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.
The senate panels real goal is to get rid of the 2nd ammendment so obama can be more of a dictator than he already is.
@sortbait Lies. They don't want to get rid of the 2nd amendment. They want to make you safer, and Obama is the best President ever.
This comment has been deleted
@feral And drone strikes should be used if there is any dissent.
The assault weapons ban is just not a good idea. That ship has sailed.
Background checks on all gun transfers, however is a good idea.
Oh, and as for Senator Cruz: Since you think the second amendment should have no exceptions, you want to make it legal for convicted felons to own and possess firearms?
@ShallowEnder If violent offenders are at a real risk of re-offending then they shouldn't be out of prison.
This comment has been deleted
@feralI am against the weapons and high cap magazine bans, but for the sake of accuracy -Â Switzerland has much more strict gun laws than US.
@Julie I believe that feral is leaning heavily towards sarcasm. Taking an approach that TreeWizard is also trying out.
I'd feel a lot better if they passed a ban on illegal aliens!
@jpk Undocumented immigrants are humans. They have the right to be here. Also lets please stop calling them illegals. No human is illegal.
@TreeWizard@jpk A human is illegal if he or she is in a country against the law. Just because you don't like the way a word sounds when attached to a person doesn't mean it isn't valid.
Tree hugger crap talk. They have no right to be here if they didn't go through the process of entering the country legally.
Tell the federal government to enforce the laws the consitution says they should (immigration) and leave the laws that the states are supposed to manage alone (drugs).
@JimmyWally Obama has deported more illegals than any other President in his first term. Seems to me like the feds are doing their jobs.
@jpkÂ
Rather than let ~2,000 out of jail?
I cant help but wonder how much money it has cost to approve legislation that is DOA when it gets to a vote on the House floor?
But, that seems to be what our esteemed elected officials in Washington seem to be best at doing nowdays. Photo-op, PR, feel-good, partisan ideological measures, bills and proposals that go nowhere.Â
Eh, what the heck. It's not like it's real money they're spending anyway.Â
@MarkKpic According to Schoolhouse Rock "I'm just a bill" most legislation doesn't get passed. I won't gripe about one additional silly bill.
Playanekes isn't gonna like this one bit.  He'll be madder than he was when milli vanilli broke up.
@trololo Blame it on the rain!
"Blame it on the rain (rain)
Blame it on the stars (stars)
Whatever you do don't put the blame on you
Blame it on the rain yeah yeah
You can blame it on the rain"
Why don't they focus on enforcing the current laws? It is illegal to lie on a background check form yet in 2012 around 78,000 people were turned down....we prosecuted 14 of them. If we don't enforce current laws, what good are new laws? I recommend people to educate themselves on the North Hollywood shootout and the background of the criminals that were involved. Arrested a year or so before the shootout, guns confiscated initially but then given back to the criminals after getting out of jail. These are not the people the NRA is representing...its you average citizen like myself that enjoys the freedoms this country has to offer.
@JimmyWally Why don't they focus like a freaking laser beam on the budget?
There's 535 members in the US Congress. It would be flat-out amazing if they actually got together and collectively worked towards something that;
A) had a snowballs chance in hades of becoming law, and
B) Actually did something about a real problem that faces this country.
...but, there I go again trying to insert rational thought into government operations. As my daughter would say, "silly Daddy"
@MarkKpic @JimmyWally The budget doesn't kill people. Guns do.
@JimmyWally Guns to cancer comparison speaks volumes.
@JimmyWally Though a dead economy kills people.
It doesn't kill people, just economies and countries.Â
Oh...and cars, cancer, diabetes, and alcohol also kill people (each one killed more people than homicide by gun last year...guns actually didn't kill people, but people with guns did). Cancer killed 50 times more people than guns last year...lets outlaw cancer.
This comment has been deleted
@Dr. Rawdog @JimmyWally Which is why the biggest corporate donor, MidwayUSA, only donated a new record of $1M last year to there $230M total revenue? Or how total corporate donors account for between $20-60M (depending on the year) of that total?
Yup, they couldn't ever possibly receive the overwhelming majority of their money from individuals who want to be represented, ~$100M in dues, and the remainder from individuals donating.
@Dr. Rawdog Why do you think anyone cares? Cool they get money when I buy guns, Sweet. Still don't care.
@Dr. Rawdog LOL I'm glad you think so!
@Dr. Rawdog Cool........They're trying to protect their business. Whats your point?
@Dr. Rawdog Your citation has now reached 20-30%%, not >50%%.
@Dr. Rawdog You can't lambaste them as being evil when all they are doing is supplying what the people want. If people didn't want these things, the companies and NRA wouldn't exist.
Oh, and the corporate funding is still quite minor.
@Dr. Rawdog @JimmyWally So yes, add in advertising and you get to tack on another 10%% to both ends of the range, so now 20-30%%.
As for supply-demand, yes, ding-ding-ding, we have a winner! If consumers didn't want ARs they wouldn't buy them, and manufacturers wouldn't make them (there really are much cheaper and easier things to make!).
Concealed carry pistols are another, even more perfect example of supply and demand. For the longest time they just weren't popular at all, resulting in only a couple of manufacturers and designs. Fast forward to today and there are more designs and manufacturers than you can shake a stick at because of the demand. Most interestingly I think is Ruger's latest design, the LC380, which by going against all "traditional gun guy" wisdom fills a much needed niche which should appeal to a whole lot of people. If people appreciate its niche they'll buy it, if not you'll see Ruger drop the model in a year or two.
@Dr. Rawdog @JimmyWally Except:
1.) half isn't from the industry (only ~10-20%)
2.) the industry gets it from consumers buying the product.
Exactly...those manufacturers clearly state that they donate a portion of the sale to the NRA. So if you don't support the NRA then don't buy that product...the great thing about a free country. ...and Dr. Rawdog, your facts did cement the arguement that ChrisJ82 was making that a significant portion of there money comes from dues each year....the fact that it isn't quite a majority is minor. Either way those companies are taking revenue from gun owners that purchase their items, so at least it's better than a union which forces dues and donates them to whomever the union supports...no choice if you wish to work in whatever job requires the union (although again it's a free country)..
@ChrisJ82 You still have failed to upset me. Not even close, really. Oh and I'm still a libertarian, not only that but I'm a Libertarian libertarian. I know that upset you in the past, but I'm sure we can move on. Well I can, nah what's the point, let's stay here and debate my level of "upset".
@JTesla If you want to get yourself worked up and upset over my opinion by all means go ahead.
@ChrisJ82 Ahh but you didn't just offer facts, you offered opinion with those facts. Opinion that should have been directed to the person who posted the article, not to the one who pointed out that you overlooked mention of dues.
I must really chap your hide something fierce.
@JTesla Umm, responding to my adding additional facts with, "Why are you replying to me?" sure looks petty. There's no opportunity here to make yourself into the victim.
@ChrisJ82 Talk about petty, I was pointing out that I offered simple facts. I did so without attaching opinions to those facts or attaching opinions of you.
You seem to still have a problem with me, you've been coming at me pretty strong ever since I said I was a libertarian. I get it, you don't like me, that's fine. You can't stand that I define myself as a libertairan, get over it because that is something you can't control. If it is something else, then by all means throw it out there because having you riding my jock is not what I consider to be entertainment.
.
@JTesla Why am I replying to you? Jeeze, getting testy/petty now are we? I was adding context to what "not half" really is.
@ChrisJ82 Why are you replying to me? You said "Curiously neither you nor your source mention the dues" and I pointed out where the source said "less than half of the NRA's revenues come from program fees and membership dues"
Pretty straight forward if you ask me.Â
@TreeWizard @JTesla As percentages it's still not a huge deal.
@Dr. Rawdog Don't buy a Taurus if you don't want to support the NRA, it's really that simple. Then again, it's still the end user's money going to the NRA, and they are still voluntarily buying the product.
@ChrisJ82 @JTesla 10 million dollars is a huge deal. That is more than I pretended to make last year.
@JTesla Yes, $103M is less than the $113M required to be half, not exactly a big difference, and anything but a big deal.
@trololol @JTesla Facts are subjective to ones perspective.Â
@JTesla Don't bother ChrisJ82 with those pesky facts.
@Sundowner @TreeWizard @JTesla haha, I am not trolling. I have seen the error in my ways. Guns are Bad.
@TreeWizard @JTesla I just figured if you wanted to troll by saying "guns should be banned", you'd want to hang out where he's been trying to troll me this morning.  I didn't bite his wormy bait.  Well, except twice.  =)Â
@Sundowner @TreeWizard @JTesla Oh, that makes sense.
@TreeWizard @JTesla lee's over on the grandparents/strangled story.
@JTesla I support gun manufactures ipso facto I support the NRA; however, guns should be banned.
@ChrisJ82 From the fifth paragraph down "
"While that is still part of the organization's core function, today less than half of the NRA's revenues come from program fees and membership dues."
@Dr. Rawdog Except you copied the hardest hitting facts from your source. Which you might notice that they were in complete agreement with what I previously said. Curiously neither you nor your source mention the dues :-).
@Dr. Rawdog @ChrisJ82 @JimmyWally Yes, thank you for agreeing. An organization who gets half of its budget straight from dues, and by comparison only gets a small amount of its budget from corporate sponsors, works to protect the rights of those due paying members. Hurray!
@JimmyWally Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of background check denials are appealed and overturned. Those false reports jack up the numbers tremendously.
@ChrisJ82Â @JimmyWallyDo you have a source for the "overwhelming majority of background check denials are appealed and overturned" claim?
According to the FBI in 2010:
In 2010, 1.5% of the 10.4 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were denied by the FBI (approximately 73,000) or by state and local agencies (approximately 80,000).
In 2010, nearly 37,000 denials (24%) were appealed. More than 12,000 appeals (34%) resulted in reversal of the denial (table 6).
So of the 153,000 denials, only 24% were appealed and 7.8% (of the 153,000 denials) were overturned.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bcft10st.pdf
...so if the system is that full of bad info (assuming a majority of the 78K), how likely are we to catch people that shouldn't be approved but are. Maybe they should focus on making their database accurate.