Senate Judiciary Chair Rejects Feinstein's Assault Weapons Ban


PDA






LemmyCaution
January 30, 2013, 02:19 PM
http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2013/01/30/senate-judiciary-chair-rejects-dianne-feinstein’s-assault-weapons-ban/

The Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee did not endorse colleague Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban at a packed Capitol Hill hearing on guns Wednesday in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shooting.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., called for “common sense reform,” that closes loopholes in current gun laws and enforces background checks. Buthe did not endorse Feinstein’s tougher ban. “I know gun store owners in Vermont,” Leahy said. “They follow the law and conduct background checks…why should we not try to plug the loopholes in the law that allow (criminals and the mentally ill) to buy guns without background checks?”

We can fault him for backing Universal Background Checks, but at least Leahy understands it's not the guns, it's the people who use them illegally.

For those who have been writing him, Sanders and Welch, please turn up the heat in urging him to oppose Universal Background Checks. I'd like to think that the letters we've been sending Leahy have had an effect in changing his mind.

If you enjoyed reading about "Senate Judiciary Chair Rejects Feinstein's Assault Weapons Ban" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
alsaqr
January 30, 2013, 02:46 PM
We can fault him for backing Universal Background Checks, but at least Leahy understands it's not the guns, it's the people who use them illegally.

I'm not sure Leahy does understand it's not the guns. Leahy is a long time political operative and dedicated anti-gunner. Leahy voted for the AWB and for the AWB extension in 2004. Leahy understands the willingness of gunowners to reject senators who favor an AWB.

LemmyCaution
January 30, 2013, 03:08 PM
I'm not sure Leahy does understand it's not the guns. Leahy is a long time political operative and dedicated anti-gunner. Leahy voted for the AWB and for the AWB extension in 2004. Leahy understands the willingness of gunowners to reject senators who favor an AWB.

I'm not sure you have any basis for making much of the statement above. Please explain to me what a 'long time political operative' is, if it's something other than a generic bad sounding, but essentially meaningless name designed to get around the forum ROEs.

While Leahy did vote for the AWB in '94 and '04, he seems to have had a change of heart, if judged by his recent public statements.

He's also a completely safe seat in VT. His previous reelection featured a challenge from the left. His Republican challenger was never taken particularly seriously. So accusing him of playing politics here is a bit fanciful.

tyeo098
January 30, 2013, 03:21 PM
HA!

Okay people, time to shift your emails. Now we are focusing on NO UBC.
Fire up those email servers and phone lines, let em have it!

joeschmoe
January 30, 2013, 03:37 PM
HA!

Okay people, time to shift your emails. Now we are focusing on NO UBC.

Don't just use their terminology. It' not UBC, it's private sales of personal property. They are trying to restrict private property.

tyeo098
January 30, 2013, 04:12 PM
Don't just use their terminology. It' not UBC, it's private sales of personal property. They are trying to restrict private property.
You have to use their terminology.

I was fortunate to travel to Richmond and most of our state senators and delegates were rather... simple people. Not even knowing the numbers of the bills we were talking about.
Fortunately, they represent the people and telling them YES THIS, NO THAT works rather well. Trying to get technical and mincing words will get you nowhere with these simple people.

alsaqr
January 30, 2013, 04:28 PM
While Leahy did vote for the AWB in '94 and '04, he seems to have had a change of heart, if judged by his recent public statements.

Leahy "seems to have had a change of heart" like a skunk that changes its stripes after attacking the chicken house.

He's also a completely safe seat in VT. His previous reelection featured a challenge from the left.

No doubt the citizens of VT love Leahy, they keep re-electing him. Leahy is concerned with the political futures of Democrat senators who must stand for re-election in 2014. Leahy would like to keep his senate judiciary seat in Democrat hands.

DeadMoneyDrew
January 30, 2013, 07:09 PM
According to most of the news stories that I read today, Leahy didn't reject Feinstein's bill outright, he just failed to focus on it or even mention it in any significant way. And we all know that the media never gets anything wrong...right?

LemmyCaution
January 30, 2013, 07:27 PM
Leahy "seems to have had a change of heart" like a skunk that changes its stripes after attacking the chicken house.



No doubt the citizens of VT love Leahy, they keep re-electing him. Leahy is concerned with the political futures of Democrat senators who must stand for re-election in 2014. Leahy would like to keep his senate judiciary seat in Democrat hands.

Whatever, dude.

My friend, William of Ockham, would like to take you aside and give you a little talking to regarding a few things.

alsaqr
January 30, 2013, 08:07 PM
My friend, William of Ockham, would like to take you aside and give you a little talking to regarding a few things.

Deleted by alsaqr.

padd54
January 30, 2013, 08:41 PM
I think we should all write and encourage that the Bill be brought to the floor for an up and down vote just as it is.

We need to get this behind us and get to work on the out of control spending by this govt.

I would love to see who would vote for this Bill as is, it would be a death nail for many.

Art Eatman
January 30, 2013, 10:02 PM
Knock off the yapping against Leahy. It doesn't make you look good, and it makes the website look stupid. We don't need that garbage.

Any more nonsense and the Magic Delete Key will go into full-bore spasm.

alsaqr
January 31, 2013, 05:57 AM
I think we should all write and encourage that the Bill be brought to the floor for an up and down vote just as it is.

Methinks that vote is a very real possibility. Feinstein says she has been promised a full senate vote on her "assault weapons" ban proposal.

Senator Dianne Feinstein said Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised that even if the assault weapons ban is left out of a broader package intended to curb gun violence, she will have the opportunity to offer it as an amendment on the Senate floor.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100410652/Feinstein_has_assurance_US_assault_weapon_ban_will_get_a_vote

Feinstein said yesterday that an assault-weapons ban might be left out of a package of proposals on gun regulation that the Senate puts forward for a vote. If that happens, she said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada assured her that it could be introduced by Feinstein as an amendment.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-01-27/assault-weapons-ban-hardest-to-pass-senator-feinstein-says

prism
January 31, 2013, 06:47 PM
" I know gun store owners in Vermont,” Leahy said. “They follow the law and conduct background checks…why should we not try to plug the loopholes in the law that allow (criminals and the mentally ill) to buy guns without background checks?” "



who puts parentheses in a supposedly verbatim quote? is that an editors interpretation?

that's a critical part of his statement. what did he actually say? how would people look at it if he had actually said "people" , "anyone", or "gun owners" ?

that quote with the parentheses is all over the net now.

Art Eatman
January 31, 2013, 10:59 PM
prism, anything that slows down the legislative process works in our favor. It gives time for the pressure to work against our opposition.

prism
February 1, 2013, 12:12 AM
I was interested in the journalistic license of changing a quote.

The difference could have been significant, but I think it is close enough after seeing the published statement.

IMO, some of those business owners he refers to will get more business (make more money) if restrictions are passed.

Here is the statement from the senate.gov website: http://i.imgur.com/qh3NbaQ.png

And other Senators' statements: http://i.imgur.com/7qXCTrX.png
http://i.imgur.com/wiBIWcj.png

JohnsXDM
February 1, 2013, 01:48 AM
Methinks that vote is a very real possibility. Feinstein says she has been promised a full senate vote on her "assault weapons" ban proposal.



http://www.cnbc.com/id/100410652/Feinstein_has_assurance_US_assault_weapon_ban_will_get_a_vote



http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-01-27/assault-weapons-ban-hardest-to-pass-senator-feinstein-says
Quote:
Feinstein said yesterday that an assault-weapons ban might be left out of a package of proposals on gun regulation that the Senate puts forward for a vote. If that happens, she said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada assured her that it could be introduced by Feinstein as an amendment.
To me this means WATCH OUT! They could add it to some other BS bill.

Jesse Wales
February 2, 2013, 10:44 AM
if u value ur 2nd ammendment rights, u best keep an I on her,
Obama is Big , like a bear ,but not that much of a threat to me ,Feinstein is like a Mountain lion, Cold , calculated , and as sneaky as there ever was,
she will wait till u have ur back turned , or your attention is on something else
and then drop down out of her tree, and choke u to death by ur neck,

I see yesterday that Wyoming (where i come from) lawmakers voted to block Obamas gun control measures , and voted to allow CCW,s on some school grounds

hso
February 2, 2013, 11:32 AM
I don't think the "why" matters that much. Whether it is because Sen. Leahy can read the political landscape and understands the consequences to passage of an AWB or because he actually understands that firearms don't cause crime and that the data shows a drop in murder rates while these firearms have become more popular.

Enlightened self interest or true belief, it doesn't matter as long as he undermines Feinstein and the most extreme banners publicly. What we do have to worry about is what support for other restrictions comes out of that and how we influence him to publicly support what we have been saying for years, keep crazy people from getting their hands on firearms without restricting the rights of the law-abiding.

JN01
February 2, 2013, 11:51 PM
I smell some sleazy political maneuvering in the works.

Allow Feinstein to add her AWB as a last minute amendment, then approve it by a voice vote- just like the closing of the NFA registry was added to the FOPA. No roll call to record the votes, his Senators from pro RKBA states are safe.

zxcvbob
February 3, 2013, 12:31 AM
Allow Feinstein to add her AWB as a last minute amendment, then approve it by a voice vote- just like the closing of the NFA registry was added to the FOPA. No roll call to record the votes, his Senators from pro RKBA states are safe.

That is what they will probably try. It's not likely to survive a threat of filibuster, and if it does it will still have to be approved by the House.

alsaqr
February 3, 2013, 09:03 AM
Feinstein was not happy with the makeup of the gun control hearings last week. Feinstein claims she has dispensation to hold hearings on her AWB.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), unhappy with the witnesses slated to testify at Wednesday’s Judiciary Committee hearing on guns, will hold her own hearing on her proposed ban on assault weapons.

“I’m concerned and registered my concern with Sen. [Patrick] Leahy yesterday, that the witnesses are skewed to the anti-gun, anti-assault weapons position,” Feinstein told POLITICO. “He agreed that I would be able to do my own hearing on the assault weapons legislation which I will proceed to do.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/dianne-feinstein-guns-to-hold-her-own-gun-hearing-86861.html

Do not underestimate Feinstein. She has pushed her AWB through the US senate at least twice before. In 2004 she got a vote of 52-47 in favor of extending the AWB.

goldie
February 3, 2013, 09:24 AM
Why doesnt that old crow find something else to cluck about?

LemmyCaution
February 3, 2013, 10:15 AM
I don't agree with your assessment, Leahy is solidly anti-American/anti-gun, he is engaging in a complex disinformation scheme in which radical socialists like himself, posture themselves as "only seeking after reasonable, common sense" interdictions on criminals and the mentally ill.

Its all BS! Don't you fall for it, the home run that he's looking to slam is UBC, which is closeted registration, and eventual confiscation. Its a complex bit of psychology aimed at well meaning fools, who are persuaded via sound bites.

The game here is the UBC, thats what Feinstein, Leahy, Obama, and all like-minded marxists are after, this bit of posturing by the likes of Leahy is just bait & switch intended to soften up an already surrendering gun ownership.

And I don't agree with your assessment, either. Your tendency is to default to the most hyperbolic characterization of things and to insinuate that anyone disagreeing with you is a 'well meaning fool.' That strikes me first and foremost as a resort to ad hominem argument against both the subject of your rant and your interlocutor, with an additional note of appeal to ridicule on the latter party. Not a winning rhetorical strategy.

That coupled with your reliance on the absurd abuse of the term 'socialist' and the hoariest of paranoid delusions about 'complex disinformation schemes' and slippery slope fallacies make you look like the sort of person that the anti-RKBA side delights in trotting out as an example of why the pro-RKBA movement is full of irrational zealots minimally connected to reality.

As such, not only do I not want you as my doctor, I don't want you as a representative of the RKBA movement.

If you enjoyed reading about "Senate Judiciary Chair Rejects Feinstein's Assault Weapons Ban" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!