Assault weapons ban clears first Senate hurdle, but its future faces tough odds

CBS/iStockphoto

A bill banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazine clips has cleared the first hurdle toward congressional passage, gaining approval in the Senate Judiciary Committee even while its broader future is unclear.

The bill, a key component of the Obama administration's comprehensive legislative and executive package aimed at reducing gun violence in America, passed through the committee despite a heated exchange between Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and freshman Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex. It now heads to the full Senate for debate and, potentially, a vote. If successful there, the legislation will make its way to the House of Representatives.

• Gun control fight entering final round in Senate
• Assault weapons ban being readied for Senate action

It's unlikely Democrats will be able to secure a vote in the Senate, however, given the 60-vote threshold needed to prevent a filibuster. The assault weapons ban is controversial even among some Democrats, and no Senate Republicans have expressed any intent to support it.

In the aftermath of the shootings last December in Newtown, Conn. - which inspired President Obama to make a hard push for tougher gun laws - some Republicans have shown flexibility on certain gun control issues, and at least one piece of legislation has begun to make its way through the Senate. Last week, a bill making gun trafficking a federal crime, made its way out of committee with the support of a Republican co-sponsor.

But the assault weapons ban legislation, which is a harder sell among Republicans and some Democrats, is considered a critical piece of the president's package, in part because it includes the high-capacity magazine limit, a key component of the president's plan. Many gun safety advocates argue that banning high-capacity magazine clips is among the most surefire way to prevent shooters from killing dozens of people within minutes.

It's possible that Senate Democrats will strip the assault weapons ban of that provision in order to spare it in the wake of the larger bill's likely failure. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., could also choose to bring up an alternate assault weapons ban bill that does not include the provision covering high-capacity magazine clips.

[JoseofTexas]

The two decisive issues in the 2016 election will be guns and marijuana. The economy will be in shambles but no one will care enough to make it the deciding issue. The Iraqi war will have spiked up proving it was futile, and abortion will be important but not decisive.

[vaoldman2]

I am not the author of this but found it holds a lot of truth.

First they came for the mail-order guns,
and I didn't speak out because I prefer to buy locally.

Then they came for the cheap Saturday Night Specials,
and I didn't speak out because I can afford more expensive guns.

Then they came for the scary-looking black guns with big magazines,
and I didn't speak out because I don't feel a need for scary-looking black guns with big magazines.

Then they came for the scope-sighted "sniper rifles",
and I didn't speak out because I'm not a hunter.

Then they came for my guns,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

[sandiegopete]

This bill will be filibustered in the Senate. The gun and ammo industry knows that a dollar spent on ammunition by a person with criminal intent spends just as well as a dollar spent by a person without criminal intent. Assault rifles with high capacity magazines encourage increased ammo usage and whether that ammo is used for target practice or to kill children the profits thus derived are the same. To many Senators more important than human life is the money they get from the gun and ammo manufacturers.

[harv823]

NRA= Noxious Rifle Addicts

[JoseofTexas]

HARV = hillbillies against reason and vigilence.

[jefinLa]

Man,I love this...If you don't like guns move to N.Korea,or Iran...Oh I,m sorry...they do have guns,If your in the gov't militia...who control every move you make ..where and when you eat,sleep,and who you can talk too...I love this.

[Rocket_USA]

In the study that Obama, Biden, MAIG and so on cite as gospel 72% of criminals came into posession of their gun by straw buyer (who passed a background check) or theft. 17% obtained them from family. How will making backround checks manditory change this 93% of criminals that are already breaking the law??? Instead of common sense, this discussion should be labled Insanity. You know, doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

[Rocket_USA]

Actually I do because I to know that you don't look to invest in something that has a marginal rate of return on the 7% but rather focus on the exponential gains and impact to be had in the 93%.

2% of people that lied on background checks have been prosecuted. If that is the margin you want to win the war on gun crime you will be as successful as the war on drugs. I have every confidence that it is you plan.

placet cuique suum

[timtlc2]

Right out of George Orwell's Animal Farm - "Comrades!" Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole managment and organisation of the farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we failed in our duty? "

Feinstein is the Pig in Animal Farm! BS - not for my welfare - what a crock! She has armed protection and when she felt threatened she carried a 38 revolver. Animal Farm: "We are all equal, but some of us are more equal than others"

[1history]

Those who insist on continuing the right to keep and bear arms are paranoid. Those who can't even be in the same room with a gun without paranoid chills going up their spineless backs are not. It doesn't have to make sense if it's politically correct. Simple questions like "Are you going to disarm the street gangs before you come after mine?" mean nothing to someone who doesn't know enough about guns to make rational decisions. Symbolism over substance is all that counts.

[timtlc2]

No not paranoid. Realistic. You live in a fantasy world. Or is your note sarcasm? I don't care if you want to be armed or not. But don't tell me I can't be. It is my God given right recognized by the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. I live in a pretty safe neighborhood, but last year a few blocks away there was a drive by shooting. When I was young living in LA the gang members down the street had two drive by shootings at their house (one brother was shot in the arm). Vietnamese gangs recently did armed house break ins hear in SD and ransacked the house and beat the owners. Their neighbor ajoins mine. You are silly if you don't think the idea that a home owner may have a firearm keeps criminals at bay. They have said so in prison interviews. That is why there is lower crime rate in AZ than CA.

I work at a nuclear plant as part of my job and I have never felt so secure with guards all around with AR 15's & 9mm Glocks. I know I am safe. Your right, You Don't Know Enough About Guns to even Comment Intelligently.

[harv823]

Justice Scalia wrote that the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. This means that, yes, guns can be regulated.

[timtlc2]

Scalia's decision also said guns in "common use" cannot be banned in Heller. Sorry AR's have been in common use for about 30 years and there are millions of them that have been legally purchased.

[The_Bad_Ranger_Rides_Away]

I am an American citizen who fought and bled for this country. I will not be disarmed, ...... EVER. I will not bow to this government that I pay for. I am willing to fight for my rights. You can count on that.