WSJ: AWB DOA. Kinda.

 

As the meat of various civilian disarmament proposals passes through the legislative sausage making mash-up, all eyes are on the Senate Judiciary Committee to see what emerges. As Sam Stein laid out in yesterday’s HuffPo, the assault weapons ban may have to die so that other gun control measures might live to receive a Presidential signature. The big question is how the Judiciary work product is ultimately crafted. From wsj.com: “Senate Democratic leaders expect a gun bill to move to the Senate floor that includes most of the proposals backed by President Barack Obama, with the notable exception of a ban on military-style, semiautomatic weapons, a top aide to Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said.” But while that would seem to be a good thing, just because the Judiciary kielbasa doesn’t include an AWB in the mix doesn’t necessarily mean it’s dead . . .

Back to HuffPo:

If the bill emerges from the Judiciary Committee without an assault weapons ban in it, then Reid will allow for the ban to be introduced as an amendment on the Senate floor. If the bill emerges from the Judiciary Committee with an assault weapons ban in it, the expectation is that Reid will allow for a vote to strip it out. Leadership prefers the former, as it would give more conservative Democrats the chance to publicly say they beat back the ban. If the latter were to take place, it would put Reid in an uncomfortable position of allowing for the procedural axing of a measure that remains popular in the party.

And we sure wouldn’t want Harry to be uncomfortable. Did you catch that, though? If the bill comes out of Judiciary sans AWB, moderate Dems and those in swing states will (after breathing a HUGE sigh of relief) be able to throw their hands up and say, “Gee, I tried to ban those scary weapons of war to keep them off of our streets, but he NRA is just too powerful!”

As for the GOP . . .

A senior aide to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Republican support would depend on what the bill says. Mr. McConnell has said he would closely watch what happens in the Judiciary Committee.

I know I feel better. You?

37 Responses to WSJ: AWB DOA. Kinda.

  1. avatarTeutonicTenifer says:

    I’m indifferent, since I’m already subject to an AWB and magazine capacity limit.

    Along with no CCW, no handguns for <21, firearm licensing, and restricted ammo sales.

    I hate my state.

    • avatarRoll says:

      Try to move to a free part of the country? Like Texas or Arizona

      • avatarjkp says:

        Arizona, yes.

        Texas gun laws: all hat, no cattle.

        • avatarC. Walther says:

          ^ This.

          Don’t get me wrong, having “he needed killin’ ” as an acceptable legal defense is nice, but as far as our actual laws…I hate to quote the Brady Bunch, but we can do better.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          And that C. is why I won’t move to Texas. I like our gun laws here in Ohio, though there are a couple of small improvements that can be (and probably will be) made.

    • avatarMissouri Gun Owner says:

      You should form a opionon because even though it doesn’t effect you it affects your gun buying brothers across the country.

    • avatartheaton says:

      So because you choose to live under further Tyranny, your indifferent to the rights of others. Why is this mentality so pervasive among gun owners? We should be concerned about the infringement of the rights of all.

      • avatarPhydeaux says:

        +1

      • avataranonymous says:

        > Why is this mentality so pervasive among gun owners?
        > We should be concerned about the infringement of
        > the rights of all.

        We should also be concerned about the infringement of all rights.

        Give me a call when gun owners are as outraged as the Republicans’ war on the 7th Amendment as the Democrats’ war on the 2nd Amendment.

        • avatartheaton says:

          “We should also be concerned about the infringement of all rights.”

          I said that.

          Amendment VII

          In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

          Which part of this are the Republicans at war with? Personally, I’m outraged at the infringement of anyones rights.

      • avatarRalph says:

        tehaton, we’re not indifferent to the rights of people who live in slave states. It’s just that we think they ought to clean up their own house.

      • avatarTeutonicTenifer says:

        I don’t exactly choose to live here, I’m here for school.

        And I do care about my fellow gun owners, but there’s not exactly much I can do since my Senator is probably the second most anti-gun in the Senate.

    • avatarstormchaser says:

      I feel for you, bro.

      However you could help everyone out and write to the members of the committee.

      I appreciate it.

    • avatarJWhite says:

      You and I must list in the same state… California?

    • avatarEvan says:

      Same and more here.

  2. avatarSammy says:

    Not with the bunch of snakes we put in the Senate. But, I’ll defer to Dan’s judgement and relax……..a little.

  3. avatarMichael B. says:

    I see the trends and how things are going on all fronts in America and I can’t help but be reminded, however cliche, of that bit from 1984.

    “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever. We control life, Winston, at all its levels.”

    Just add in “It’s for the common good.” at the end and it’d be perfect.

  4. avatarDrVino says:

    I’m not worried.
    I own personal defense weapons.

  5. avatarBrian S says:

    I’ll relax when there’s as much push to repeal the legislation that’s creating the problems in the first place, not to mention bankrupting us

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      Repeal? Are you some caveman? Progress means moving forward and we’re never wrong so there’s no need to look back, regressive. [/sarc]

    • avatarMatt says:

      I’m not worried about a ban on so called military style ‘assault weapon’ ban. I’m far more worried about a magazine capacity limit and ‘universal’ background checks.

      • avatarMatt in Texas says:

        If magazine capacity ban lives this is not a good thing. I don’t want to be paying hundreds of dollars for standard capacity mags a year from now.

        Every single police force in the country finds standard capacity mags necessary for “defending” the public… based on that alone, a politician shouldn’t be able to justify lessening my ability to defend myself.

  6. avatarWilliam says:

    They look like they’re discussing whose blood to drink for dinner.

    If I were any of you, I’d be worried PLENTY. They’re just getting started, these zombies.

  7. avatartama paine says:

    Well, total fascist disarmament memes were floated in the same spirit that Main Street Terrorists Lurking Under Your Bed were in 2001: to facilitate the passage of laws that under less hysterical and reactive conditions would not be tolerated. Thus we got the PATRIOT Act (crime against the Fourth Amendment).

    A lot can be explained about how antis think by looking at this video about how the brain works. Gun grabbing propaganda relies mostly on Fast Brain activity; protection of RKBA/2a on Slow Brain.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiTz2i4VHFw

  8. avatarRives says:

    HAHA No this does not make me feel better because the bill would still contain the one part that effects all guns not just “AW’s” Magazine capacity limits. which Harry Reid said he “wants to take a look at.” We need to make our voices heard on this magazine limit because it’s a back door way at banning 100′s of different firearms. People in NV, Ark, NC, LA, MT and FL better scream bloody murder and this whole magazine capacity loses steam in the Senate, at that point the magazine provision will get broken out into a separate amendment much like the AWB and both can be voted down and die on DiFi desk.

  9. avatarSD3 says:

    “AWB DOA.”?

    Don’t. You. Believe. It.

    Douchebag RHINOs are just *looking* for an excuse to vote in favor of some new gun legislation. We already know who the progressives are. Don’t trust lying-liar, “fold-like-a-lawn-chair” establishment republicans, either.

    They’d sell your children for a nickle, 1st chance they get.

    • avatarRalph says:

      They’d sell your children for a nickle, 1st chance they get.

      Unlike the Dems, who would sell our children for a nickel and then tax us a dollar.

  10. avatarIn Memphis says:

    I will not relax yet. No offense to people in AWB states but I am reassured that thoes acting at a state level is a show of no confidence on a federal level. But I am not ready to call this DOA just yet, even since childhood getting my hopes up almost always leads to dissapointment.

    In other news I found 3 Gen II Maglevel Pmags for $19 each, brand new in the package.

  11. avatarMark says:

    How about some compromise? We know what they want. We want all firearms laws since 1791 repealed. So we compromise and only repeal laws passed in the twentieth century and later.

  12. avatarLance says:

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell already said he will oppose a AWB also the Democrat from Arkansas said a outright no to Dofi’s (Hags) AWB. So some good news for today. Remember keep the calls and pressure UP!!!!

  13. avatarTRUTHY says:

    The handwriting on the wall is there that it’s dead. I just hope the mag cap dies, too.

  14. avataranonymous says:

    Washington D.C. Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan recently went on the record as stating that prosecuting an individual for possessing a 30-round AR-15 magazine

    would not promote public safety…nor serve the best interests of the people.

    even though the culprit boradcast his crime on national television.

    Our congress-critters need to constantly be reminded of that.

    No magazine ban should be allowed to pass as long as David Gregory remains a free man.

  15. avatarJoke & Dagger says:

    We are still in the top of the first inning.

    Just wait till the next massacre happens. The way the press and the politicians are immortalizing the previous madmen, the next ones have to be salivating at their impending notoriety.

  16. The enemies of freedom take the long-term view. Sure an AWB is on their wish list, but what they really want, and what they are going to push hard for is a California style ban on private sales.

    Banning private sales (i.e. universal background checks) is the key to universal registration. Registration is the key to confiscation.

  17. avatarandarm16 says:

    I don’t know. I wouldn’t write any legislation off as dead till it’s completely dead. I’m a history major, and I’m writing my senior thesis on the NFA. This time around, it feels too much like ’34 for me to be completely comfortable. You have politicians reassuring everyone that legitimate sporting guns won’t be affected, high level government reports stating that these types of weapons have no place on the street, and politicians pontificating that something must be done. Most importantly, you have an overly broad bill, that was widely opposed. Then, those pushing for the ban compromised, and it passed with no resistance. (NFA required registration of all concealable firearms, but by removing “sporting” pistols and revolvers, it became just about Machine Guns, SBR and SBS)

    Today’s commonsense compromise could easily with changes in demographics and firearms preferences become tomorrow’s albatross. We need a firm line. Otherwise, we are going to be left telling incredulous grand kids about how you could at one time walk into a gun store and buy a semi automatic rifle.

  18. [Leadership prefers the former, as it would give more conservative Democrats the chance to publicly say they beat back the ban.]

    This is the part that really ticks me off. “Leadership” keeps telling us they have “polls” proving that a huge majority, including a huge majority of NRA members, want an AWB. Yet they’re concerned about providing cover for members of their own party who will be voted out of office by gun-rights voters if it passes.

    Total cognitive disconnect.

Leave a Reply

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