Skip to comments.Assault weapons ban faces opposition in US Congress
Posted on 01/16/2013 3:57:22 PM PST by An Old Man
The assault weapons ban proposed by US President Barack Obama on Wednesday faces quicksand in Congress, where Republicans are in a position to defeat any such a measure.
Instead, lawmakers in the House and Senate could address some of Obama's other proposals, including a universal background check for all gun purchases and a ban on high-capacity magazines.
The debate comes in the aftermath of last month's tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut that left 20 children and six adults dead.
Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein is preparing to introduce a bill next Thursday that would ban assault weapons like the one used in Newtown.
An earlier time-limited assault weapons ban was pushed through Congress in 1994 and expired 10 years later. Several attempts to reinstate the ban failed.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Unless there is sufficient outside pressure from constituents or an about-face by the party that has been a staunch advocate of gun rights, Obama's proposals could wither on the congressional vine.
"House committees of jurisdiction will review these recommendations. And if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said after Obama unveiled his proposals.
Aware of the obstacles, the president urged Americans to pressure their lawmakers into passing tighter gun control legislation.
"If they say no, ask them why not. Ask them what's more important -- doing whatever it takes to get an 'A' grade from the gun lobby that funds their campaigns, or giving parents some peace of mind when they drop their child off for first grade," Obama said.
Several Republican lawmakers expressed frustration with the president's plan, stressing that the Constitution's Second Amendment is non-negotiable.
"Nothing the president is proposing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook," Florida senator Marco Rubio said, adding that it would be wrong to impose "sweeping measures that make it harder for responsible, law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms."
Senator Lindsey Graham said he expected bipartisan opposition to Obama's proposal, and added: "As for reinstating the assault weapons ban, it has already been tried and failed."
Even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat who has voted in favor of gun rights, acknowledged that a full-on ban would be difficult to achieve.
"Is it something that can pass the Senate? Maybe," Reid told the Nevada Week in Review. "Is it something that can pass the House? I doubt it."
Others questioned the viability of such a ban, given the ubiquity of some of the weapons -- including more than two million AR-15 semi-automatic rifles like the one used in the Sandy Hook massacre.
"This AR-15 that they're all talking about is one of the most popular hunting rifles in the country," Republican congressman Charlie Dent told Politico.
Several Democrats like Joe Manchin of West Virginia are avid hunters and gun rights advocates.
Even if they support "sensible" new gun laws, their vote is complicated by ties to the gun lobby, which supports Democratic moderates, including Reid.
In total, 213 current members of Congress, including 16 Democrats, received checks from the NRA in 2012, according to a study by the Washington Post.
Those who support severe gun restrictions can be assured of a fierce campaign against them.
Some Democrats fear that a gun debate could cost some of their 55 seats in the 100-member Senate. Several in conservative states like West Virginia and Montana face re-election in 2014.
Public opinion, however, is on Obama's side. Two recent polls show a majority of Americans support an assault weapons ban (55 percent in a Pew survey and 58 percent in an ABC/Washington Post survey.
Congressman Keith Ellison was confident a ban could get through Congress -- if Americans speak out.
"We can get it if the people demand it," he told AFP. "Trust me, Harry Reid will change his mind if he gets enough calls demanding greater gun safety."
We (voters) need to presure even the Dem representatives and let them know as well that we dont want an assault weapons or high capacity magazines ban.
Oi don't think so.
We need to make sure that RINOS and Dems face dire consequences for voting for addition people control. This is our Republic in the balance and nothing like the last ban since Bill Clinton wasn't a Muslim Marxist.
Prohibition worked out well, too.
In Pennsylvania, we are actively working with a Republican legislature to totally emasculate any gun control that comes from this Administration.
Good for you guys! Keep up the good work.
Yessiree! “Majority” means jack-squat when your sample is less than 1000 and weighted liberal from cesspool demographic where it was taken. What a bunch of pukes pushing chum as fact!
The MSM is the one that MAKES public opinion.
The MSM is the enemy, it is time to drain the MSM of advertising dollars. Any company that advertises for CBS news, NBC, ABC news, or any of the DC pool reporters should find it a FINANCIAL PERIL to be associated with that MSM.
Lincoln is advertising heavy on MSNBC. They new marque should fail on that alone.
how about states cross border recognizing concealed carry permits and having national OPEN carry legalized and preempted.
Neuter california and NYC and save the nation.
That is how I knew the whole thing was BS.
Hizself, who famously declared he would act if Congress did not, knows as well as anyone that Congress will not pass his demands. Why then demand at all?
In a couple months he'll declare Congress dysfunctional, too dominated by the NRA, other special interests and issue illegal executive orders to serve the interests of the people, for the better good of course.
Why not national conceal carry, as well. Fold that into the bearing part. I never saw why we should have to get special permission. Not so as to protect us, which really has nothing to do with it and only manes it harder to protect ourselves. So as to nab criminals before they commit real crimes, maybe, like how it’s illegal not only to drive drunk but be sitting in a car drunk, or to have the keys in the ignition, or whatever.
But we’re already choking on laws. Much like jow they say refs could throw a flag on every single play were they so inclined, anyone could be guilty of any number of things at any moment. Can’t get the guy on possession of a firearm, then get him on drugs or jaywalking or looking a policeman in the eye.
how did that majority of people not wanting obamacare work out? and unconstitutional on its face becomes a tax?
what people should really be screaming about is the school gun free zones orchestrated by Clinton and implimented by Janet Reno of Waco fame...how many people have actually been prosecuted under the Act? When did school shootings begin?:
....The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was originally passed as section 1702 of the Crime Control Act of 1990. It added 18 U.S.C. § 922(q); 18 U.S.C. § 922 itself was added by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.
Following the Lopez decision, President Clinton’s Attoney General Janet Reno proposed changes to 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) that were adopted (or “concealed” and “widely ignored” as one author put it) in section 657 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub.L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009, enacted September 30, 1996. These minor changes required that the firearm in question “has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce”.
As nearly all firearms have moved in Interstate Commerce at some point in their lives, critics assert this was merely a legislative tactic to circumvent the Supreme Court’s ruling......
after they limit “high capacity” magazines (30 rounds is hardly “high” in my book) they will move to limit the number of guns you can own.
The next shooter will just go in with 10 9MM handguns with 7 shot clips.
If the lefties keep pushing gun control this way in another two decades one out of two Americans may be gun owners instead of one out of three.
I really hope he does something like that! When he does that new congressman for Texas will have him where he want him. He will file articles of Impeachment against him.
Works for me, don’t forget New Jersey, Maryland and Delaware.
I totally support Senator Feinstein's ban on assault weapons, However, we have a problem with definition of terms. To me, an 'assault weapon' is a member of Congress who is an undisiplined,wealthy marxist who doesn't know the difference between a clip and a magazine, cannot discern between single-shot, semi-automatic and fully-automatic fire,and cannot differentiate between a real gun and a play gun. These assault weapons, all 535 of them,should be frog-marched to the nearest steel mill Basic Oxyegen Furnace and melted into something useful--like an assault rifle.
There are so many more ‘laws’ put on the books every year, that everyone becomes a ‘criminal’ for doing something or anything and everything, in the course of daily events. No one can possible keep track of it all, anymore.
In that case, the choice for the House GOP will be to either do what is constitutionally necessary, which is impeach, or watch their party dissolve along with our republic.
Why would anyone who has decided to kill a bunch of people, which has been illegal since Cain and Able, make sure his magazines only had seven rounds in them? The idiot on Hannity last night was saying that this law would make it less likely that a shooter could kill a lot of people...because he would have to reload. Like they would obey the law.
If Adam Lanza had been a Muslim we would not have had this dog and pony gun grabbing show today.
This has nothing at all to do with reducing gun violence. In fact the left is counting on it being ineffective, as a pretense to take even more freedoms away.
“Aware of the obstacles, the president urged Americans to pressure their lawmakers into passing tighter gun control legislation”
“If they say no, ask them why not”
Instead I will ask mine “ What part of “SHALL NOT INFRINGE” is he having a problem with?
Didja notice Zero said nothing about gun violence in movies and on TV earlier today?
Yeah that’s right—he doesn’t s*** in his own trough. Hollyweird owns him.
If he had pointed out, say, that the Weinstein brothers are selling tickets to `gun-crazy’ `Lawless’—one scene makes the shootout at the OK corral seem tame—and `Spicoli’/Sean Penn is squeezing a full-auto tommygun in a gangster movie.
Both are using evil guns, movies/TV business-as-usual, to make money and Zero pointing that out, well, that would have been awkward.
So, add this to the growing list of lefty double-standards:
Sidwell school v. your kid’s public school; their armed guards but no right on your part to self-defense or defense of others with your arms; David Gregory: public scoff law; `Do as we say, not as we do’—Joe Biteme.
Some here were hyperventilating last night. Obama’s performance this morning was just as I anticipated: Absolutely underwhelming. He’s all talk, a weakling.