes some "studies" to bolster her argument, but note that Christopher Koper, the author of the first two, is a shill for the Brady Campaign. In fact, the 1st study wants so badly to "prove" that "assault weapons" are used in crimes that it lumps handguns capable of accepting more than 10 rounds in the same category.

[Stressfire]

In fact, the 1st study wants so badly to "prove" that "assault weapons" are used in crimes that it lumps handguns capable of accepting more than 10 rounds in the same category.

I've always wanted an assault pistol, looks like I've had one all along

[breakingcontact]

So is a flash hider considered a military feature or not? Bill has some confusing language.

[sigcurious]

The scary part of that is by trotting out those carefully manipulated studies, and subtly (or not so subtly) changing the definition of "assault weapon", if the hardcore anti-side takes those to heart it will be even more difficult to have any sort of dialogue with them.

I wonder what kind of funding increase she envisions for registering all these newly created NFA items. Even if they doubled the staff it seems like it there would be years of people being in "waiting for registration paperwork to come back" limbo.

[JimDandy]

Especally the black powder hunts.. banning all thumbhole stocks..

http://www.cabelas.com/product/Shoot...3Bcat104533380

As well as the probably at least some of the ones beloinging to this little girl..http://www.nrablog.com/post/2012/12/...range-bag.aspx She didnt REALLY need to represent her country in the Olympics or anything...

[Fox1]

Tom Servo
This time around, it goes after even guns with fixed magazines holding over 10 rounds. Bullet buttons and thumbhole stocks would be banned, as would any gun capable of having more than one "military feature."

I think we can all be certain that "black" and "camouflage" will be determined to be "military features."

[BGutzman]

Of course this will be a fight but its probably DOA in the House. This bill is also further proof why the we must find a way to have the NFA struck down in the future. I know now isn't the time to go after the NFA but it does need to be done.