Senate to introduce gun control bill without assault weapons ban

[Wehrwolfen]

Senate to introduce gun control bill without assault weapons ban



By Rick Moran
February 4, 2013



If a ban can't pass the Senate, it certainly won't pass in the House. Consider the assault weapons ban a dead issue, while the ammunition limit is alive and well.

Wall Street Journal:

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.

The bill would likely seek to limit the capacity of ammunition magazines; expand background checks to include sales at gun shows and other private transactions; and require better record keeping to keep guns out of the hands of those with mental illnesses. It would also try to curb gun sales in states with more relaxed gun laws to buyers in states with stricter laws.

But the strategy outline also reflects a growing sense within Democratic ranks that some of the president's most ambitious goals-particularly the call for new bans on certain types of military-style guns often described as assault weapons-may be unrealistic, the Reid aide said.

The goal is to get the bill to the Senate floor next month, at which point lawmakers could then seek to amend the legislation by adding a ban on certain semiautomatic weapons or other provisions, the aide said.

The details provide the first snapshot of how Senate Democrats plan to move forward on major gun legislation in coming weeks...​

Even a watered down ban that would include only a few weapons is not likely to pass.

[Excerpt]


Read more:
Blog: Senate to introduce gun control bill without assault weapons ban

 

[waltky]

Granny says dat means dem crazy people gonna be able to slip through the cracks an' buy assault rifles...

Budget cuts may weaken gun background checks, feds say
February 20, 2013 - Under the sequester, $60 million would be cut from the ATF

Looming across-the-board federal spending cuts threaten to weaken the national criminal background check system for gun purchases, federal officials warn, even as lawmakers work to draft compromise legislation to expand and improve the background check system. The FBI and the Justice Department warned that the cuts would be detrimental to the effort to curb gun violence and could put more Americans in danger in separate letters to Appropriations Chairwoman Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., this month. Under the cuts, the FBI would be forced to furlough or freeze the hiring of 2,285 employees, causing a loss of work that would be felt throughout the agency, Robert Mueller, director of the FBI, wrote.

"Critical civil services — including the timely completion of checks by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) of persons seeking to purchase firearms — would also be affected," Mueller wrote. Under law, background checks must be completed within three business days of the purchase of a firearm. These checks take seconds in most cases, but if they exceed the three-day limit, the gun can be sold without a "final NICS determination." "Delays in processing and adjudicating NICS requests increases the risk of firearms being transferred to a convicted felon or other prohibited person," Mueller wrote.

The letter noted that if more guns end up in the hands of those who should not legally have them as a result of these delays, it would increase the danger to the public and law enforcement "when the NICS workload is expanding."

Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in his letter to Mikulski that under the sequester, $60 million would be cut from the ATF, forcing the reduction of "criminal investigations, firearms and explosives industry inspections, firearms and explosives applications and permits processing, and firearms tracing." "These reductions make no sense considering our emphasis on fighting gun violence, and they would thwart the president's plan (and the nation's call) to protect our children and our communities from gun violence," he wrote.

MORE

See also:

Pink slips being printed as Congress vacations, defense industry likely to cut thousands of jobs
Monday, February 18, 2013 - Hundreds of Pentagon-related companies large and small are preparing to lay off thousands of employees as Congress takes a recess this week, so far unable to agree on how to undo automatic military spending cuts set to begin March 1.

BAE Systems Inc., a global giant that provides an array of goods and services for the military, estimates that it will have to lay off as many as 4,000 workers this year, including technicians who work on aircraft, ships and vehicles and who earn an average of $50,000 a year. Meanwhile, Ammcon Corp. of Portland, Ore., which makes pipe joints and flanges for aircraft carriers and submarines, says it will have to lay off about 25 percent of its 45 employees if the defense spending cuts begin March 1.

These and other defense contractors are bracing for automatic, across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration — which could lead to as many as 1.2 million lost jobs, according to an estimate by Stephen S. Fuller, director of the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University. Under sequestration, the Pentagon would be required to cut $46 billion from its budget by Sept. 30 and as much as $500 billion from its 10-year spending plan.

In addition, the continuing resolution that funds the Pentagon has held spending at 2012 levels and is due to expire March 27, when Congress must renew the resolution or approve a defense budget bill. “The cloud of uncertainty from sequestration already has had a profound impact on the way our industry is able to deploy its capital and invests in facilities, jobs and new product development,” said BAE spokesman Brian Roehrkasse.

Under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, most companies with more than 100 employees are required to give a minimum of 60 days’ advance notice of mass layoffs and plant closings. But smaller companies that are not required to give advance notice could be the ones most affected by sequestration. Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter told a congressional hearing last week that “60 to 70 cents of every dollar that we contract ends up in a subcontractor, and many of these are small businesses that don’t have the capital structure to be able to withstand blows.”

Read more: url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/18/congress-leaves-town-with-layoffs-in-its-wake/#ixzz2LUNjD3qm]Contractors and subcontractors[/url]

 

[TheOldSchool]

Senate to introduce gun control bill without assault weapons ban



By Rick Moran
February 4, 2013

Is he back?????????????

EDIT - OOPS I was thinking of Rick Moranis. Joke fail

Also I have no problem with more background checking but the magazine size thing is so arbitrary and stupid. What ass did someone pull that idea out of?

 

[Bigfoot]

They can't handle the load for NCIS checks now, the system is running at it's capacity. These guys are trying to sell a load of political garbage to keep the country off of the budget crisis.

 

[TheOldSchool]

They can't handle the load for NCIS checks now, the system is running at it's capacity. These guys are trying to sell a load of political garbage to keep the country off of the budget crisis.

Maybe. But I was in and out of the gun store in less than 15 minutes when I went to buy a shotgun. That seemed a little odd to me at the time and now. And that was just 3 or 4 months ago.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

They can't handle the load for NCIS checks now, the system is running at it's capacity. These guys are trying to sell a load of political garbage to keep the country off of the budget crisis.

Maybe. But I was in and out of the gun store in less than 15 minutes when I went to buy a shotgun. That seemed a little odd to me at the time and now. And that was just 3 or 4 months ago.

Buying a shotgun is easy. Good luck on magazines, handguns chambered in 9mm, .40, .45, .223, and ammo to go along with these handguns.

 

[Bigfoot]

They can't handle the load for NCIS checks now, the system is running at it's capacity. These guys are trying to sell a load of political garbage to keep the country off of the budget crisis.

Maybe. But I was in and out of the gun store in less than 15 minutes when I went to buy a shotgun. That seemed a little odd to me at the time and now. And that was just 3 or 4 months ago.

I spent four hours at the Sporting Goods store a week or two before Christmas waiting on my background check to clear. There were almost 20 of us waiting this long. We were told that if the State Cops called back with a question and we were not in the store to get on the phone that our paperwork was automatically cancelled. It was like that for several weeks and they are still out of ammo and this is almost a Home Depot sized store. I will also drag up a little more information for you other then my personal experience.

 

[Bigfoot]

On February 13, 2013, the NRA sent a letter to members of the U.S. Congress concerning the White House proposals to require background checks for all firearms purchases.

The letter lays out facts that every concerned citizen needs to know -- just the facts, no fluff, no hyperbole, just simple, straight forward facts.

To view a copy of the letter from the NRA-ILA’s Executive Director Chris Cox to the U.S. Congress regarding so-called “universal background checks”. (link below)

From the letter;

While the term “universal background checks” may sound reasonable on its face, the details of what such a system would entail reveal something quite different. A mandate for truly “universal” background checks would require every transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, or loan of a firearm between all private individuals to be pre-approved by the federal government. In other words, it would criminalize all private firearms transfers, even between family members or friends who have known each other all of their lives.

According to a January 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice, the effectiveness of “universal background checks” depends on requiring gun registration.[5] In other words, the only way that the government could fully enforce such a requirement would be to mandate the registration of all firearms in private possession – a requirement that has been prohibited by federal law since 1986.

The PDF of the full letter to congress. It's a good read.

http://cms.nraila.org/media/10900841/nra_letter_to_congress_2-13-13_backgroundchecks.pdf

 

[OriginalShroom]

I knew this would happen.

At first push for everything including the Kitchen sink, then at the last minute, pull the most egregious items and the rest will be presented as a "compromise". That way you can paint any opposiition as not willing to compromise on even the smallest issues.

 

[Bigfoot]

I expect that The House will kill the whole thing.

 

[martybegan]

I expect that The House will kill the whole thing.

I agree. they keep insisting that the magazine ban will somehow help things, when in most cases mass shooters are facing unarmed victims, and there is no difference between them using a 30 round mag, or two 15 round mags with 1 reload, or 3 10 round mags with 2 reloads.