I have said time and time again I want people to have the ability to vote on assault weapons, mental health, safety in schools, federal trafficking, clips — everything. But I cannot do that until I get a bill on the floor. Right now her amendment, using the most optimistic numbers, has less than 40 votes. That’s not 60.Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid • Explaining why Senate Democrats are putting the kibosh on legislation to ban so-designated “assault weapons” — at least for now. Procedurally, this is a very old story — despite maintaining a 53-seat majority in the U.S. Senate, Democrats are unable to bring legislation to the floor without either passing a 60-vote threshold, removing the now nearly-automatic threat of Republican filibuster. Consequently, Reid’s plan is to remove the assault weapons ban from a larger gun control bill, and add it back in as an amendment after it actually reaches the floor — that is, if the support even exists at that time to pass it. If Reid’s math is correct, they’d still need another ten votes to secure a majority (assuming the obvious Joe Biden tiebreaker), ostensibly culled from fellow Democrats still dubious of such a ban. source
Barring an unexpected turn of legislative affairs, a ban on military-style semi-automatic assault weapons will not make it into law, top Hill aides and gun policy advocates say.
The ban will get a vote. But the purpose of that vote will be in part to facilitate its demise. The expectation is that there won’t be 60 members of the upper chamber to support the bill’s inclusion in the final legislative language.
The likelihood that an assault weapons ban ends up in the legislative scrapheap is hardly unexpected — the Wall Street Journal also reported on the issue on Monday morning. The ban is the most controversial of four major components of the gun control platform that the Obama administration introduced and that congressional Democrats have touted.
Long story short, Sen. Harry Reid is hoping that a Senate sub-committee strips out the assault weapons ban so that three more-popular gun control proposals might be passed by both chambers of Congress. Hit the jump for a detailed breakdown of the plan, and what it could mean for the gun control debate going forward.
There are things we can do short of legislation and short of gun laws that can reduce violence in our society.White House press secretary Jay Carney • Explaining that while President Obama supports a ban on the sale of assault weapons, he isn’t pushing for any new laws to be proposed on the matter. Gun control proponents had been momentarily cheered by a few remarks the President made to the National Urban League recently, saying “a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” a statement that while quite believable, runs up against rigid opposition from the NRA, one of Washington’s most intransigent lobbies. As Carney made clear, though, the President won’t be taking up this legislative fight — at least not in the near term. We’d venture a guess that Mike Bloomberg isn’t happy about this. source (via • follow)
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
