Senate leader says new weapons ban won't pass
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that a proposed ban on semi-automatic firearms modeled after military assault weapons has no chance of passing the chamber, but he wants to ensure a vote on it will occur.
The proposal to update a similar 1994 ban that expired a decade later was one of four measures passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee in response to the Connecticut school massacre in December.
Reid, D-Nevada, told reporters he won't keep the proposed ban in gun legislation heading to the full Senate for consideration because including it would guarantee the measure would be blocked by a Republican filibuster.
Sen. Feinstein: 'I'm not a sixth-grader'
Feinstein: It's time to take action
Mark Kelly: Buying AR-15 'pretty easy'
The ban proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, and fiercely opposed by the National Rifle Association, Republicans and some Democrats would get fewer than 40 votes, Reid said, far below the threshold needed to defeat any filibuster or pass the Senate.
Instead, Feinstein could propose the ban as an amendment to the gun legislation on the Senate floor in order to get a vote on it, Reid said.
President Barack Obama supports Feinstein's proposal.
The other proposals passed by the Judiciary Committee would expand background checks on gun sales, toughen laws against firearms trafficking and straw purchases, and design steps to improve school safety.
Reid's move doesn't come as a surprise as he has signaled for weeks he would only allow a vote on an assault weapons amendment.
"I have to get something on the floor," Reid said.
Feinstein said she was "disappointed" with Reid's decision, which he told her about in a private meeting on Monday.
She acknowledged that other provisions of a gun-control package might have a better chance of passing without the controversial assault weapons ban.
"The enemies on this are very powerful," Feinstein said. "I've known that all my life."
Nevertheless, Feinstein said the issue was very important to her and she would not stop pursuing it.
"I'm not going to lay down and play dead," she told CNN's "The Situation Room."
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip, told CNN the proposed ban would make crafting broader legislation harder to accomplish.
"Harry is trying to put together a base package that will get 60 votes on the floor," Durbin said.
It is unclear, however, if any of the measures ultimately would clear the Senate.
"All these issues are important and I'm going to what I can to make sure we have a fair, sound debate on this," Reid said. "I want something to succeed."
Reid said he would schedule floor debate shortly after the Senate returns from its upcoming recess in April.
Part of the issue with why laws don't work is that they often are not designed to address the problem with real world facts but rather a bunch of them jumping up with a knee jerk reaction saying they gotta do something.
You can take exactly one of the weapons they are trying to make a law over, load it with rounds in a high capacity magazine, lean it in a corner where it is safely braced, with the safety off, ready to fire. As long as no one disturbs it, it will never kill nor wound anyone. My point is, it isn't the weapon itself that is dangerous. It's the one behind the trigger that makes a weapon dangerous.
What I don't hear coming out of these politicians is why the funding for public mental health has been cut to nothing and what they propose to do about it. Again they are slapping band aids on places that have no wounds rather than tackling the real tough one that would actually help.
If you go buy one of these assault weapons in a store, you have all sorts of paperwork to go through, just to buy it. Buy it second hand, you don't have to worry at all about paperwork. There's another way you can come up with ownership of such a weapon. It requires the license to buy the lower half of the weapon through legal means. You can buy the upper half as replacement parts without needing to go through such. One of the answers that show just how bad these proposed laws are as well as the existing ones, is to 3D print the lower half of the weapon. You then mount that to the purchased upper half and you have an assault weapon with out a license.
Mrs. Fienstein has some kooky idea that limiting the amount of rounds will somehow lower the damage done. So her idea is to make it illegal for a magazine to hold more than 10 rounds. Again not paying attention to the real world and the real issues. Makers of 3D blueprints have already created the plans to print your own 30 round clips. The point being that this isn't something laws can address as it ignores the technology already existing that makes it possible to step around the law without having to go through the red tape. By printing what you want, you totally sidestep the intent of the law.
Something else Mrs. Fienstein's little plan doesn't address and makes no mention of, is a shooter having multiple clips, the fact that until recently firearms were not allowing in schools by the security personnel, meaning no one had the ability the make a shooter take cover while he reloaded, if he needed to, making the her idea basically meaningless.
But it's politics as usual where the real purpose is not stated, which is to limit firearms capability in the hands of civilians but not to address the real cause which is the shooter.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that a proposed ban on semi-automatic firearms modeled after military assault weapons has no chance of passing the chamber, but he wants to ensure a vote on it will occur.
The proposal to update a similar 1994 ban that expired a decade later was one of four measures passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee in response to the Connecticut school massacre in December.
Reid, D-Nevada, told reporters he won't keep the proposed ban in gun legislation heading to the full Senate for consideration because including it would guarantee the measure would be blocked by a Republican filibuster.
Sen. Feinstein: 'I'm not a sixth-grader'
Feinstein: It's time to take action
Mark Kelly: Buying AR-15 'pretty easy'
The ban proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, and fiercely opposed by the National Rifle Association, Republicans and some Democrats would get fewer than 40 votes, Reid said, far below the threshold needed to defeat any filibuster or pass the Senate.
Instead, Feinstein could propose the ban as an amendment to the gun legislation on the Senate floor in order to get a vote on it, Reid said.
President Barack Obama supports Feinstein's proposal.
The other proposals passed by the Judiciary Committee would expand background checks on gun sales, toughen laws against firearms trafficking and straw purchases, and design steps to improve school safety.
Reid's move doesn't come as a surprise as he has signaled for weeks he would only allow a vote on an assault weapons amendment.
"I have to get something on the floor," Reid said.
Feinstein said she was "disappointed" with Reid's decision, which he told her about in a private meeting on Monday.
She acknowledged that other provisions of a gun-control package might have a better chance of passing without the controversial assault weapons ban.
"The enemies on this are very powerful," Feinstein said. "I've known that all my life."
Nevertheless, Feinstein said the issue was very important to her and she would not stop pursuing it.
"I'm not going to lay down and play dead," she told CNN's "The Situation Room."
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip, told CNN the proposed ban would make crafting broader legislation harder to accomplish.
"Harry is trying to put together a base package that will get 60 votes on the floor," Durbin said.
It is unclear, however, if any of the measures ultimately would clear the Senate.
"All these issues are important and I'm going to what I can to make sure we have a fair, sound debate on this," Reid said. "I want something to succeed."
Reid said he would schedule floor debate shortly after the Senate returns from its upcoming recess in April.
Code:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/politics/senate-gun-laws/index.html?c=usImage may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.![[Image: 7jlcgys3a0nemfuhc1jz.png]](//www.rssing.com/inc2/img/tinyinf.webp)
I'm not sure what the answer is to this other than I am sure our politicians as usual, don't have it right. This is not about controlling guns to prevent random shootings that will have a real meaningful effect. Clik here to view.
![[Image: 7jlcgys3a0nemfuhc1jz.png]](http://www.imgnet.me/images/7jlcgys3a0nemfuhc1jz.png)
Part of the issue with why laws don't work is that they often are not designed to address the problem with real world facts but rather a bunch of them jumping up with a knee jerk reaction saying they gotta do something.
You can take exactly one of the weapons they are trying to make a law over, load it with rounds in a high capacity magazine, lean it in a corner where it is safely braced, with the safety off, ready to fire. As long as no one disturbs it, it will never kill nor wound anyone. My point is, it isn't the weapon itself that is dangerous. It's the one behind the trigger that makes a weapon dangerous.
What I don't hear coming out of these politicians is why the funding for public mental health has been cut to nothing and what they propose to do about it. Again they are slapping band aids on places that have no wounds rather than tackling the real tough one that would actually help.
If you go buy one of these assault weapons in a store, you have all sorts of paperwork to go through, just to buy it. Buy it second hand, you don't have to worry at all about paperwork. There's another way you can come up with ownership of such a weapon. It requires the license to buy the lower half of the weapon through legal means. You can buy the upper half as replacement parts without needing to go through such. One of the answers that show just how bad these proposed laws are as well as the existing ones, is to 3D print the lower half of the weapon. You then mount that to the purchased upper half and you have an assault weapon with out a license.
Mrs. Fienstein has some kooky idea that limiting the amount of rounds will somehow lower the damage done. So her idea is to make it illegal for a magazine to hold more than 10 rounds. Again not paying attention to the real world and the real issues. Makers of 3D blueprints have already created the plans to print your own 30 round clips. The point being that this isn't something laws can address as it ignores the technology already existing that makes it possible to step around the law without having to go through the red tape. By printing what you want, you totally sidestep the intent of the law.
Something else Mrs. Fienstein's little plan doesn't address and makes no mention of, is a shooter having multiple clips, the fact that until recently firearms were not allowing in schools by the security personnel, meaning no one had the ability the make a shooter take cover while he reloaded, if he needed to, making the her idea basically meaningless.
But it's politics as usual where the real purpose is not stated, which is to limit firearms capability in the hands of civilians but not to address the real cause which is the shooter.