Skip to comments.Senator Reid Drops Schumer and Feinstein Gun Bills
Posted on 03/20/2013 3:53:26 PM PDT by robowombat
Senator Reid Drops Schumer and Feinstein Gun Bills Written by Bob Adelmann
In announcing on Monday afternoon that he was dropping Senator Dianne Feinsteins gun control bill from consideration by the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said, Right now her amendment using the most optimistic numbers has less than 40 votes. Thats not 60. I have to get something on the floor so we can have votes on that issue He added:
Im not going to try to put something on the floor that wont succeed. I want something that will succeed. I think the worst of all worlds would be to bring something to the floor and it dies there.
Reid also said he was dropping from consideration Senator Charles Schumers bill to expand background checks.
Feinstein noted her regrets, saying I tried my best. I tried to make the case for it obviously Im disappointed the enemies on this are very powerful.
Feinsteins bill would
ban the sale, transfer, manufacturing of importation of 150 specific firearms including semiautomatic rifles or pistols that can be used with a detachable or fixed ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and have specific military-style features, including pistol grips, grenade launchers or rocket launchers.
In introducing her bill in January, she continued to confuse the term military assault weapons with civilian semi-automatic weapons: The common thread in each of these [recent] shootings is the gunman used a semi-automatic assault weapon [with] large capacity ammunition magazines. Military assault weapons only have one purpose and in my opinion, its for the military.
Liberal lawyer Mark Kogan, writing at his blog policymic.com, said that Feinsteins introduction of a ban on these so-called assault weapons was dead on arrival in the Senate from the very beginning. In fact, he said, her bill has
given the GOP the opportunity to defend the 2nd Amendment. This will result in an Assault Weapons Ban that is dead on arrival in Congress the bill, as it stands, is an exemplary example of what political suicide looks like: In one sweeping stroke, Feinstein intends to [galvanize] the pro-gun lobby, alienate the majority of Americans who oppose re-instating a federal assault weapons ban, and run head long into a constitutional battle, all without the faintest hope of [the bills] passage.
Feinstein authored the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which was a subtitle for the Orwellian-named Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which, after 10 years, had neither reduced violent crime nor assisted in law enforcement. In fact, after that ban was sunset in 2004, two studies showed that the law had essentially no impact whatsoever in reducing crime. In introducing her newest bill in January, she ignored those studies entirely. Apparently neither history nor facts seem to matter to Feinstein.
The first study, published as "Firearms and Violence" in late 2004 by the National Research Council and the Committee on Law and Justice, noted that the 1994 law was based on the assumptions that such weapons were believed to be particularly dangerous because they facilitate the rapid firing of high numbers of shots. While assault weapons and large capacity magazines are used in only a modest fraction of gun crimes, the premise of the ban was that a decrease in their use may reduce gunshot victimization.
In simple terms, the ban, according to the authors of this study, was not meant to lower the incidence of gun crime, but to reduce the potential number of victims during shootings.
Nevertheless, the study couldnt find proof that the ban even did that:
A recent evaluation of the short-term effects of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes...
The potential impact of the law on gun violence was limited by the continuing availability of assault weapons through the bans grandfathering provision and the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban. [Emphasis added.]
The maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small.
Another study designed to measure the impact the 1994 law had on crime was prepared for the National Institute of Justice and the U.S. Department of Justice in June, 2004. The authors stated:
We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nations recent drop in gun violence.
The bans impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, perhaps too small for reliable measurement.
Nevertheless Feinstein continues her ill-advised and now-transparent attempt to remove all weapons from the hands of Americans under the guise of reducing crime. Michael Savage calls it a form of mental disorder. In his book, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, Savage explores hundreds of examples similar to Feinsteins, showing that extreme liberalism is a disease in which logic, history, or facts no longer inform behavior, but where behavior reflects conclusions based upon emotions and feelings.
Its just as well that Reid has removed Feinsteins bill from consideration. Voters in the state of California, who have elected and reelected Feinstein four times since 1992, desperately need to remove her from office as well. Besides, in June she will be 80. Its time to retire the tired Senator Feinstein.
A graduate of Cornell University and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American and blogs frequently at www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at email@example.com.
Okay, how readily available are full autos anyways, aren’t they pretty much black market, at least for the assault rifles. So if that’s true, then really an individual with a semiautomatic rifle can’t be that easily overpowering of a cop of DHS officer with full auto, much less possibly a machine gun.
Mass murderers don’t care about any of that — almost all of them take several guns to the killing site, enough to finish the job. Magazines? Phooey! Semi-automatics? Who needs ‘em!
Reid is not to be trusted.
Neither is Obama.
Read every bill, every line. I do not put it past the bastards to slip it in to some appropriations text.
Witness: medical device tax, 3.8% medicare tax on house sales, etc. in the “Affordable Death Care Act”.
“Apparently neither history nor facts seem to matter to Feinstein. “
Nor to any other liberal. Feelings and emotion rule their actions.
The headline is misleading. In Congress, to “drop” a bill means to introduce it—by dropping into the hopper.
Dems can never be trusted. My guess is that internal polling on this issue is awful for dems. They want to win the House and keep Senate control in 2014. If they win, they will ram gun contol through like they did Obamacare. Right now, they are backing off and waiting to see the pain that is caused by States that rammed gun control through.
Your RKBA rights are still in extreme danger. The mission for us is to keep pressure on the public to understand if the dems win in 2014, their right to own a gun will be gone days after.
A realistic assessment.
The left realizes that, as of now, they cannot win on the issue. Consequently, Harry Reid will take the heat from their moonbat constituency.
But, should they gain total control in 2014, the 2nd Amendment will become a dead letter overnight.
Now this is news to me.
Is there confirmation?
“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.”
(not much of a source but this is not exactly headline material for the mouthpiece media...)
How did full-autos get into this discussion? I don’t see anything about them in the article.
nra endorses harry reid site:freerepublic.comThanks robowombat.