Harry Reid shoots down Feinstein gun-ban bill

[srican69]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/19/reid-shoots-down-feinstein-gun-ban-bill/

Sen. Dianne Feinstein emerged from a closed-door meeting with Majority Leader Harry Reid on Monday — but her ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines didn’t.
Mr. Reid turned down her attempt to bring her ban on 157 different weapons and ammunition clips aboard the Democratic Party’s comprehensive gun bill, Politico reported.
“My understanding is it will not be [part of the base bill],” said Mrs. Feinstein, California Democrat. “I would like to [see it moved], but the leader has decided not to do it. … You will have to ask him [why].”
Her bill instead will have to go forth separately or as an amendment — and that means it’s probably not going anywhere.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/19/reid-shoots-down-feinstein-gun-ban-bill/#ixzz2O08S0tec
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


He should have dared the Republicans ...

[LAGC]

1. Harry Reid just knows the reality of the situation.

There's no way an AWB is going to make it through the House, so pressing it would only alienate Republicans who might be willing to stay on-board for more modest gun control reforms like universal background checks.

He's a player -- just like Boehner -- knows when to fight and when to fight another day.

[Laurian]

3. Bullshit. I say bring it to the House and let

the opponents go on record. I'm really tired of the timidity of Democrats. Be bold (as Gabby Giffords said) or get the hell out of the way.

[premium]

4. Bring it to the House?

It won't even get past the Senate.
The votes aren't there, I doubt there are even 51 votes for a simple majority, what with 5 or 6 Dem senators and 1 Ind. voicing opposition to it.
There are probably lots of Dem. reps. in the House that are similarly opposed to it.

[Laurian]

6. I was responding to previous poster who said

it couldn't get through the House. Put it to a vote. If it doesn't make it through the Senate, at least we will know who is willing to vote against it. No vote allows cowards to avoid the issue.

[premium]

13. It has to get through the Senate first

and that, at this point, has a zero % chance of doing so.

[brooklynite]

53. Who is opposed to gun control that would be afraid to vote against gun control?

All you're doing is eating up time that could be spent on other legislation.

[Laurian]

57. What other legislation?

They can't get anything done. Totally impotent.

[brooklynite]

59. Budgets currently...

...and my sources tell me that immigration reform will be moving forward.

[srican69]

11. I doubt that ... AWB as part of a bigger package surely would have gotten past the senate ...

folks are afraid of being pro NRA after the Newtown massacre

[premium]

17. No it wouldn't.

If the AWB had been part of the package, it would have scuttled the who bill and Harry Reid knew that, that's why he is separating the AWB from the rest of the package.
You may not like it, but that's a political fact.

I would rather have the UBG and strengthened penalties for straw purchased than nothing at all.

[hack89]

7. In the Senate, it is the Dems that oppose it

that is why Reid will not allow a vote. He wants the issue to go away before the 2014 elections.

[Laurian]

9. Again, I want the opponents on record. Allow a vote.

[hack89]

10. Better talk to Harry - maybe he will listen to you. nt

[onenote]

18. It doesn't say that a vote on Feinstein's proposal won't be allowed

What it says it that Feinstein's proposal won't be incorporated into a larger bill. She can still try to get a vote, but it would be as a stand alone bill or as an amendment.

[Pullo]

91. It'll be offered as an amendment

So it will get a vote. During his press conference Reid stated that, as of now, there are less than 40 Senators willing to vote for an assault weapons ban.

[demwing]

76. I'm curious - what has Harry Reid ever fought for

other than his own re-election?

[Demo_Chris]

78. Yep, and alienate a whole bunch of Democratic gun owners

[premium]

2. What did you expect?

Harry Reid is from the very pro 2A state of Nevada. He himself voted no on the last AWB in 1994.
You also have 5-6 Dem senators and 1 Ind. who have come out in opposition to it.
He also knew that it stood less than zero chance in the repub. controlled house.

Sen. Feinstein knew from the get go that a new AWB was doomed to failure.

[hack89]

5. He was more concerned with the voters of his state

he didn't do this out of fear. He represents a conservative, pro-gun state. He has never supported the AWB.

[premium]

20. Harry Reid is a savvy politician.

He knows that Nevada is a very pro gun state and he's not willing to commit political suicide to advance a bill that has no chance of passing.

[WillyT]

8. Can't You Just Smell The Courage ???

[Generation_Why]

14. More proof that "balls" have nothing to do with it. nt

[NaturalHigh]

12. Good for Harry.

I don't really like the guy, but he's right on this one.

[joeybee12]

15. I'd heard rumors Harry hates DiFi, and the feeling is mutual...

I'm sure a lot of that came into play.

That said, Reid is a worthless POS

[badtoworse]

16. Excellent. The 1994 AWB was stupid and this one would be no different.

[NaturalHigh]

21. Not only stupid but absolutely worthless.

It banned a few guns that looked scary and made a huge market for pre-ban manufactured ones. That's about it.

[badtoworse]

22. You forgot to mention that it cost us the House

[frylock]

28. no, it didn't..

that's pure mythology.

[badtoworse]

30. That was Bill Clinton's opinion too

"One conclusion that can be drawn from the 1994 battle was that the weak ban that emerged might not have been worth the cost. And there was a stiff cost. When Congress passed the assault weapons ban, the NRA vowed vengeance. Months later, the Republicans, backed by the still-outraged NRA, romped the Democrats in the midterm election, gaining 54 seats and control of the House for the first time in 40 years. Clinton, for one, believed that voting for the the assault weapons ban had cost about 20 House Democrats their seats—meaning that the measure had caused a political backlash that led to a GOP the majority in the House. If Obama and others confront the NRA, they had better expect—and prepare for—a battle that will reach a crescendo on November 4, 2014."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/bill-clinton-assault-weapon-ban-newtown-shooting

[frylock]

37. bill clinton isn't infallable..

The Deadly Myth of Gun Control in Electoral Politics

<snip>

The notion that gun control was responsible for the Democrats’ debacle 15 years ago was floated by Richard Gephardt, the former Democratic House leader, and other pols and commentators after the ’94 election. But it was Bill Clinton who gave it current credence. “The N.R.A. could rightly claim to have made Gingrich the House speaker,” Mr. Clinton wrote in his 2004 autobiography, pumping up the gun lobby and, not incidentally, himself by attributing the body blow to his party to his principled leadership on guns.

It is hard to make a case that the assault weapons ban was decisive in 1994.

The law certainly enraged many N.R.A. members and might explain the loss of certain Democratic seats. However, there were other major factors in the Democrats’ 1994 loss, starting with perceived Democratic arrogance and corruption (overdrafts at the House bank came to symbolize that).

Add to that voter unhappiness with Mr. Clinton’s budget, his health care fiasco, the Republican Party’s success in recruiting appealing candidates, and that ingenious Republican vehicle for nationalizing the elections known as the “Contract With America.” The contract, by the way, did not mention guns.

<more>

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/opinion/09sat4.html?_r=0


Mythbusting the media on the 1994 assault weapons ban

Over the weekend, Media Matters reported on the revival of the notion that the assault weapons ban cost Democrats in 1994 and will do so again. This particular mythology has taken hold here as well. It's unusual to be put in the position of mythbusting Bill Clinton, but as I saw when reading some of his book, even his version of the 1994 elections isn't as simple as gun enthusiasts make it out to be.

As for myself, I'm under no illusion that banning assault weapons will solve the nation's problems with gun violence by itself. As the President himself put it, however,


Because while there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil, if there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there is even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try.

<more>

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/22/1181113/-Mythbusting-the-media-on-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban#


The Myth Of NRA Dominance Part III: Two Elections The NRA Did Not Win

<snip>

All myths have a genesis story, and this one begins in the early 1990s. The first two years of Bill Clinton’s presidency saw an unusual number of controversial legislative battles – the gays-in-the-military debate resulting in the creation of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the 1993 budget with its upper-income tax increases, the unsuccessful attempt at health care reform, NAFTA, and the passage of an omnibus crime bill, which included a ban on the sale of assault weapons. When Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in the 1994 elections, the NRA immediately claimed credit for the GOP landslide, and many Democrats agreed. Bill Clinton himself validated the NRA’s argument in January 1995 when he told a reporter, “The fight for the assault-weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress. The NRA is the reason Republicans control the House.”

Indeed, not a single incumbent Republican lost in 1994. But how much credit can the NRA claim for the GOP’s success? Studies by political scientists addressing this question produce the following conclusion: some, but nowhere near the Republicans’ margin of victory that year.

One study directly examined the effect of the NRA in that election. This research, by Christopher Kenny, Michael McBurnett, and David Bordua, examined NRA endorsements and election results in 1994 and 1996, and did find an impact of those endorsements – but determined that that impact was limited and highly conditional. Their results showed that an NRA endorsement helped Republican challengers to a small degree in 1994, but had almost no impact for Democrats who were endorsed, Republican incumbents who were endorsed, or any kind of candidate in 1996. These results, as well as the magnitude of the effect they found – about a 2-point boost for Republican challengers, but nothing for anyone else – were almost exactly what I found in my analysis of the 2004-2010 congressional elections.

As I explained in that analysis, there were few races in the last four congressional elections where such a boost from an NRA endorsement would have made a difference – only four races, in fact, out of the 1,038 times the NRA endorsed House candidates. In 1994, however, there were an unusual number of close races, and 12 Republican challengers won by a margin of 4 points or less. Of those, nine were endorsed by the NRA. The GOP needed a net gain of 41 seats to take control of the House, and their actual net gain on election night was 54 seats. So even if we were to attribute every last one of those nine victories to the NRA and assume that without the organization each race would have gone Democratic – an extremely generous assumption – the Republicans would still have gained 45 seats and won control of the House.

<more>

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/22/430560/the-myth-of-nra-dominance-part-iii-two-elections-the-nra-did-not-win/

[badtoworse]

44. Whatever. It doesn't matter what you or I think about 1994

What matters is what the people in Washington think now. The reality is that in some states, voting for an AWB is the fastest way to lose an election and some of those states and districts are represented by Democrats. It's ridiculous to expect them to support legislation that will cost them their seat in Congress. Without them, the legislation won't pass the Senate. Reid knows this and that's why he's not bringing it to the floor.

[frylock]

77. yes, whatever indeed..

who cares about facts when we can rely on the so-called conventional wisdom? listen, i'm not even a proponent of AWB. it's a waste of time banning weapons because they have a bayonet lug, or some other nonsense. the congress should be focusing on legislating against large cap magazines. but this myth that the AWB cost the dems the election in 1994 is utter bullshit, and i'll continue to correct people when they state as much.

[badtoworse]

79. The politicians believe it and that is all that matters.

[frylock]

80. i don't think they do. they think that we believe it..

so it's a convenient excuse to use rather than doing their damn jobs.

[badtoworse]

81. That makes no sense

[frylock]

82. nothing those poltroons does makes any sense..

shit, you believed that nonsense yourself. you probably still do believe it. after all, Bill Clinton does.

[badtoworse]

84. I'm certain of it

[frylock]

90. and there you have it..

why bother with facts? your mind is already made up.

[premium]

32. Maybe you should tell President William Jefferson Clinton that,

because he said so in his book, My Life, and more recently, Mother Jones.

[frylock]

35. yeah, no, yeah..... i don't have a pipeline to bill clinton..

is Bill Clinton right about everything? what did Bill Clinton say about NAFTA. a post mythbusting Bill Clinton's opinion forthcoming kthx.

[premium]

39. I'm just letting you know what he himself said.

Nothing more, nothing less.
I tend to believe him, he was there, he witnessed it first hand.

If you get the chance, read his book, it's fascinating.

[Hoyt]

26. That why we need a ban that is not based on looks -- just ban semi-autos straight up.

That will get "assault" weapons that only the warped feel they need, and all but shut down the gun profiteers because the gun cultists don't find revolvers and lever/'bolt action weapons sexy/menacing enough for them.


These yahoos won't be lining up for weapons left:




Photo above -- yahoos lining up to feel/touch/caress/buy "assault" weapons just a week after Sandy Hook.

[premium]

29. If a ban on cosmetic features can't even make it through the Congress,

what leads you to believe that a ban on semi autos will make it through?

[Hoyt]

42. Because the "cosmetic" ban does little. The gun cultists and manufacturers will just figure out

ways to get around spirit of law. They are addicted to these weapons and money they generate, and don't give a crud about the harm they do to society.

It will take awhile, because the gun cultists are a whiny group and just have to keep getting new and deadlier guns to satisfy their needs.

[premium]

45. You never know what the future will bring

but in the near future, a ban on semi autos will never, ever get through the Congress and then it would have to pass court challenges which I highly doubt it would.

But, as I said, you never know.

[kudzu22]

86. Well you're right about one thing

The cosmetic ban was stupid and pointless. If you talk about a complete semi-auto ban, though, you're talking about 80% of the weapons in private hands today. They could no longer claim they're only going after "weapons of war" because hunting rifles, shotguns and self-defense handguns would all be included. I seriously doubt that would get many votes in Congress.

[Hoyt]

87. True hunters will be fine without them. "Self-defense" is mostly BS.

[NaturalHigh]

60. No thanks. nt.

[n2doc]

19. Ol' "Pre-emptive surrender" Harry strikes again. n/t

[SayWut]

23. 1 down, 1 to go.

Magazine ban is next in the circular file cabinet.
Once that is removed from the discussion, all should be good.

[srican69]

24. That will be the last straw .. they better not remove that.

[premium]

25. That's also part of the AWB ban,

it's not, at this time, part of the package, so it's safe to say that's DOA also.

[srican69]

27. this is so despiriting ... i hate fucking politicians .. spineless cowards

[Recursion]

64. She could offer the magazine limit as an amendment; it might have a chance, too

It's definitely going to have more support than the AWB itself.

[premium]

65. That's a possibility also,

but Senator Feinstein seems to think that the AWB and the mag limit is headed to defeat.

[Pullo]

92. I believe Lautenberg has indicated he will offer a mag ban amendment to the floor package

However, the prospects of that clearing 60 votes in the affirmative are slim.

[Melon_Lord]

74. Glad to hear it...

[99Forever]

31. Gee, what a fucking surprise.

There's completely worthless and then there is...

.. you know.

[HereSince1628]

33. Reid is a consumate pragmatist, does he ever attempt what 'is likely to fail'? n/t

[onenote]

94. rarely, because that's not his job

His caucus would not be pleased if that was his modus operandi.

[HereSince1628]

95. True, his caucus would be unhappy

because his caucus is dominated by pragmatists who fear the stigma of losing.

[onenote]

97. what exactly are the benefits of losing?

I'm trying to remember when a political party and/or its elected officials sought out opportunities for defeat.

[HereSince1628]

98. The same as those at The Alamo I would think

[Peter cotton]

34. Good news.

[aikoaiko]

36. The new AWB bill is a crappy piece of proposed legislation.

Banning rifles, shotguns, and pistols for having combinations of features is a deeply flawed approach to reducing gun violence. It appears to me to be more about culture war than saving lives.

A massacre with a DiFi approved Bushmaster AR-15 with a different grip won't be any less tragic or destructive.

I will admit that mag limits is a more debatable aspect of the bill.

[Hoyt]

43. A culture war that is long overdue. Again, don't ban based upon looks -- ban based upon whether

it's a semi-auto or not. That solves most of the issue except for those who feel life would be so difficult without them.

[premium]

47. And therein is the crux,

if you can't even get a ban on cosmetics through, then a ban on the functionality will never even see the light of day, whether rightly or wrongly.

[Hoyt]

50. At least the gun cultists can't argue that the proposed ban does nothing. It would do a lot,

including all but killing the domestic lethal weapons market/culture that gets excited with military looking weapons.

I still believe that anyone desiring an weapon that could be categorized as an "assault" weapon, should be banned from owning guns. Catch-22, yep.

[premium]

52. You just said upthread that the manufacturers would just change the design

to get around the new law. That contradicts what you're saying here about all but killing the domestic lethal weapons market.

And I doubt that anyone desiring an assault weapon should be banned from owning guns would pass constitutional muster.

[Hoyt]

56. Hard to get around a semi-auto ban. But I'm sure someone will try to manufacturer a 40 shot revolver

to satiate those attracted to lethal weapons.

[premium]

58. How do you reconcile post #42 with post #50?

Not hard at all to get around a ban that's probably never going to happen.

[aikoaiko]

48. A ban on all semi-autos might have a small impact on criminal gun violence.

But that will never happen. Too many noncriminals use them for self-defense, recreation, and competition.

[Hoyt]

55. Actually, too many people get excitement out of practicing to shoot people with them.

Silhoutte targets resembling humans, melons, water jugs, etc. A real cultural shift is needed.

This kind of crap ain't fun or good for society:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=AtZOYdc68Ac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ylhHy1eA9Jg

These bigots -- with their store located appropriately on the Old Dixie Highway -- need more hoops to jump through to advertise crap like their guns with confederate flags on the handle. Can't find it now, but there was one of their videos posted by gungeoneers that discussed fine weapons for shooting "brown people who might cross your lawn."

Yep, a culture war with these so-called gun "enthusiasts" would accomplish a lot for society.

[Myrina]

38. Reid's time is seriously past. He needs to step down.

He's been a massive disappointment as far back as I can recall paying attention to him ...

[premium]

41. Step down as the Majority Leader,

or step down as a Senator?
The good people of Nevada seem to like him as we keep re-electing him over and over again.

[onenote]

93. And yet the members keep choosing him as majority leader.

Maybe they know something about the job that you don't.

[MicaelS]

40. Good, I'm glad. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Chalk up another win for the right thanks to Harry.

[aikoaiko]

49. Yep, the right to keep and bear arms.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. In the 18th century. Now, an archaic, useless, destructive, holder from another era.

[AndyA]

54. +1,000. n/t

[aikoaiko]

61. And yet still the law of the land in the 21st century.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. More like an icon of the 18th century transformed into a Sacred Cow of the rightwing.

[hack89]

85. Considering it is Senate Dems that are preventing the passage of the AWB

in the Senate, it is more than a right wing phenomena. I know you and many others can't wrap your minds around the idea of pro-gun Democrats but don't you think it is time to accept reality?

[fadedrose]

62. Harry, Harry, Harry....am so disappointed in you....nt

[Recursion]

63. I hope it isn't too late for our party to focus on actually effective legislation

But I'm worried this has already sucked all the oxygen out of the discussion.

[premium]

66. I'm going to have to go with your hypothesis,

I hope this isn't poisoning the well.

[sarisataka]

67. Unfortunately DiFi is more concerned with her image than working on the problem

As I said elsewhere:

while the President, and leader of her party, was setting up a commission to be led by the VP on the issue, she chose to go it alone and get her mug in the limelight first with a DOA plan. Had she been serious she would have worked with her leadership instead of inspiring opposition with old ideas.

She has single-handed managed to stifle work on effective legislation more than any 3 RW talking heads combined

[Paladin]

68. As If There Won't Be Additional Mass Murders To Keep The Discussion Going..... (nt)

[ananda]

69. So, where is the WH and ...

... particularly Joe Biden, who's supposed to be
leading the charge for gun control???

You know ... because the killing of 28 kids changed
things (supposedly).

[Recursion]

70. They're focusing on issues more important than a gun's grip shape

At least I hope so. Biden is still leading that commission.

[olddots]

71. the Washington Times ?

Not that Harry Reid isn't a spineless dweeb but consider the source is the Washington Times .

[Recursion]

72. The WT's "process" reporting is usually pretty good

Basically, you can trust them on two things:

1. Capital Hill gossip
2. Local DC news (they're actually very good at that)

[tammywammy]

73. Here you go from The Hill

Reid kills assault weapons ban, says it had less than 40 votes

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday he will not include a renewal of the federal assault weapons ban in a Senate gun control bill because it could not win even 40 votes on the Senate floor.

“Right now her amendment using the most optimistic numbers has less than 40 votes," Reid told reporters on Tuesday. "That’s not 60. I have to get something on the floor so we can have votes on that issue and the other issues we talked about."

Reid indicated a proposal sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to expand background checks to cover private gun sales would not make it in the base bill, either.

“There are a couple different background check proposals floating around,” Reid said. “All these issues are important and I’m going to do what I can to make sure we have a fair, sound debate on this but we can’t have it unless I have something that I can put on the floor to proceed to it.

“I’m not going to try to put something on the floor that won’t succeed. I want something that will succeed,” he added.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/289037-senate-gun-bill-wont-include-assault-weapons-ban#ixzz2O13vZwcZ

[cherokeeprogressive]

83. It's in the L.A. Times also.

[babylonsister]

88. Reid's role...

Meet The Five Cowardly Senate Democrats Who Killed the Assault Weapons Ban

By: Jason Easley
Mar. 19th, 2013


It wasn’t cowardice that killed the assault weapons ban. It was five Democratic senators who opposed the measure that forced it to be dropped from the Senate guns bill.

The assault weapons ban will be given an up or down vote as an amendment, but not included in the final Senate bill designed to limit gun violence. Many on the left will direct their rage at Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) or the entire Democratic caucus, but the reality is that the assault weapons ban is not in the final bill because five Senate Democrats opposed it.

snip//

The word skepticism is inaccurate. In reality, these five opposed a ban. The Democratic opposition all hailed from states that Mitt Romney carried in 2012, and all five are terrified of what running against the NRA would mean for their future reelection chances. None of his should be any kind of surprise. All five of them had publicly stated months ago that weren’t interested in an assault weapons ban.

Their opposition, along with that of Independent Sen. Angus King who caucuses with the Democrats, meant that Reid had no choice. He had to remove the ban from the final bill, or the entire legislative effort would have been doomed to failure.

Sen. Reid made the practical decision. Given what these members of his caucus decided, he chose to drop the assault weapons ban in order to have the best chance of getting a meaningful piece of legislation passed.

The disappointment of the left should not be directed at Reid. The blame belongs squarely on the shoulders Baucus, Tester, Begich, Heitkamp, and Manchin.

more...

http://www.politicususa.com/meet-cowardly-senate-democrats-killed-assault-weapons-ban.html

[badtoworse]

89. If I interpret your post correctly, they are reflecting the views of their constituents

That is what they are supposed to do.

[premium]

96. Don't forget Senator Angus King, Maine-Ind.

He came out in opposition of the AWB also.