Jump to content

Feinstein: Reid excluded the assault-weapons ban from Senate gun bill


JaronsToy

Recommended Posts

Feinstein: Reid excluded the assault-weapons ban from Senate gun bill

POSTED AT 9:21 AM ON MARCH 19, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY

No one expected the assault-weapons ban proposed by Dianne Feinstein to pass as part of the Senate’s gun-control package. Now it won’t even be a part of it. Last night, Feinstein told reporters that Harry Reid had excluded it from the final version of the legislative package:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on Monday that a controversial assault weapons ban will not be part of a Democratic gun bill that was expected to reach the Senate floor next month.

After a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday, a frustrated Feinstein said she learned that the bill she sponsored — which bans 157 different models of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines — wouldn’t be part of a Democratic gun bill to be offered on the Senate floor. Instead, it can be offered as an amendment. But its exclusion from the package makes what was already an uphill battle an almost certain defeat.

“Almost certain defeat”? Left on its own as an amendment, Feinstein’s bill would be lucky to get 35 votes. She knows it, too, which is why she vented her frustration:

“My understanding is it will not be [part of the base bill],” Feinstein said. “It will be separate.”

Asked if she were concerned about the decision, Feinstein paused and said, “Sure. I would like to [see the bill moved], but the leader has decided not to do it.”

“You will have to ask him [Reid],” she said, when asked why the decision was made.

Do we need to ask? Reid can be accused of many things, but he’s not clueless when it comes to the politics of guns. Reid wants to pass a bipartisan bill to expand background checks, and he’s more than willing to sacrifice Feinstein’s effort to get it, especially since Reid was never enthusiastic about the renewed AWB in the first place.

This way, he gets two wins. First, using Feinstein’s proposal as the extreme of the effort, the background-check legislation looks more reasonable, even where it may not be. Second, by allowing Democrats in red states to vote against the AWB in a separate floor action, he protects them from attacks in the 2014 election. It’s a win-win for Reid.

It’s more of a mixed bag for gun-rights advocates. Depending on whether the Senate bill includes federal registration of all firearms, it’s a big loss — but that has absolutely no chance of passing the House anyway, and Republicans in the Senate won’t have any reason to stick around if it does. If it doesn’t, it’s more of a headache than a problem. The upside will be the outright rejection of the AWB, which should stick a stake through its heart for another decade after politicians who took the risk to demand it ended up with egg on their faces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding as an amendment works when it's added to a bill supported by the opposition.

In this case it lacks enough vote support for even that. It's dead for now.

edit: Despite the failure, that assault weapon ban zoomed up to a 19% chance of being enacted. Before it was dropped for lack of support. That means a lot of effort was made convincing votes in favor, but it wasn't enough. The matching McCarthy bill in the House is stuck at a 2% chance of getting out of committee and hasn't changed.

Edited by ReconRat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No bans, few restrictions if any......but full background checks and registration will pass and that is going to be the beginning of the end.

Id agree that universal background checks, enhanced mental health services and "do not approve" data feeds to the ATF database have good chances, but I doubt registration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id agree that universal background checks, enhanced mental health services and "do not approve" data feeds to the ATF database have good chances, but I doubt registration.

Will lead to registration and ultimately confiscation if they see fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even hypothetically I think is a damned ignorant fantasy. I'd far prefer she either stay out issues she doesn't fully understand or spend real time hanging out with responsible gun owners shooting targets with family, playing skeet, maybe hunting and attending a lodge bake, sitting down with would-be-victims who defended themselves from armed aggressors, and otherwise socializing with gun owners who don't harbor fantasies about venting her cranium.

I mean really guys, that's just plain counterproductive. Gun control advocates already think we're a bunch of anti-social, bloodlusty redneck "it blowed up reel guud" militia-fantasy hermits who need to be disarmed for society's protection. Do we really need to hand that stereotype right to them???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even hypothetically I think is a damned ignorant fantasy. I'd far prefer she either stay out issues she doesn't fully understand or spend real time hanging out with responsible gun owners shooting targets with family, playing skeet, maybe hunting and attending a lodge bake, sitting down with would-be-victims who defended themselves from armed aggressors, and otherwise socializing with gun owners who don't harbor fantasies about venting her cranium.

I mean really guys, that's just plain counterproductive. Gun control advocates already think we're a bunch of anti-social, bloodlusty redneck "it blowed up reel guud" militia-fantasy hermits who need to be disarmed for society's protection. Do we really need to hand that stereotype right to them???

I would counter to say that your fantasy about an 80 year old senile politician is ignorant if you think that she'd even consider doing any of the things you mentioned.

You apparently have never tried to convince an elder member of society to do something they do not want to do. She's made it very clear since what...the 80's....that she gets off trying to disarm me which I will not stand for...hypothetically or not.

I don't honestly care what it would take as long as she is removed from office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with you about the infinitesimally small chance of changing her mind, so I'll grant your point. I'll also agree that getting her out of office is a far more civilized, democratic and constitutional notion than venting her cranium... :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with you about the infinitesimally small chance of changing her mind, so I'll grant your point. I'll also agree that getting her out of office is a far more civilized, democratic and constitutional notion than venting her cranium... :-)

I think she should just be put down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think she should just be put down.

I seriously think you should keep that to yourself and hope that nobody interprets it as a runup to a Gabby Gifford event.

I do NOT want to lose our constitutional rights due to attitudes that fuel gun control stereotypes and legislation.

Truly, you're not helping the cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...