Senate panel approves assault weapons ban
WASHINGTON (AP) - A Senate committee approved an assault weapons ban on a party-line vote Thursday that signaled how difficult it will be for the proposal to survive in the full Senate.
The Democratic led Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill on a 10-8 vote after rejecting a series of Republican amendments aimed at exempting victims of sexual abuse, people living along the Southwest border and others from the prohibition. The GOP proposals were also defeated along party lines.
President Barack Obama made an assault weapons ban part of the gun curbs he proposed in January, a month after a shooter with an assault rifle killed 20 first-graders and six educators at a school in Newtown, Conn. Feinstein and others have argued that such firearms are used in a disproportionate number of mass shootings and shouldn't be available to civilians.
The prohibition is one of the most controversial of the gun restrictions being considered in Congress. Its foes say law-abiding citizens should not lose their Second Amendment right to own the weapons, which they say are popular for self-defense, hunting and collecting.
Thursday's debate included a fiery clash between Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the ban's author, and outspoken freshman conservative Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Cruz said Feinstein's bill would create exceptions to the Second Amendment and asked her if she would favor exemptions to the First Amendment's freedom of speech by denying that right to certain books.
"I'm not a sixth-grader," said a visibly upset Feinstein. She described her decades in Congress involved in gun control debates and said, "I'm reasonably well-educated, and thank you for the lecture."
Several Republicans including Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who proposed the GOP amendments that were defeated, argued that the most effective approach to curbing gun violence would be to improve how mental health records are sent to the federal system that checks backgrounds of potential gun buyers.
Cornyn also said that as a result of Feinstein's ban, criminals would still get the weapons.
"We're going to give American citizens a pea shooter to defend themselves with," Cornyn said.
Feinstein conceded that the battle to enact her measure would be difficult and said, "I don't see that as being bad. I don't see that as harming Americans. Because we have so many guns."
Feinstein's bill would also ban large-capacity ammunition magazines carrying more than 10 rounds, which she and her allies say allow shooters to inflict more casualties before pausing to reload, which is when they might be stopped. Adam Lanza, the Newtown gunman, was said to have had 30-round magazines.
The measure's passage by the Judiciary panel has been a foregone conclusion for some time. It will be far more vulnerable in the full Senate, where Democrats are expected to need 60 votes for passage through the 100-member chamber. That is where the NRA and other pro-gun groups are working hard for the ban's defeat.
"We are focused on the next step of the legislative process," Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said Wednesday.
There are 53 Democrats plus two independents who generally side with them. Republicans seem ready to oppose the ban overwhelmingly, and Feinstein can't count on a half-dozen Democrats from Republican-leaning states who face re-election next year.
The ban also stands little chance of approval in the GOP-controlled House.
Feinstein's bill would ban semi-automatic weapons - guns that fire one round and automatically reload - that can take a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature like a pistol grip.
It specifically bans 157 named weapons. But in an effort to avoid antagonizing those who use them for sports, the measure allows 2,258 rifles and shotguns that are frequently used by hunters.
It also exempts any weapons that are lawfully owned whenever the bill is enacted.
Feinstein was a leader in passage of a 1994 ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Congress failed to renew it before it expired in 2004.
There are no definitive figures on assault weapons or high-capacity ammunition magazines in the U.S., since there are no government registries of firearms and Congress has curbed federal research on guns since the late 1990s.
When the previous assault weapons ban took effect in 1994, there were an estimated 1.5 million assault weapons and at least 25 million large-capacity magazines that were privately owned in the U.S.
Proponents of banning the weapons cite studies showing that once the assault weapons ban took hold, the portion of gun crimes using those firearms dropped by up to 72 percent in six cities surveyed. They also argue that each assault weapon taken off the streets reduces the potential for mass shootings.
Opponents cite studies showing that assault weapons have been used in fewer than 1 in 10 crimes involving firearms and argue that eliminating those weapons would put only a minor dent in gun violence. High-capacity magazines are involved in up to a quarter of gun crimes.
The Judiciary Committee has already approved three other measures expanding the requirement for background checks for gun buyers; toughening federal laws against illegal gun traffickers and those who purchase weapons for people barred from owning them; and increasing aid for school safety.
The Democratic led Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill on a 10-8 vote after rejecting a series of Republican amendments aimed at exempting victims of sexual abuse, people living along the Southwest border and others from the prohibition. The GOP proposals were also defeated along party lines.
President Barack Obama made an assault weapons ban part of the gun curbs he proposed in January, a month after a shooter with an assault rifle killed 20 first-graders and six educators at a school in Newtown, Conn. Feinstein and others have argued that such firearms are used in a disproportionate number of mass shootings and shouldn't be available to civilians.
The prohibition is one of the most controversial of the gun restrictions being considered in Congress. Its foes say law-abiding citizens should not lose their Second Amendment right to own the weapons, which they say are popular for self-defense, hunting and collecting.
Thursday's debate included a fiery clash between Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the ban's author, and outspoken freshman conservative Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Cruz said Feinstein's bill would create exceptions to the Second Amendment and asked her if she would favor exemptions to the First Amendment's freedom of speech by denying that right to certain books.
"I'm not a sixth-grader," said a visibly upset Feinstein. She described her decades in Congress involved in gun control debates and said, "I'm reasonably well-educated, and thank you for the lecture."
Several Republicans including Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who proposed the GOP amendments that were defeated, argued that the most effective approach to curbing gun violence would be to improve how mental health records are sent to the federal system that checks backgrounds of potential gun buyers.
Cornyn also said that as a result of Feinstein's ban, criminals would still get the weapons.
"We're going to give American citizens a pea shooter to defend themselves with," Cornyn said.
Feinstein conceded that the battle to enact her measure would be difficult and said, "I don't see that as being bad. I don't see that as harming Americans. Because we have so many guns."
Feinstein's bill would also ban large-capacity ammunition magazines carrying more than 10 rounds, which she and her allies say allow shooters to inflict more casualties before pausing to reload, which is when they might be stopped. Adam Lanza, the Newtown gunman, was said to have had 30-round magazines.
The measure's passage by the Judiciary panel has been a foregone conclusion for some time. It will be far more vulnerable in the full Senate, where Democrats are expected to need 60 votes for passage through the 100-member chamber. That is where the NRA and other pro-gun groups are working hard for the ban's defeat.
"We are focused on the next step of the legislative process," Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said Wednesday.
There are 53 Democrats plus two independents who generally side with them. Republicans seem ready to oppose the ban overwhelmingly, and Feinstein can't count on a half-dozen Democrats from Republican-leaning states who face re-election next year.
The ban also stands little chance of approval in the GOP-controlled House.
Feinstein's bill would ban semi-automatic weapons - guns that fire one round and automatically reload - that can take a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature like a pistol grip.
It specifically bans 157 named weapons. But in an effort to avoid antagonizing those who use them for sports, the measure allows 2,258 rifles and shotguns that are frequently used by hunters.
It also exempts any weapons that are lawfully owned whenever the bill is enacted.
Feinstein was a leader in passage of a 1994 ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Congress failed to renew it before it expired in 2004.
There are no definitive figures on assault weapons or high-capacity ammunition magazines in the U.S., since there are no government registries of firearms and Congress has curbed federal research on guns since the late 1990s.
When the previous assault weapons ban took effect in 1994, there were an estimated 1.5 million assault weapons and at least 25 million large-capacity magazines that were privately owned in the U.S.
Proponents of banning the weapons cite studies showing that once the assault weapons ban took hold, the portion of gun crimes using those firearms dropped by up to 72 percent in six cities surveyed. They also argue that each assault weapon taken off the streets reduces the potential for mass shootings.
Opponents cite studies showing that assault weapons have been used in fewer than 1 in 10 crimes involving firearms and argue that eliminating those weapons would put only a minor dent in gun violence. High-capacity magazines are involved in up to a quarter of gun crimes.
The Judiciary Committee has already approved three other measures expanding the requirement for background checks for gun buyers; toughening federal laws against illegal gun traffickers and those who purchase weapons for people barred from owning them; and increasing aid for school safety.
If Feinstein's bill becomes law, it will create a huge underground in the illegal sale of what were legally owned guns. The war on guns will be like the war on drugs, a total bust. It's too bad her constituents are too dumb to remove her from the federal hog trough that she's been feeding from for the last twenty or so years. This proposed legislation shows her to be nothing but a political opportunist.Â
If Feinstein is so well educated why is it that she can't figure out that it's lunatics that get their hands on guns through illegal means that commit the vast majority of shooting crimes and not law abiding citizens. Sorry Diane, you are a bonafide educated idiot who is completely out of touch with reality and you are a total hypocrit to boot. Stand on the graves of children while you hide your concealed weapon permit and your .357, all the time screaming that guns need to be taken away.
 http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=10104
@SargeMcCÂ I think Feinslime is more interested in getting the guns before the American public wakes up and realizes how badly we have all been screwed by our elected criminals. Politicians like her are merely following the advice of the crooked Obamunist, Rham Emanuel, to never let an opportunity go to waste.Â
Sorry government, but your job is to protect the right, not to curtail it. Â Rejected.
And Chucky Schumer's background check bill is also an underhanded attack on gun ownership as well. Don't report a stolen gun in 24 hours? Felony and five years in prison. Lend your gun to a neighbor to go hunting or go to the range? Felony and five years. Leave you gun at home with your roommate, girlfriend, or landlord for a trip of more than 7 days? Five years as well.Â
Get the picture? If they cannot ban firearms they will make every bureaucratic hurdle a felony, in which case you are forbidden to own firearms anyway.Â
@Iconoclast Yes it is their end goal to get rid of and confiscate all of our guns and only the government gets to have them. Then they have total control over us. We won't be able to do anything. Not that I am looking to fight the government, I am looking to protect my family and myself. It is our God given right to have firearms.
After having watched Senator Feinstein's hysterical rebuttal of Senator Cruz's questioning of her Senate bill to ban commonly owned semi-automatic sport rifles and pistols, I would like to know just where the heck I can buy a bazooka and the other "military weapons" that she says are currently available.
@Geronimo Jones She has even said it is legal to hunt humans. Look it up on youtube.
Loved this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZDjp66NdiNY
"I wish I had less bullets, said no one ever who has been in a gunfight"
So nice they are so hell bent on passing a assault weapons ban and see that as so important instead of oh ... BALENCING the BUDGET!...
Of course if the entire country goes broke they will have plenty of money put away and leave the rest of us to the wolves...
CDC data from 2010, 2011 data is not complete.
323 people were murdered with rifles out of the over 9000 murders with firearms. The "assault" weapons are a sub-set of the rifle murders. More people were murdered with fists, with hammers, or other tools than with any type of long gun, or "assault" weapon.
Additionally the definition of a "assault" weapon has nothing to do with the function, the rate of fire or the ballistics of a firearm, what makes an weapon and "assault" weapon is purely cosmetic, how it looks.
If the Judiciary Committee could please explain how banning a firearms which are a small part of the homicide problem and how banning cosmetic features of firearms, while the same firearm sold in another form factor would be legal, will DO ANYTHING to change the homicide numbers, I would greatly appreciate it.
@JCM1776 Great argument but an assault weapon is not cosmetic it means that it has select fire, or in other words full automatic fire. Doesn't matter anyways we get to choose what kind of guns we want to own. It doesn't say anything about what kind of guns we can/can not have in the 2nd amendment.
@JCM1776Â The committee cannot explain why banning a few medium-powered semi-automatic rifles and standard-size magazines will make us any safer nor that banning these firearms are not a heavy burden on US citizens--millions of whom own without incident the types of firearms Senate Democrats wish to ban.
It is both unconstitutional and ridiculous. Unconstitutional because it imposes a heavy burden on an individual freedom without any evidence at all of benefit to society. Ridiculous because any idiot can see that medium powered semi-automatic rifles with standard sized magazines have vanishingly little to do with criminal homicide.
In the last 10 years about 200 school children have been killed by assault type weapons.This raises a great outcry and frenzied calls for legislation.
In the same period, over 6000 inner city residents have been killed in Chicago alone. Most died by handgun. Yet there is not a peep of outrage about this.
@GOATCUTTER Ya and it's Obama's city. Nice!
@GOATCUTTERÂ Â
They can't admit Chicago gun control, a virtual ban doesn't work.
@GOATCUTTERÂ Wrong color of victim. Gun controllers have always been racists and bigots. Just look at the bigoted epithets they cast so easily at white gun owners. Imagine what they are thinking about regarding black gun owners.
Bill Shatner knows the answer.lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFaLokC9hqk&feature=player_embedded
@Blindman Shatner was awesome in that TV show. One of his best scenes I've seen right there.
This is NOT how you Solve the gun violence problem. What needs to be done is close the background checks loophole, and intitiate some mandatory training before you can own a weapon. We require liscensing, registration, and mandatory competance tests on vehicles, weapons should get the same treatment. Garuentee you that the crime rate would go down after you do that, and you don't have to ban anything to do it.
@Myles Barrett Owning guns is a right, not a privilege. Driving a car on a public highway is a privilege, not a right. I think we should register crooked career politicians like Feinstein, and put a chip in their butts so that we can track them.
@Myles Barrett Driving is a privilege, Not a right.
Can you own a machine gun in this state? No. Can you walk into Walmart and buy dynamite? No. Can you go out and shoot off a grenade launcher any time you want? No. Your rights are what the government grants you. They may not take it away, but they can sure darn well restrict it.
You've simply been jaded about "rights" because of the way this country was set up. In other countries your "rights" are totally different. And who controls them? THE GOVERNMENT of that country! True rights, of which there are darn few, are universal and exist regardless of the type of government. By saying, "I have the right to own a gun because the Constitution says so," is admitting that the "right" has been granted you by virtue of the government putting it in writing.
In this country it is also your "right" to believe in any God you want. In other countries, that "right" does not exist. How, then, could that be a universal right? Think about it.
@DarkParty @dg54321 There is an exception for those who manufacture those weapons, yes, I meant the standard everyday individual who would purchase one. If only the few exceptions and the political elite are allowed a right, it is no longer a right......
@factchekr "Your rights are what the government grants you.  "
No, your rights are inherent in your very being. Government simply agrees to not intrude upon those rights. By no means does it grant those rights.
Which means that a government only exists as long as the citizenry allows it. Intrude on those rights long enough and the citizenry will invalidate the government. SCOTUS decisions don't defend citizens in the long term as much as they protect government from its own overreach.
@dg54321 Certain classes of FFL's are allowed to own and manufacture Machine guns in this state. I personally know 2 different people that have them.
@DarkParty @factchekr Yeah but good luck with that. There are two conflicting laws, one stating that no full auto weapons can be owned, with no grandfather clause, stating the law enforcement in the area is tasked to confiscate such items, and then the commonly misquoted law by lakeview stating that before '94 is OK. Guess which the police will enforce. Just one of many contradictions in WA state law, and you as the citizen will bear the burden of the confusion. But that doesn't mean we don't have the right to own those types of weapons, just that the state passed a law, unconstitutionally, to ban them. A right doesn't go away just because it is made illegal via a law wrongly allowed to go into effect, it is just infringed upon by that law. The right still exists, and people have to fight to abolish any law that would punish someone for exercising those rights.
@factchekr
You lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and just what a right is.
@factchekr Just a technicality. But we can own Machine guns in this state, There are a lot of hoops to jump through, and it is really expensive. But we can own them.
There are other things that the Legislature really should be using it's time to resolve. The assault weapons ban is a very low priority. I say the meat-heads in DC do not work on anything else until we get a budget that the majority of Americans approve of.
@left-center I'm in favor of gridlock. Its much preferable to what congress does when they start passing new laws. Plenty of laws already. How about cleaning up some of the unconstitutional ones.
Ms. Feinstein please tell me what kills more in your state: Guns, Alcohol, Cars or Cigarettes.  If we can save one life maybe we should state going after the ones that take the most lives.  There isn't an amendment protecting those things.
"I'm not a sixth-grader,"Â
True. A 6th grader is better educated and more ethical than Feinstein.
"Adam Lanza, the Newtown gunman, was said to have had 30-round magazines"
It was also said that most of the magazines on the ground were half empty. They said they think he reloaded every time he went to a different location.
"'I'm not a sixth-grader,' said a visibly upset Feinstein."
 No, you aren't Feinstein, because even a sixth grader understands the meaning of "shall not be infringed". This will die further down the line, the support just isn't there.  Statist wackos infiltrating the government notwithstanding.......
Well said, too bad he didn't say that in responst to her proclamation that she isn't a sixth grader.
I wish this crap would hurry up and go away. I can't find any AR parts at all!
@DarkParty Here you go, just buy a few raffle tickets from here:
http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x930813683/Youth-baseball-league-auctioning-off-AR-15
@DarkParty Yeap have 2 gun dealers/family friends looking for me and they can't find a single thing and if they do happen to the person on the other line wants prices as if everything was covered in gold or diamonds.  I want all this to die and the market to return to normal.
@APenny4MyThoughts I know, 10/22 Mags are even double or triple in price right now.
@DarkParty ...and the current cost of feeding these things is absurd. I have always had a "cache" of ammo (LOL) , and reload most of my rounds, but when .22 LR are becoming difficult to purchase it has gotten beyond ridiculous!
"[Ted] Cruz said Feinstein's bill would create exceptions to the Second Amendment and asked her if she would favor exemptions to the First Amendment's freedom of speech by denying that right to certain books."
Apparently brain surgeon Ted Cruz doesn't realize that there are already exceptions to the First Amendment... shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater, for instance.
@Sutekh There are no true exceptions to the First Amendment, or any Amendment for that matter.  You cannot do something unlawful and be protected by the First Amendment.  Someone who yells fire that then causes damage to property or injures people who react to such a cry would be unlawful.  You may absolutely do anything whatsoever that is lawful and can absolutely expect (and demand) that the government protect you from themselves and others.  Sad, but it doesn't usually get thought of that way.
@Sutekh
Movie theaters are private property. To make your attempt at an analogy accurate, you would have to say that you can't yell fire anywhere because you can't yell it in a movie theater.
Are you going to make me debunk your militia argument next?
@Sutekh Study up a little bit and you will find that that specific example (of a really bad free speech ruling) was thrown out by a later court.
There are exceptions just as there are limits to the 2nd Amendment. But both require the highest level of scrutiny. Bans on rifles do not meet that level of scrutiny any more than bans on burning US flags meet that level of scrutiny.
If medium powered semi-automatic rifles--forget about scary cosmetics--are too dangerous then so are hands, feet, clubs, and hammers. Plan on banning those, nitwit?
@Sutekh You are free to shout "fire" all you want...just have to face to consequences if there is no fire. Apples and red rocks analogy.
@aintno1special @Sutekh You just can't argue with ignorance.
Submit.... obey.... your government.... we will save you from yourselves! Give us you tax dollars and we will collectively work to invade your privacy, strip away your rights and provide nothing in return except for increased governmental growth along with continued failed Foreign Policies.
Ronald Reagan, concerning gun control:
@Funky-Munky This country could use another Ronald Reagan.