Harry Reid, Anti-Gun Cadre Introduce “A Bill to Reduce Violence and Protect the Citizens of the United States”

OK, there’s not much we know about this bill right now. It’s sitting in the Senate Judiciary Committee and it’s so new that the usual suspects don’t have the full text available yet. But there are already signs that this thing might just be a publicity stunt that will die a death by a thousand cuts as Republicans attach amendment after amendment until it’s too dirty for anyone to vote for . . .

From The Hill:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday pledged to hold an open amendment vote on a major gun reform bill — a move that could trim the scope of the expansive measures being sought by liberal Democrats and gun-control groups.

The decision could significantly increase a bill’s chances of passage, granting centrist senators on both sides of the aisle more leeway to vote safely on specific aspects of gun control that could otherwise haunt them at the polls in 2014.

This is the same thing that happened to the national reciprocity bill, where the amendments simply made it impossible to vote for by anyone. 

If I’m reading the tea leaves correctly, the Democrats are seeing the writing on the wall. With multiple states (now including Georgia, Texas and Montana) introducing legislation that would nullify Federal firearms laws within their states, they see a possible showdown between the Federal and state governments that has been brewing since the Articles of Confederation were signed and they want to avoid it.

So instead, they’re offering a sacrificial cow — legislation that will let them appeal to their pro gun control base to be “doing something” while giving Republicans the win they need to prove that they are fighting for the Second Amendment. A gigantic legislative circle jerk.

And you know what? I’m okay with that. Because it means we’re winning. Even with the strongest possible emotional argument on their side, they can’t pass anything on the Federal level restricting gun rights. So they’re giving up, going for a symbolic gesture rather than anything substantial.

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

60 Responses to Harry Reid, Anti-Gun Cadre Introduce “A Bill to Reduce Violence and Protect the Citizens of the United States”

  1. avatarOkieRim says:

    I guess, but nothing will ever be the same, at least until 2018-2020….pray that the GOP and right can hold off the grabbers for that long.

    • avatarWA_2A says:

      Yes, the GOP can hold off grabbers…but then what?

      Look at Mitt Romney. He signed the ’94 AWB and supported the Brady Bill. He claimed he would not “chip away” at MA’s tough gun laws. In the “Meet the Candidates” series in 2007, he said “We should…keep weapons of unusual lethality off the streets.” (Like rifles with the shoulder thing that goes up?) In the 2007 Republican debate, he said “There’s no question I support 2nd amendment rights, but I also support an assault rifle ban.”

      “I support 2nd amendment, but…”

      No. No more ifs, ands, or buts. No more infringements.

      • avatarRalph says:

        Look at Mitt Romney. He signed the ’94 AWB

        What the hell are you talking about? Romney was governor from 2003-2007. He never served in the House or Senate so how did he sign the ’94 AWB?

        There’s more manure floating around the Internet than there is on a cattle drive.

        • avatarWA_2A says:

          Sorry, big mistake: He didn’t sign the ’94 AWB. He signed the Massachusetts AWB. My bad.

          He did RUN for senate in ’94, however, and express his support for the AWB and the Brady Bill.

          Although my source (http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm) was not inaccurate I misread it. Good catch.

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          Yeah Ralph, and you keep spreading it. He did indeed make the 1994 Federal Ban permanent in Mass in 2004. This is usually where you spout off Mittens’ party line about how he was doing more good than harm, but that’s been debunked by multiple posters in multiple threads before this one.

        • avatarDamDoc says:

          I sure would have rather had mitt, with paul ryan leading any gun discussions than B Hussain and his henchman joltin joe cozying up with the grabbers.. but go ahead, try to make yourself feel better on your election decision to stay home, vote for a sure loser or vote for zero…. that got bho elected… talk about cutting noses to spite faces. You mitt haters are why we have a bho now, “who will never try to take our guns”… you bought it, unfortunately now we all have to sit in your cesspool.

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          So did God decree the law to be permanent? Hitler claimed they would have the 1,000 year Reich, didnt happen.

          Nothing is permanent except death and taxes!

  2. avatarJP in Tennessee says:

    I hope you’re right, Leghorn.

  3. avatarj says:

    Anything is better than nothing. As of right now, we don’t stand a prayer in 2016 either.

  4. avatarokierim says:

    and, I’m sick of reid, he and is cousin Nancy need to go…

  5. avatarChris says:

    I need to call Tim Scott to add repealing the NFA and GCA as an amendment

    • avatarmountocean says:

      Yeah, what good is a circle jerk if we can’t get some gratification.

    • avatarTeutonicTenifer says:

      I remember hearing some rumbles that the NRA might take on the NFA and Hughes Amendment.

      The day the NRA pushes for NFA reform is the day I become a member. That would be a magnificent step in the right direction.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        If a CA bluest-of-blue county resident like me can set aside my differences and support the NRA right now, when it’s needed most, what’s your excuse?

        I have my issues with the NRA (see my many comments regarding Wayne LaPierre) but the battle is joined and they’re the big dog. The concept “if they do X I will join” expired the week after Newtown.

        • avatarJMS says:

          Going after NFA reform would be huge. Get the anti-gun types tied up trying to prevent that stuff. Put them on the defensive for once. Those anti-gun types just love looking up to Europe for an example, so use Europe as an example for suppressor use.

          BTW — support the NRA. It’s MORE than worth the $35 / year. And American Rifleman is a good magazine that’s worth that annual price alone.

          BUT — if you really want to help the NRA prevent anti-gun legislation, you need to support the NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action). Your NRA membership dues do not go to that. If you want to help pro-2A candidates get into office and anti-2A reps out, you need to support the NRA-PVF (Political Victory Fund). Your NRA membership dues do not go to that.

          Yeah… Federal laws against mixing $$$ for these things. Get your membership first, but donating to the other causes DOES help maintain your ability to keep and bear arms. Whether you like how the NRA gets its message across or not, they are the reason you still have any guns in your safe to begin with, and that’s worth $35 / yr.

    • avatarWA_2A says:

      Controversial idea..what if we revoke the necessity for CCW permits?

      Think about it. The only people they regulate/control are law-abiding owners. No criminal or potential criminal is gonna submit his fingerprints to the FBI or go through such a process. Nothing stops him from shoving a Glock down his waistband, walking out into the public, and committing murder. He’s not going to worry about getting a permit. Did any of the spree killers obey “Gun Free Zones”?

      That being said, we have to fight just to preserve what we have…there’s no way the antis will let us have any more rights. Because, you know, that would be too fair.

  6. avatarCasey T says:

    Yeah, this isn’t over until there is a supreme court decision that says it’s over and that means some bad laws got passed in the first place. Unless we ensure that the majority of Americans are gun owners, this will always be a fight.

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      We can only hope no one in SCOTUS dies or steps down before Obama is out.

      • avatarj says:

        I am hoping as well but think it is a long shot. I think the likelihood of a retirement or a …retirement is more likely than not.

        • avatarTex74 says:

          The problem is that SCOTUS already addressed this more than once and clarified what the 2A means. But it hasn’t stopped the lib governments to continue to infringe upon it. This will probably never go away and will be a constant battle every year.

      • avatarpat says:

        And lets not forget the NEXT nasty shooting that will give the libtards fresh blood to wave in front of the complicit media, who, in turn, will do the same in front of the sheeple.

  7. avatarDBeans says:

    Please be right

  8. avatarNazgul says:

    The Nazgul is not happy that individual rights can be jeopardized in any way, shape, or form through collective political bargaining.

  9. avatarTim says:

    From your lips Leghorn!

  10. Ya, but symbolic gestures brought us the 1994 awb.
    I could live without the senators playing soggy biscuit.

    • avatarpat says:

      They cant even come close to that monstrosity…….yet. The political landscape is far more favorable to the pro gun side than it was in 94′. Another tragedy that they can exploit is really the only thing that can do real damage.

    • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

      Steve in MA,
      I’m with you on this. To symbolically show their willingness to compromise our rights, the republicans should propose counter legislation for nationwide constitutional carry for all law abiding citizens (and non-resident aliens or whatever the proper term is).

      As I’ve said before, “I’m willing to compromise on how to get to the right answer, I’m not willing to compromise on what is right.”

      • avatarj says:

        Steve; “feeling your pain” in Massachusetts. I was a long time resident there (between deployments and assignments) until we moved to Maine. Of course the politics here is only marginally better than there. And I agree; “compromising” to get to what is right, is fine but also convoluted. But if it works and distracts them while they plot, so-be-it!

  11. avatarBelarius says:

    The type of shenanigans the administration is up to will permanently damage the Republic. Thoughts cannot be unthought. If you’ve already had that conversation in your head and decided you aren’t going to comply, and that one day, if Congress acts, you and millions of your fellow citizens will wake up criminals, then it won’t really matter if they don’t succeed this time. My attitude has been permanently altered by the actions they have already taken.

    The federal government really does have limited power to enforce what it is passing. They showed us the way by setting up sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants.

    • avatarpat says:

      This is why they seek the semiauto rifle/magazine interface. Hell, they want body armour illegal. I wonder why? I think we know the answer, dont we. Rendering the 2nd A toothless removes the active tool that would defend the other rights.

  12. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    George Carlin had a symbolic gesture too, one that goes well with reid & the dems agenda, Randy

  13. avatarWyndage says:

    I believe the scenario Nick describes is the one Reid prefers. He has said and done nothing to indicate his stance on gun control has changed. While the dislike for Reid is understandable, comparing him to Nancy Pelosi is unfair. She was telling the truth when she said the House never pushed for gun control under her speakership because it wouldn’t get by Reid in the Senate.

    Keep the pressure on your legislators and this, too, shall pass. At the Federal level, anyway.

  14. avatarAnmut says:

    They’re going to back door some sort of gun control – and background checks for everyone would be just the way to do it.

    Have you written your tax-payer suckling waste of air politician yet today?

  15. avatarAccur81 says:

    I’m one part optimistic, and only 10 parts suspicious. We have a POTUS and VPOTUS who will enthusiastically march victims to the stage as props. NY legislature has passed the most idiotic gun control measure ever (well, in the US). Gun owners are being marginalized, while gun control advocates are being called heroes. International Idiots Inc (otherwise known as the UN) will gladly saddle the US with an Arms trade treaty. Clinton et all and POTUS can’t wait to be part of such an “international effort.” Standard capacity magazines are “inherently evil.”

    The 2A and lawful gun owners could really use some positive press, and still need the best efforts of true patriots.

  16. avatarborekfk says:

    Here’s an amendment to the bill to ensure it’s demise. Since the 2nd Amendment was to provide a well regulated militia to provide defense of one’s home against foreign invaders, militia were expected to keep military weapons. Now one of the key pieces of anti-gun arguments is that you shouldn’t have military style weapons because you do not have military training. However if one cannot have military style weapons, then one cannot defend one’s home against foreign invaders, and thus cannot join a militia, for which the amendment was written. I therefore propose that we give everyone military training via conscription to all eligible males and females, since females are going to be allowed into combat soon. 2 years for the Army and Marine Corps, 3 years for the Navy, Coast Guard and Air Force. With this military training via conscription, then they’ll be expertly qualified to handle military style weapons, and defend one’s home from foreign invaders in a local militia.

    I’m sure if they attach something like this to that bill, it’ll die a quick and painless death.

    • avatarChris says:

      Don’t even need to go that far. I am 35. I am in the unorganized militia. And I am not well regulated. The government needs to send me my M4 and 10,000 rounds of ammo.

      • avatarLeo338 says:

        While Obama and his minions want to disarm civilians why don’t we say we joined the Muslim Brotherhood? If Obama thinks we are from there then not only will he not ban weapons, he will give us real military weapons including tanks and fighter jets! At least that’s what he is doing for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. I believe we are giving them 16 fighter jets and I don’t know how many tanks. Apparently the last time they invaded our embassies they didn’t do enough damage so we need to give them better military weapons.

      • avatarborekfk says:

        Well what my amendment was doing was taking one of the big arguments that the antis like to spout and use it against them. Since no one would vote for conscription these days and exepct to come out with their political careers intact.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        If you can shoot straight and follow orders, you’re well regulated.

        Hat tip to Dyspeptic Gunsmith for introducing me to the proper meaning of “well regulated”.

    • avatarRobert M says:

      Well they could at least allow anyone who has had military training should be able to buy what is an NFA gun. That would kill the bill wouldn’t it.

      Thanks
      Robert

  17. avatarMike S says:

    It’s very clear that they truly expected the other side to blink- and no one did. Just the opposite. Instead they have States essentially daring them to come take guns.
    Now they just have to run the clock until the antis see something shiny and they’ll be off to scream about something else, and this bill can die the lonely death in a recycling bin it deserves.

  18. avatarRalph says:

    The bill has 15 co-sponsors, including Lautenberg, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin and the rest of that gang of sc^mbags. If it’s a gun bill — which we don’t know — then Reid has f^cked us totally.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Disagree. Reid is a crafty bastard and knows damn well that opening such a bill for amendments, with the pro-2A house waiting to kill anything that makes it to them, is like throwing a kitten into an alligator pit.

      That said, I’m deeply suspicious of something passing with no AWB 2.0, since the states have that covered, but including a 10-round mag cap limit.

      • avatarrosignol says:

        Concur on Reid being crafty- he’s certainly sharp enough to strangle this thing without leaving any fingerprints on it.

        How many of those 15 co-sponsors are from states that aren’t deep blue?

  19. avatarAPBTFan says:

    I don’t need or want the government to protect me from anything within our borders. I and my armed neighbors can fend for ourselves.

  20. avatarSilver says:

    “A bill to reduce freedom and protect the corrupt government from the subjects.”

    Fixed it for ya.

  21. avatarSilent says:

    Check out Letters to the editor: Declaration to defy the NY Safe Act of 2013 on ammoland.com

  22. avatarSwarf says:

    I… I never thought I would want to see a circle jerk.

    Yet here we are.

  23. avatarchloe fish says:

    If you think Adam`s story is impossible,, last week my aunt’s step son basically made the small fortune of $7111 workin a fifteen hour week in their apartment and there roomate’s mother`s neighbour has been doing this for nine months and easily made more than $7111 part-time On there laptop. use the instructions at this site, Great70doTcom

  24. avatarWilliam says:

    I don’t know about you guys, but I’m completely confident the bill will rid the US of violence!!!

  25. avatarNDS says:

    Add Missouri to the list of states attempting to ban Federal civilian disarmament law. HB170 was introduced by reps Paul Curtman and Dave Hinson about a week ago, and is similar in language to the Texas bill.

  26. avatardan says:

    Freedom and Liberties death by a thousands cuts (bills) is not giving up…They have NEVER given up, just keep coming back with more and more Unconstitutional bills…I think we as a nation need to put this to a vote…and not in the ballot box..where ,all have seen how that ends…we are at the end of the line…they will never stop trying to disarm this country and most gun owners NOW will never obey or comply…words are cheap..actions will determine the life of this Republic……

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.