Gun safety hearings rejected by chairman of House Judiciary Committee

[shadowrider]

Reporting from Washington —
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee on Friday rejected a request from Democrats to hold hearings related to gun safety in the aftermath of the shootings in Tucson earlier this month.

All 16 Democrats on the committee, which has jurisdiction over firearms laws, sent a letter to Rep. Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who recently took charge of the panel, asking him to convene hearings on the use of high-capacity magazines and improving background checks to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining guns.

"It is more important than ever that we examine our gun safety laws and regulations," said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the top Democrat on the committee. "It is simply common sense to limit the availability of high-capacity magazines, and ensure that individuals banned by law from owning firearms are, in fact, prevented from buying guns."

But Smith, in a statement released by the committee, said any such hearings could prejudice the upcoming trial of the shooting suspect, Jared Lee Loughner.

In the letter, the Democrats noted that the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 would have banned the magazine Loughner allegedly used to kill six and injure 13, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, outside a Tucson supermarket Jan. 8. "It has been widely reported that Mr. Loughner used a magazine that allowed him to fire over 30 rounds and that only when he attempted to reload was he able to be subdued," they said. The issue "should be reviewed," the Democrats said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gun-safety-hearings-20110128,0,6331794.story

The AWB that expired in 2004 would NOT have prevented Loughner from obtaining a 30 round MAGAZINE.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

2. Hey, at least they said 'magazine'.

There were no disqualifying records missing w/r/t Loughner, that anyone has found.

His mental issues had not been raised to the level requiring involuntary commitment, nor had he ever been adjudicated a danger to himself or others. While I agree that improving NICS record compliance is important, it has nothing to do with Loughner.

[shadowrider]

3. They did get that right. n/t

[RSillsbee]

4. YOU LIE!!!!!!!!! (Not you OP)

In the letter, the Democrats noted that the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 would have banned the magazine Loughner allegedly used to kill six and injure 13, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, outside a Tucson supermarket Jan. 8.

That Magazine would have been perfectly legal under the (non)ban provided it was manufactured before the (non)ban went in to effect.

So, tell me again why I should trust a bunch of folks who are willing to lie to get their pet law passed with my civil liberties?

[HankyDubs]

5. Who is lying?

"That Magazine would have been perfectly legal under the (non)ban provided it was manufactured before the (non)ban went in to effect."

It is unconstitutional to make it illegal to posess items that were purchased legally. You might look at this as a flaw in the ban, but it is absolutely necessary to avoid an ex post facto situation.

I don't know when or where Loughner purchased the clip (yeah I said clip..freak out!). Presumably he purchased it at a store, which would make this claim by democratic lawmakers absolutely correct. Unless you know he obtained the clip (yup, again) in some other way, your Joe Wilson "yoo lie" is misplaced.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Clearly the anti gun people at all levels lie

They have no case if they do not

[PavePusher]

7. Still false.

The stores could very well have sold a sesond-hand, used magazine, or NIB pre-"ban" manufacture one.

[HankyDubs]

10. could have

ghahaha

[X_Digger]

8. Allow me to educate you..

Those 'clips' (sic) that were produced prior to September 13, 1994 were perfectly legal to buy, sell, and possess. Those created after that date were to be marked and sold as LEO only.

Manufacturers, in seeing the ban coming, ramped up production of magazines and firearms. Any that was made or imported before the date of enactment were perfectly legal. Hence the moniker 'pre-ban' and 'post-ban'. 'Pre-ban' referred to models made prior to the effective date with the 'evil features' (greater than 10 round capacity for magazines, pistol grips, collapsible stocks, etc for rifles). 'Post-ban' referred to magazines with a maximum of 10 rounds, or rifles without 'evil features'.

Because of the ramp up in production, there never was a shortage of 'pre-ban' magazines- merely an increase in price. Considering the fact that Loughner purchased a second handgun on Nov 30, there's no reason to assume that he couldn't have purchased a 'pre-ban' magazine from a retail outlet, had the ban still been in effect.

[HankyDubs]

11. allow me to condescend to you

"Manufacturers, in seeing the ban coming, ramped up production of magazines and firearms."

So gun manufacturers took deliberate steps to undermine the ban. Not surprising, we should take steps to prevent that. This is why the McCarthy bill included a measure to make the manufacture of the CLIPS (lol, just love to see you obsessives freak out about that) illegal as soon as the bill (in theory) is signed into law.

I'm actually not interested in suppositions, and I'm more interested now in where he actually purchased the CLIP.

CLIP CLIP CLIP. Hehe. Freak out.

[X_Digger]

12. They complied with the law. Not their fault it was so badly crafted.

But that's what you get when dumb shits don't actually take the time to learn about firearms before legislating them.

And I seem to recall someone.. oh yah, YOU, mentioning ex post facto.

Good luck with this stinker of a bill, it won't make it out of committee, just like the last five attempts.

[HankyDubs]

13. we both know why

the McCarthy bill won't pass, or even get voted on..even get hearings. The NRA-controlled republican party won't allow it.

I think it would be just super to get imput from gun owners and experts on how to improve the 1994 AWB so that it better targets the people and weapons that it was intended to target and leaves those weapons and people alone who aren't a significant danger to the rest of us.

But it's prefectly clear that this criticism of the law (pre-ban and post-ban CLIPS) is not a criticism designed to improve the law, it is only intended to attack the bill because...wait for it...it WASNT unconstitutional as written.

[X_Digger]

14. I will endorse a law that actually has a chance of doing more harm than good-

One that's:

a) constitutional - no 'takings' without compensation, no ex post facto, meets due process burdens
b) has a chance of affecting 'prohibited persons' instead of regular people
c) has a way to measure success and an automatic repeal if that criteria isn't met

The 'rifle' portion of the '94 AWB was a joke- not because it was badly written, but because it targeted weapons that were rarely used in crime to begin with (and still are, despite more people owning them now than during the "ban").

One thing I can get behind right now is states' compliance with entry into NICS. The money has been set aside, but not allocated to the states. It makes sure that those who have been disqualified get into the system.

[RSillsbee]

9. I won't freak out if you say "clip"

You've already made it abundantly clear that you have no clue as to what you're talking about anyway.

The claim wouldn't have been correct because it was quite legal to purchase NIB magazines holding greater than 10 rounds from a gun store during the (non)ban

[rl6214]

15. It dosen't matter when or where he purchased it

It matters when it was manufactured. That's what the previous (non)ban said.