US Senate Committee Approves AWB & Mag. Limits

B

BarryLee

New member
Ok, not really a big surprise the US Senate Judiciary Committee approved Sen. Feinstein’s assault weapons ban and magazine capacity limitation bill today along party lines 10-8. The Bill now progresses through the process and probably goes before the full Senate in April.

While I suspect the Bill will not pass in the present form I am concerned about any potential compromise they may come up with.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/14/senate-committee-ready-to-ok-assault-weapons-ban/
 
Even the compromise bill has very little chance of passing the House anyway. I'm not too worried at this point. I really believe that mag limits and another "AWB" probably won't pass. However, what I am worried about is a UBC law. That might be enough of a "compromise" even from republicans (especially blue state republicans) that it might pass both houses. Which is, of course, why its important to contact our senators and representatives.
 
I'm not too worried at this point. I really believe that mag limits and another "AWB" probably won't pass. However, what I am worried about is a UBC law.
Click to expand...

Yes, while the AWB concerns me it does have a difficult road, but I am a little more concerned about the magazine limitations. The thing is one could make the argument that magazine limits does not technically deprive anyone of a specific type of gun, but obviously makes them less useful. So, I am concerned that some more “compormise” oriented individuals might consider it an option. That way they can go to the folks back home and say they protected the Second Amendment while still “doing something” to reduce gun violence.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I suppose you are right. It's difficult to predict anything, of course, but I just don't see republicans in general (there's a few, I'm sure where this doesn't apply) and red state dems going with it. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) for example, I doubt very much that he would vote for any restriction on guns. It would guarantee he wouldn't be re-elected (guns are very important to Alaskans, regardless of party affiliation or social status).
 
I think it's DOA. The other thing to consider is history. If they are willing to give up 50 seats again then go for it. But again, it's not going to happen.

IMHO, there is no policital mandate, we just had an election and this wasn't the issue. These folks in congress understand that fact even if they will not say it outloud.
 
She has some support on the committee, Franken for example, that swallows the idea that a study of something 10 years old requesting more time to study the results that are yet to come "in a few years". But truth be told, I think they passed it out of com. just to shut her up. She gets her day on the floor, and won't attach it to everything under the sun.
 
I think it's DOA. The other thing to consider is history. If they are willing to give up 50 seats again then go for it. But again, it's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Don't count unhatched chickens.

IMHO, there is no policital mandate, we just had an election and this wasn't the issue. These folks in congress understand that fact even if they will not say it outloud.
Click to expand...

Look for the administration to offer House Republicans a deal trading "compromise" on spending and taxes for "compromise" on gun control. Many House Republicans were elected because of their positions on taxes and spending and with that mandate, they may be willing to deal if they can get what they want on those issues.
 
All the guys and gals that said this would never even get out of comity . You got any other bold predictions we should be taking to the bank ? :)
 
Last edited:
I think JRH6856 has a good point:
Look for the administration to offer House Republicans a deal trading "compromise" on spending and taxes for "compromise" on gun control.
Click to expand...

We've got to keep an eye out for this. All of the furor over the budget, deficit, etc., will give the administration some leverage to push for "compromise."
 
US Senate Committee

And when the House Republicans reject the "compromise" it will quite possibly then become another tool to use in the upcoming 2014 mid terms to vote in full House and Senate control by one political party. If you think your rights are being infringed upon now you haven't seen anything yet. "Remember the Maine", "Remember Pearl Harbor", perhaps "Remember in November" should be given equal status!
 
Passing the ban would do about the same as last time, seats will be lost. There is no mandate for gun control with this congress. If they forget that they need to look at how history plays out on this very issue.
 
S. 374, the so-called "background check" bill would criminalize all kinds of innocent actions that don't currently count as a transfer. In fact, as a gunowner, unless you never let any living soul touch your guns and kept it locked in a container only you had access to, it would be almost impossible not to become a felon under this law.

Leave your spouse with your pistol for more than 7 days while you are out of town? You're a felon.

Loan a rifle to your buddy while you are hunting on public land? You're a felon.

Drive over to your buddy's house to show him your latest gun shop treasure from the consignment rack? Felon.

There are so any problems with the law as written, you couldn't cover them all in a law review article. This is about way more than just "background checks." Difficult to believe that a Senator who has been writing anti-gun legislation for 20 years did all that accidentally.
 
I should say this...I watched some of the recording of the Judicial Committee's hearing on this particular bill, and Sen. Cruz's statements were brilliant. He made career politicians (namely Feinstein) answer questions about the Constitution. It's worth watching it, and especially seeing how little Feinstein knows about guns (she must know about new imploding bullets that I've never heard of). Just watch, you'll be proud of Sen. Cruz.
 
Just watch, you'll be proud of Sen. Cruz.
Click to expand...

While I know little about his positions on other issues he does seem to be a strong defender of the Second Amendment. I have seen him in several venues related to 2A debate and he does a very good job. He had a strong debate with the Baltimore Police Chief in an earlier hearing which I felt he won. Also, he had a great visual where he placed a pistol grip on a standard hunting rifle and demanded someone tell him why it was more dangerous – no one did.
 
He also apparently had a pretty big role in the Heller case. From Wikipedia:

In the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, Cruz assembled a coalition of thirty-one states in defense of the principle that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. Cruz also presented oral argument for the amici states in the companion case to Heller before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Click to expand...

It's very nice to know someone like him is on the Judiciary Committee. He made Feinstein look like a fool.

He asked if she would back a bill that specifically banned certain books, but allowed others that Congress deemed were acceptable. After some dodging, and after being pressed again, she said something like, "Well, of course I wouldnt." But then a bit later, she tried to use Child Pornography as an example of books that could be banned by congress. A pretty weak argument, if you ask me.

I don't know too much about Sen. Ted Cruz, but it appears he, and others like Rand Paul, are really starting to shake Congress up. It will be interesting to see what happens with them in the near future.
 
From SPEMack618:
Huffpo has the video of the exchange. Worth the three minutes.
__________________

Feinstein has "seen bullets that implode."

It makes me shake my head. *facepalm*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top