WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
It's a very interesting gamble the Democrats are making here.
Firstly, they went with 15 round magazine capacity rather than 10 rounds. That makes a lot of sense because many pistols come with magazines that hold more rounds than 10 as standard, but not generally as many as 20 rounds.
Secondly, they not only decided to ban AK and AR style rifles, but also the "pistol" variants. And included a long (though incomplete) list of firearms that are exempt, simply to show that plenty of guns will still be available for purchase. Which interestingly includes the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, and though I didn't see it, I suspect the Ruger PCC with conventional stock would still be legal for sale. [This allows for the counter-argument that if the "assault" features don't matter to the function of the firearm, needs can be filled with these kinds of rifles instead]
Thirdly, they grandfather existing privately owned firearms and magazines affected by the ban, whilst mandating safe storage of them.
All of this will seem totally acceptable to many many people. So whilst some are sure it will fail in the Senate (which it may), that's not the gamble. The gamble is the mid-term elections. I wouldn't be surprised if certain Democrats in the House voted 'Nay' to help them retain their seat. But I think when the bill fails in the Senate, the Democrats will point to that in the mid-terms as a way to gain support in key states. And they've left long enough between it passing the House and election day, that the Senate can't say they didn't have enough time.
Now, if we see another public mass shooting with a legally purchased "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazines" between now and then, the Dems can simply say "The Senate Republicans could have acted, but didn't."
It's hard to say how this one will work out in the long term.
Firstly, they went with 15 round magazine capacity rather than 10 rounds. That makes a lot of sense because many pistols come with magazines that hold more rounds than 10 as standard, but not generally as many as 20 rounds.
Secondly, they not only decided to ban AK and AR style rifles, but also the "pistol" variants. And included a long (though incomplete) list of firearms that are exempt, simply to show that plenty of guns will still be available for purchase. Which interestingly includes the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, and though I didn't see it, I suspect the Ruger PCC with conventional stock would still be legal for sale. [This allows for the counter-argument that if the "assault" features don't matter to the function of the firearm, needs can be filled with these kinds of rifles instead]
Thirdly, they grandfather existing privately owned firearms and magazines affected by the ban, whilst mandating safe storage of them.
All of this will seem totally acceptable to many many people. So whilst some are sure it will fail in the Senate (which it may), that's not the gamble. The gamble is the mid-term elections. I wouldn't be surprised if certain Democrats in the House voted 'Nay' to help them retain their seat. But I think when the bill fails in the Senate, the Democrats will point to that in the mid-terms as a way to gain support in key states. And they've left long enough between it passing the House and election day, that the Senate can't say they didn't have enough time.
Now, if we see another public mass shooting with a legally purchased "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazines" between now and then, the Dems can simply say "The Senate Republicans could have acted, but didn't."
It's hard to say how this one will work out in the long term.