NRA says Congress will not pass assault weapons ban
WASHINGTON (AP) - The powerful gun lobby is gauging enough support in Congress to block a law that would ban assault weapons, despite promises from the White House and senior lawmakers to make such a measure a reality.
Senators plan to introduce a bill that would ban assault weapons and limit the size of ammunition magazines, like the one used in the December shooting massacre that killed 27 people, most of them children, in Newtown, Conn. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California has promised to push for a renewal of expired legislation.
The National Rifle Association has so far prevented passage of another assault weapons ban like the one that expired in 2004. But some lawmakers say the Newtown tragedy has transformed the country, and Americans are ready for stricter gun laws. President Barack Obama has made gun control a top priority. And on Tuesday Vice President Joe Biden is expected to give Obama a comprehensive package of recommendations for curbing gun violence.
Still, the NRA has faith that Congress would prevent a new weapons ban.
"When a president takes all the power of his office, if he's willing to expend political capital, you don't want to make predictions. You don't want to bet your house on the outcome. But I would say that the likelihood is that they are not going to be able to get an assault weapons ban through this Congress," NRA president David Keene told CNN's "State of the Union."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., responded with a flat out "no" when asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" whether Congress would pass a ban on assault weapons.
Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a lifelong member of the NRA has said everything should be on the table to prevent another tragedy like Newtown. But he assured gun owners he would fight for gun rights at the same time. "I would tell all of my friends in NRA, I will work extremely hard and I will guarantee you there will not be an encroachment on your Second Amendment rights," Manchin said on ABC's "This Week."
The NRA's deep pockets help bolster allies and punish lawmakers who buck them. The group spent at least $24 million in the 2012 elections - $16.8 million through its political action committee and nearly $7.5 million through its affiliated Institute for Legislative Action. Separately, the NRA spent some $4.4 million through July 1 to lobby Congress. Keene insists the group represents its members and not just the gun manufacturers, though he said the NRA would like industry to contribute more money to the association.
"We know what works and what doesn't work. And we're not willing to compromise on people's rights when there is no evidence that doing so is going to accomplish the purpose," Keene said.
The NRA, instead, is pushing for measures that would keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, until a person gets better. "If they are cured, there ought to be a way out of it," Keene said.
Currently, a person is banned from buying a gun from a licensed dealer if the person is a fugitive, a felon, convicted of substance abuse, convicted of domestic violence, living in the U.S. illegally or someone who "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution."
States, however, are inconsistent in providing information about mentally ill residents to the federal government for background checks. And, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said some 40 percent of gun sales happen with no background checks, such as at gun shows and by private sellers over the Internet or through classified ads.
Senators plan to introduce a bill that would ban assault weapons and limit the size of ammunition magazines, like the one used in the December shooting massacre that killed 27 people, most of them children, in Newtown, Conn. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California has promised to push for a renewal of expired legislation.
The National Rifle Association has so far prevented passage of another assault weapons ban like the one that expired in 2004. But some lawmakers say the Newtown tragedy has transformed the country, and Americans are ready for stricter gun laws. President Barack Obama has made gun control a top priority. And on Tuesday Vice President Joe Biden is expected to give Obama a comprehensive package of recommendations for curbing gun violence.
Still, the NRA has faith that Congress would prevent a new weapons ban.
"When a president takes all the power of his office, if he's willing to expend political capital, you don't want to make predictions. You don't want to bet your house on the outcome. But I would say that the likelihood is that they are not going to be able to get an assault weapons ban through this Congress," NRA president David Keene told CNN's "State of the Union."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., responded with a flat out "no" when asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" whether Congress would pass a ban on assault weapons.
Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a lifelong member of the NRA has said everything should be on the table to prevent another tragedy like Newtown. But he assured gun owners he would fight for gun rights at the same time. "I would tell all of my friends in NRA, I will work extremely hard and I will guarantee you there will not be an encroachment on your Second Amendment rights," Manchin said on ABC's "This Week."
The NRA's deep pockets help bolster allies and punish lawmakers who buck them. The group spent at least $24 million in the 2012 elections - $16.8 million through its political action committee and nearly $7.5 million through its affiliated Institute for Legislative Action. Separately, the NRA spent some $4.4 million through July 1 to lobby Congress. Keene insists the group represents its members and not just the gun manufacturers, though he said the NRA would like industry to contribute more money to the association.
"We know what works and what doesn't work. And we're not willing to compromise on people's rights when there is no evidence that doing so is going to accomplish the purpose," Keene said.
The NRA, instead, is pushing for measures that would keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, until a person gets better. "If they are cured, there ought to be a way out of it," Keene said.
Currently, a person is banned from buying a gun from a licensed dealer if the person is a fugitive, a felon, convicted of substance abuse, convicted of domestic violence, living in the U.S. illegally or someone who "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution."
States, however, are inconsistent in providing information about mentally ill residents to the federal government for background checks. And, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said some 40 percent of gun sales happen with no background checks, such as at gun shows and by private sellers over the Internet or through classified ads.
I found an interesting theory regarding the 2nd Amendment, titled "The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery"...
Interesting read...
"The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Â Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.Â
In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.Â
As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."
It's the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, "Why don't they just rise up and kill the whites?" If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains."
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
That might give a new flavor to the arms argument...
 @OrcasThunder Interesting. But while it may shed some light on some of the motivations behind the second amendment its hardly the purpose. If this were a sound theory then the second amendment would certainly be written differently. Its an interesting potential historical point and worthy of consideration but I don't see it as altering the contemporary interpretation any.
 @SeattleJoe "would certainly be written differently"
Not necessarily...it would depend on the definition the writers had of "Militia" , and if the author of the article is correct, that may well have varied between regions within the USA. It would be interesting to examine some of the writings by Madison and others in the North who may have indeed had differing views from the South. Whether this would have any impact in the SCOTUS is hard to say, but for those who say the Constitution is fixed and MUST be interpreted in light of the Founder's POV, this might create a bit of a conundrum...if applying their principle of the Founder's interpretation only actually threatened one of their most cherished Rights, they might find themselves wading through a murky swamp...
Wouldn't THAT be a fun debate...!
I will be so glad when this all gets shot down and prices return to normal....Duck Creek Armory "Ranger" AR and FN Scar in .308 will be added to my collection!
Politicians just want people to think their doing something about a problem. Nothing will change.
And what will this do for the Assault Weapons that are already out there???? Why do people think that a ban on assault weapons stops people from doing what happened in Colorado??? The assault weapons are already out there people and this would do nothing more that stop the sales of assault weapons for a period of time and that's all. Did the Killer in Colorado go out and buy the assault weapon ???  No he didn't so how would this have prevented or stopped anything from  happening there?? It wouldn't have! So What does this really do???Â
@Seahawker It takes power away from honest citizens and lets the left pass their agenda of disarming the citizenry. No, it won't happen over night, but if they can put a permanent ban in place, given enough time, the general populace will be unarmed and at that point, the government can do whatever they want. You think it is bad now?
Based on what we are seeing out of both the federal and state governments, it doesn't appear to require an unarmed general populace for the government to feel as though they can do whatever they want.
Â
I don't support any enhanced gun ban or ammo restrictions, but I find it extremely odd that the same polticians that were so willing to take our freedoms through the pass of the Patriot Act are so aggressively opposing these restrictions; at least publically. It makes me wonder if it is more about their personal interests, by securing funding and support from the gun manufactoring loby, than our freedoms
If these die hard Americans were as interested in protecting the 1st and the 4th, I would be more with them on the 2nd.
@Bellevue Scott The 2nd amendment is the amendment from wich all other privelege from the Constitution derrives. I'm a strong proponent of all amendments laid out by our founding fathers. The 2nd just happens to be the one that gets the attention because the government would like nothing more than for it to go away so that they can strip other freedoms at will.
The NRA is overplaying its hand.
Â
Support sensible legislation or risk losing relevance.
I hope the NRA is correct. These bans and laws are pointless. Criminals don't follow laws.
There is no reason why people buying guns and assault weapons at gun shows, should be able to buy these weapons without registering or having a back ground check. Â Close the loop holes of being able to buy these weapons without registering them. Â
@Slingerss Actual assault weapons are registered, after you apply for the class 3 license, and pass a background check... Actual assault weapons are also banned state wide..
Obviously, you have not been to a gunshow. You cannot buy a gun, at a WAC gun show, from a dealer that is there without filling out the the same paperwork, and having them call for a NICS authorization.
 @Slingerss In Washington state, the WAC gun shows require a background check to become a member, and only a member can buy a gun at the show.Â
 @lorenray  @Slingerss "only a member can buy a gun at the show."
But...is that member status updated if something happens that would have been a red flag before?
Like an arrest and conviction, a court order - say to avoid contact with a spouse or child?
 @OrcasThunder  @lorenray  @Slingerss Thats interesting. I've never encountered anything like that. I imagine they don't want anyone to join that is not allowed to posses a firearm but aside from possibly asking a question on an application form I don't think they do any checks. They send me application forms all the time I'll have to take a look at one.
 @SeattleJoe  @lorenray  @Slingerss The thing is, people (members?) always state that the NRA does not allow anyone who is not eligible to own a gun join, which would seem to say that they DO have a check of some kind. My question is, if they do have a check - do they update that check to see if members have become ineligible?
 @OrcasThunder  @lorenray  @Slingerss They haven't as far as I have known but maybe years ago. But then again I'm not really up on the NRA all that much. Given they are a civil rights organization and not a gun club or anything that would require a background check I doubt they would require one.
 @SeattleJoe  @lorenray  @Slingerss Are you saying that the NRA does not require a background check to join? Someone told me once that they do.
 @OrcasThunder  @lorenray  @Slingerss I'm not sure why they would do so at all. They don't sell firearms.
 @SeattleJoe  @lorenray  @Slingerss OK, that's a comfort.
Does the NRA also do a yearly update of it's member's status to be sure there are none slipping through the cracks?
 @OrcasThunder  @lorenray  @Slingerss You have to have a background check run every year at renewal.
@Slingerss You need to get your idea straight. You are talking about two different issues. One is buying without a background check. The other is a national firearms registry. I support closing the gun show 'loophole.' However, you can't enforce background checks on private sales. I don't support a national registry.
Excuse me, I didn't mean idiot, I meant moron.
We are becoming a nation of lazy SOBs that want instant gratification. Doesn't matter whether the reward is worth a dam or not.
An organization whose goal is to protect a constitutional right a "domestic terrorist". How many idiots are there in The Peoples Republik of Seattle?
How well do you know the NRA and their record on supporting gun control?
Â
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd/nra-supported-nfa.htm
Â
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcInfoBase.asp?CatID=175
Â
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3372
Â
You might be surprised where they have historically applied their support on this issue.
The NRA and the Repubs are all hooked up....that's why they all are domestic terrorists !!!!!
@scychan Because they support and defend the Constituiton of the United States?
Seems to me, every government official is sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. So, in my opinion, all those that are pushing for gun control, by infringing upon the second amendment, are guilty of treason.
 @scychan So my dead Grandmother was a terrorist all along. I'm glad a nimrod like you came around to enlighten us.
 @Dredd57  @scychan My dead Grandfather was a Republican as well - and he would be livid over what the party has become. The GOP is no longer the GRAND Old Party, it is the Grinchy Old Party...
I hate assault rifles and do not care what happens to them. Â However, I do have to state they do have a purpose: Â For Law Enforcement and Military. Â Active, On Duty law enforcement and military.Â
Â
The problem with gun control is that if a person wants one bad enough, they will get it. Â Regardless if it's legal or not. Â If a person wants to kill someone bad enough, that person doesn't even need a gun. Â My kitchen knives aren't locked up. Â If my kid grabbed one and stabbed another kid, it's not the knife's fault. Â I don't even believe I should go to jail for it. Â I never taught him to do it. Â If he did it, HE should be disciplined for it. Â A LOT. Â Unfortunately, when someone goes in to a building, kills other people then takes his own life, there is no one to punish. Â "But we gotta punish someone! So lets go after the guns! Â Specifically, assault rifles." Sarcasm intended. The hand guns aren't even being talked about, and yet, they are the ones that killed more people than assault rifles by a LONG shot. Â (Again, I hate assault rifles.)
Â
I just believe that people should think before a law is passed that is counterproductive.  Gun control does not induce safety.  It causes a short-termed false sense of security.  It's a red flag to those who are out to break the law that it's the place to hit.  "I won't get shot if I hit that house, but that one over there, I might."  Criminals are lazy.  They want the easy way out...  If it's hitting the house that's unarmed or the country like in the case of Mexico.  I don't want to see the USA turn into Mexico.
@Ma_Kettle   Assault weapons are very regulated.. They must be registered, and you have to go through an extensive background check.
Â
What is happening, though, is quite different. The legislators are classifying firearms as assault weapons based upon cosmetic features, which have nothing to do with function, so they can infringe upon our freedoms protected by the constitution.
By classifying normal semiautomatic firearms as an assault weapon, it makes the general public, many who aren't knowledgeable of what an assault rifle is, and what makes it an assault rifle okay with banning them.
Â
An assault rifle is a select fire weapon. It can be fired in full, burst, or semi automatic operation.
Now, if I take a Ruger 10/22, put a pistol grip stock on it, and add a flash supressor/muzzle brake, I would have an "assault rifle" according to these legislators. Would any soldier take that rifle into battle... I think not...Â
Â
Gun control isn't going to solve any of the problems we have, and I believe we both agree on that..
@Ma_Kettle do you realize that "assault rifle" is just a term? The guns themselves are the same calibers and functionality as many traditional hunting or sporting rifles, they are just made to look like their military counterparts. The military versions are fully automatic, which no civilian can purchase. So by banning "assault rifles" it just means a person will use a hunting rifle and have the same result
@justsumguy Hard to bump-fire a bolt-action rifle or a shotgun.
 @justsumguy "Just one of my hobbies of choice...."
Isn't that a bit like going to a hooker instead of finding someone you can have a real relationship with?
Not at all, I just enjoy shooting guns that are fun to shoot. Just one of my hobbies of choice....
 @justsumguy You get bored easy, don't you?
Are you implying that is all that should be legal? bolt action rifles and shotguns? I cannot tell you where your opinion should lye, however for a non-hunter user like myself, those are the most boring and least entertaining arms to shoot....no thanks, I want my semi-auto rifles and handguns...
 @justsumguy Â
Actually in many states fully automatic firearms are perfectly legal. Â
 @EBR  @justsumguy Legal yes, but due to regs very expensive and troublesome to get.Â
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Â Rahm Emanuel
Â
This is exactly what is going on with respect to the Connecticut Shootings and national gun control.
If the Connecticut Shootings had not occurred gun control would not have been on the table. The Liberals now see an opportunity that they did not have before, if they don't act quickly it will evaporate.
Â
This is not unique to any party it is simply how things work, Rahm got it right.
Â
Â
 @al_wa "You never let a serious crisis go to waste"
Â
I think that phrase was used at the Chicago school of Economics decades ago by a guy named Milton Friedman while teaching the art of destabilization of successful Latin American and South American economies.
Â
I have no doubt that Rahm was a student and it probably served him well during his time at Goldman Sachs and again more recently while attempting to destroy Chicago Labor Unions.
@al_wa Yes, never let a crisis go to waste. Your note of that quote is good. People in this country only react in a crisis becuase we have become apathedic and lazy.
As a country we have our heads buried in social media and can only talk in text form. Young teachers only want kids to google thier answers and parents enable thier own kids. God forbid you and the kid visit the wood shed.
Yes, in a PC world a crisis is an oppertunity, so why not take it.
I will say it again, I'm not for a assualt gun ban but for some changes in the way people get thier guns. I also beleive we need to change the family scructure and atitudes toward religion. Not saying we allow the teaching of god in public schools just more tolerent of those who wish to pray. We need an atitude adjustment as a country.
Right will never see left or left see right.
There is one thing that should change-compromise in congress. They set the tone. When interest groups right or left threaten a congressman's next election for thier own agenda, then we will always have these problems.
I would love to hear a congressman stand up and vote what's good for the country not the party.
 @snoopy84  @al_wa Very well said.
This comment has been deleted
@newdragon @snoopy84 So your solution is to be intolerant?
 @snoopy84  @al_waÂ
"I would love to hear a congressman stand up and vote what's good for the country not the party."
Amen
The previous "assault weapon" ban proved to show absolutely NO change in criminal activity. Crime did not go down because of that ban. That's why it's time ran out and it was rescinded.
 @SargeMcC Case in point: Columbine.Â