The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
864 Posts
It is a tacit so the dems can get some control in instead of trying to push for everything up front they are gonna push for the more likely items like stronger background checks and things like that. Then once that is in play they will TRY to bring that in.

Or they be like this is law is better then that law and play their controls to the gun lovers as a less invasive law and try to get them to side with them before trying to push other laws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,171 Posts
It can still be added to an amendment on a separate bill, like a universal background check bill, that would work better for us because then neither would pass a vote.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,145 Posts
Read the whole article.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,739 Posts
Okay, they drop the ban on assault weapons, push for checks at shows and private sales but leave out registration and confiscation, and no checks to relatives. What would they do to counter act that. G2, I hope I'm not getting off topic, not my intention.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,902 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Adam said:
Read the whole article.
Yea, the article wasnt posted when I made this post, just the headline was showing on Fox News.

Here is the article:



The leader of the Democrat-controlled Senate on Tuesday dropped a proposed assault weapons ban from the chamber’s gun-control package – dealing a blow to supporters of the ban, though it could still come up for a vote.

The sponsor of the measure, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., revealed that Reid told her the proposed ban would not be in the initial package. Feinstein said she's "disappointed" with the decision, and is expected to nevertheless offer it as an amendment.

But the move by Reid to cut it from the main bill signals a lack of congressional support for a proposal that would not only revive, but strengthen, the decade-long ban that expired in 2004.

The proposed ban passed was passed last week by the Senate Judiciary Committee, along with three other measures. The others dealt with providing more school safety aid, expanding federal background checks on potential gun buyers and helping authorities prosecute illegal gun traffickers.

Feinstein has led the gun-control charge since President Obama called for federal legislation in the wake of the Newtown and other mass shootings.

The assault weapons ban was the most controversial of the major proposals to restrict guns that have been advanced by Obama and Senate Democrats. Because of that, it had been expected that the assault weapons measure would be left out of the initial package the Senate considers, with Democrats hoping the Senate could in turn amass the strongest possible vote for the overall legislation.

There are 53 Democrats in the Senate, plus two independents who usually vote with them.

Having a separate vote on assault weapons might free moderate Democratic senators facing re-election next year in Republican-leaning states to vote against the assault weapons measure, but then support the remaining overall package of gun curbs.

Gun control supporters consider a strong Senate vote important because the Republican-run House has shown little enthusiasm for most of Obama's proposals.

Feinstein said Reid told her there would be two additional votes. One would be on her assault weapons ban, which also includes a ban on ammunition magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. The second would just be on prohibiting the high-capacity magazine clips.

Many Democrats think the ban on large-capacity magazines has a better chance of getting 60 votes than the assault weapons ban.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/.../#ixzz2O17CDOyT
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
26,979 Posts
Don't get too comportable, these sleaze bags will do anything they can to attain their goal of disarming the public.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
There are four bills in the senate coming out of committee. The AWB is but one. The question was if Reid would combine all the bills as one package and try to pass them - or run the three bills minus the AWB as it is the most controversial.

Evidently, they are going to run the three bills as a package and the AWB as a separate bill. The other three now combined bills with a better chance of passage in the senate.

Any bills passed will then go to the house. There they will die.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,390 Posts
Any bill will require 60 votes to get it on the floor. Any bill with an AWB will not get 60 votes. Some lame bill will get enough lame senator's votes to get it to the floor. Then the AWB can be added as an amendment without requiring 60 votes.

Regardless, no compromise, not one lousy millimeter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,863 Posts
lots of criminals just steal guns, some buy them from the ads in the paper.

let me play devils advocate here and ask: why not have background check for any gun purchase,, no record keeping, no list of gun owners.

don't slam me personally, just asking what would be wrong with that to prevent a crook or former felon from buying a gun that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,984 Posts
bohunr said:
lots of criminals just steal guns, some buy them from the ads in the paper.

let me play devils advocate here and ask: why not have background check for any gun purchase,, no record keeping, no list of gun owners.

don't slam me personally, just asking what would be wrong with that to prevent a crook or former felon from buying a gun that way.
The only thing wrong with it is that the criminals are exempt. Luckily the majority of jails and prisons are filled with nit-wits but any smart criminal would not use that system to obtain a gun anyway. And in reality the Courts decided it is legal for felons to lie about guns because they would violate the 5th amendment and Incriminate themselves. So the criminals won't do a background check and check "Yes I cannot own a gun because I am a felon" and they won't register a gun if they already have one. Only the Law Abiding, who are not the problem, suffer.
http://www.huntingpa.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2991726#Post2991726
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
26,979 Posts
You don't really think criminals are stupid enough to try to buy a gun through a legal source do you? There is already a court precident that says a criminal doesn;t have to disclose they ae a criminal on the background check form because of their right not to self incriminate. Perhaps you are willing to give in to the nonsense that doesn't do anything to prevent criminals from getting guns, I am not. The only way to prevent criminals from getting guns is to lock them up or give them the chop. I favor the later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,354 Posts
the criminal will not subject themselves to a background check, right?
so say I want to sale a firearm in a private sale say a news paper ad. the person who wants to buy it must go through a background check. so it would keep criminals from answering ads and buying firearms from private parties. now the criminal has one less way to obtain a firearm. so in turn criminals must resort to other criminals. then now law enforcement can concentrate on actual criminals. they can lie on the form or not makes no difference if the name is in the system they can not obtain the firearm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,288 Posts
They'll just use "straw buyers" who don't have criminal records to buy the gun for them like many already do.
Only law abiding citizens will be affected by more gun laws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,863 Posts
not saying that criminals would go thru a background check, I know they wont. a background check would prevent them from buying a gun thru a private sale, right?

also not in favor of a registration. I am in favor of charging them under federal law, simply being in possession of a stolen firearm is a federal felony up to 10 years in jail.

just thinking that mandatory background checks for purchases thru private sources would eliminate one avenue for them getting a gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,528 Posts
bohunr said:
.....,, no record keeping, no list of gun owners.

don't slam me personally, just asking what would be wrong with that to prevent a crook or former felon from buying a gun that way.
Not personal to you but anyone thinking that a required background check would not lead to tracking the guns you buy would be mistaken.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday he will not include a renewal of the federal <span style="font-weight: bold">assault weapons ban in a Senate gun control bill because it could not win even 40 votes on the Senate floor. </span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">“Right now her amendment using the most optimistic numbers has less than 40 votes," Reid told reporters on Tuesday. "That’s not 60.</span> I have to get something on the floor so we can have votes on that issue and the other issues we talked about."

<span style="font-weight: bold">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. </span>


“There are a couple different background check proposals floating around,” Reid said. “All these issues are important and I’m going to do what I can to make sure we have a fair, sound debate on this but we can’t have it unless I have something that I can put on the floor to proceed to it.

“I’m not going to try to put something on the floor that won’t succeed. I want something that will succeed,” he added.

Reid said he needs at least five Republican votes to begin a floor debate on gun-violence legislation. He hopes to bring the gun control bill to the Senate floor after the Easter recess.

Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Chuck Grassley (Iowa), the ranking Republican on Judiciary, have endorsed the gun trafficking legislation. It will likely serve as the foundation of gun-violence legislation

Feinstein's bill would impose a ban on the sale and manufacture of more than 150 types of semi-automatic weapons with military-style features. Her measure was one of four bills approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee over the last two weeks.

The three other gun control bills approved by Judiciary are: a measure requiring universal background checks, a measure aimed at increasing security at schools, and a bill cracking down on the illegal trafficking and straw purchasing of firearms.





http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...ult-weapons-ban
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Reid has, up to now, a A+ NRA rating. It is said, that Reid was pushed over the top in his last re-election bib (primary) by the NRA.

Pushing this bill will hurt his rating, and very likely make the next election cycle very difficult for him. His district is full of NRA supporters. If the NRA could push the numbers his way last time, they surely can sway the numbers away form him next time...... about a year to late in my book, but the NRA is a single issue organization.

Sad, but our NRA membership money supported this guy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) shot back late Tuesday at the notion her federal assault weapons ban bill was doomed after Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) decided against including it in a base bill of gun control measures.

“This is very important to me and I’m not gong to lay down and play dead,” she said on CNN. “I think the American people have said in every single public poll that they support this kind of legislation.”


Reid earlier Tuesday said the Senate would vote on Feinstein’s bill as an amendment to the broader gun-reform package, but that it would not be packaged with some of the less-controversial measures that deal with increasing school safety, and cracking down on straw purchasers.

Reid defended the decision to reporters, predicting Feinstein’s legislation wouldn’t pull a majority even in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

“Right now, her amendment, using the most optimistic numbers, has less than 40 votes," he said. "That’s not 60. I have to get something on the floor so we can have votes on that issue and the other issues we talked about."

Still, Feinstein said Reid assured her the bill would be put up for a vote.

“What Sen. Reid told me was that I would have the opportunity for a vote. I take him at his word,” she said.

“It came out on a 10 to eight vote in the Judiciary Committee, and not to give me a vote on this would be a major betrayal of trust,” she added.

Feinstein argued that her assault weapons ban legislation that expired in 2004 took the same path as her current legislation.

“If it’s an amendment, it’s not a symbolic vote,” she said. “I did the bill in 1994 on the floor as an amendment. It was enacted there, it went on the House, and it was enacted there.”



Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...d#ixzz2O2FpHXTK
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top