Watered-down gun legislation in the works, Senator Reid?

[marmar]

WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) grew defensive Tuesday when pressed on his efforts to craft a gun control package, having decided this week not to include a ban on assault weapons in the legislation.

A ban on nearly 160 specific types of semiautomatic weapons and rifles was one of the four major parts of President Barack Obama's plan to curtail gun violence in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shooting. But the fact that it won't be included in the baseline bill is hardly unexpected. The ban's chief sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), could only guarantee roughly 40 votes for the measure, Reid said. So while it will still get consideration as an amendment to the broader gun legislation, unless an additional 20 votes materialize it won't become law.

Left unsaid on Tuesday was that another major element of the president's gun policy proposal could be joining the assault weapons ban in the scrap heap.

Legislation to limit the size of ammunition feeders was part of Feinstein's bill as well. And as of now, lawmakers are expected to separate that measure from the assault weapons ban so that it can be considered individually. ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/obama-gun-reform_n_2909590.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

[LAGC]

1. Watered-down "universal background check" is more like it.

Private sellers will be able to screen against prohibited people buying guns, but no records will be kept.

Hence: no registration, hence: no confiscation.

[badtoworse]

2. Registration is a necessary first step to confiscation

It's a non-starter in my book

[LAGC]

3. Indeed, and it sounds like the deal that is being worked out...

...to get Republican support for any universal background check scheme in the House is to implement a system that will not retain any records after point-of-sale.

And that greatly upsets the "grabbers."

[frylock]

5. what, exactly, do you believe that the govt is going to do with those records?

do you think they'll use those records to create a list, and then use that list to confiscate guns, skipping over addresses of people that aren't on the list?

[LAGC]

7. That's pretty much how they are already doing it in California.

California is the only U.S. state where law enforcement officials confiscate guns from the homes of individuals not legally permitted to own them. The program, which takes guns away from criminals and the mentally ill, is being heralded as a model for the nation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/california-gun-confiscation_n_2717809.html

[frylock]

9. confiscate guns from the homes of individuals not legally permitted to own them

oh, the horror.

[LAGC]

10. I'm not saying whether its good or bad.

But its pretty clear that registration CAN lead to confiscation, unlike what some of our resident gun control advocates assure us.

So understandably there's some concern there from gun rights folks, who will be weighing in heavily on whatever compromise bill may or may not make it through Congress.

[Hoyt]

29. I mean really. That is clearly wrong . . . . .if one is scared chitless of losing their beloved guns

after abusing/threatening a spouse, or something. Guns -- and a bunch of them on the street and in home lethal weapons collections -- rule and make life so exciting. Wayne LaPierre 2016.

[badtoworse]

8. Without records, confiscation would be far more difficult.

That would be a good thing

[frylock]

11. so you're telling me that IF the govt decided to confiscate ALL guns..

that they would do so relying solely upon a list of registered gun owners? that's your belief, is it? really?! because I think that if the govt was indeed going to confiscate ALL guns, they would do it by going door-to-door, whether you were listed on a registry or not.

[badtoworse]

12. Ever hear of the 4th Amendment?

[frylock]

14. you mean that thing that's been shat upon low these many years?

yeah, I've heard of it. do you believe that if it comes to wholesale confiscation of ALL guns that 4A is going to amount to jack shit?

[badtoworse]

16. I'm pretty confident of it, particularly with the SCOTUS we have now.

[frylock]

17. a confiscation of ALL guns would herald an end to 2A..

and you think 4A wouldn't follow? have you guys really thought this whole scenario through, or are we dealing with underpants gnome logic?

1) Register guns.
2) ?????
3) Confiscation of guns.

[badtoworse]

20. I'm getting bored with this

Feinstein can't get an AWB to a floor vote and you're confiscating all firearms and trashing the 4th Amendment. Have a good night.

[frylock]

22. i'm not confiscating shit..

you're the one who's afraid of having your gun confiscated. i'm merely pointing out the logistical impossibility of that really happening. and last I checked, it's Obama trashing 4A.

[NutmegYankee]

13. The 4th amendment would prevent going door to door.

And even if they could, it would take hours to thoroughly search a home. Logistically it wouldn't work. But with a list they could get warrants, demand the guns and arrest the owners if they didn't hand the guns over right away.

It's a necessary first step to confiscation. It's also a great money making tool, as they could charge outrageous fees to register the guns annually, bankrupting the owners.

[frylock]

15. as a gun owner myself, i have no problem with registering and licensing my guns..

I have to do that with my car and motorcycle already. and again, if we reach a point where confiscation of ALL guns is inevitable, 4A isn't going to amount to jack shit. there will be some excuse made about securing the homeland, or some such nonsense.

[NutmegYankee]

18. I license my car for the privilege of operating it on public roads.

And it also allows my town to assess a healthy property tax on it. I can own a non-registered vehicle, such as a project car, as long as I don't operate it on the roads.

I don't use my firearms on public land, except to hunt, for which I buy a license issued by the state. Otherwise I keep them within my own home or use them at the local sportsman/hunting club that I am a member of. I already have a state issued license that allows me to transport them back and forth to the club by car.

There is no reason to have to register each gun at $100 apiece. The only purpose is to collect money and make it too expensive to own them within the state. And also hope that you make a goof on the forms or forget to renew so they can be taken from you.

It would take too long to search each home in a "national emergency" scenario you reference. And I believe in the Bill of Rights. The 4th would prevail.

[frylock]

25. where is that $100 figure coming from?

[NutmegYankee]

34. Proposed bills in both CT and RI legislature.

[jal777]

26. 100% true. You can't argue this point.

[former9thward]

21. It would be impossible to search every house.

There are probably 150 million homes and apartments in the U.S. Each one would literally have to be torn up because you could hide a gun anywhere. They would go off of a registration list.

[frylock]

23. so they would rely on some type of honor system?

this whole gun confiscation fantasy nightmare scenario that the gun fuckers have worked out in their minds is, i'm assuming, to quell any possibility of an armed insurrection. so the govt is simply going to go off a list, and take the chance that the guy at 123 Main St, USA has guns because he's on the registry, while his neighbor at 125 Main St doesn't? really?! is that how it's going to go down?

[jmg257]

24. Isn't that what those damn Russkies did in Red Dawn??

Wolverines showed 'em though!

[frylock]

28. true story

[former9thward]

35. Do you seriously suggest the government would destroy the U.S. housing stock?

Making everyone homeless? Because that is what it would take without going off a registration list.

[frylock]

36. i'm not suggesting anything. i'm trying to understand how this confiscation thing is going to work

that guy that ambushed the firefighters in upstate NY was not a registered owner of the guns he used. are you suggesting that the govt is willing to take the chance that criminals who own guns will continue to own guns in a scenario where all gun are being confiscated? nobody can answer that question. did the US military rely on a list of males 16-55 when they were kicking down doors in Fallujah, or did they go to every single domicile and search the premises?

[former9thward]

37. Fallujah was in the middle of a war.

Not quite the same. Could you get every gun by going off a registration list? No, of course not. But it would be the only practical way of doing it. If the government wanted to eliminate guns it would be a 60-80 year project and a list would be the way to start.

[frylock]

38. the threat of armed insurrection is the beginning of a civil war..

so, again, 1A, 2A, and 4A aren't going to amount to jack shit. if ALL guns are going to be confiscated, they're not going to go about it half-assed. in any case, i'm done trying to explain this. I've made my point. nobody is getting their guns confiscated, a national registry being created or not withstanding.

[Melon_Lord]

19. Agreed..

[slackmaster]

4. He strengthened the bill by removing a superfluous, useless part. Background checks could pass.

Gun control advocates keep making the same mistake - Demanding everything and as a result getting nothing.

[Hoyt]

30. And gun cultists keep celebrating lethal weapons. Just gotta keep pressure on

while changing the perception of guns in society and the people that covet them.

[Autumn]

6. Come on, would there be anything else other than watered-down legislation?

I'm not seeing it.

[spanone]

27. enough kids haven't died

fuck harry.

[tritsofme]

31. Including an assault weapons ban would act as a poison pill that sinks the whole bill.

Include it if you want to make a statement, not if you want to make law.

Feinstein can't bring more than 40 votes, how does this reality become Reid's fault?

[moondust]

33. Apparently so.

Hopefully he'll do a stand-alone bill or something on the AWB just to get all the votes on record for the benefit of voters.

[Llewlladdwr]

32. I'm no fan of Harry Reid.

But I'm glad to see he's thinking rationally on this issue.

Neither an "assault weapon" nor a large capacity magazine ban are going to happen.