Gun Control Measure Faces Uphill Battle

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday formally unveiled a bill to ban the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines like the ones used by alleged Tucson shooter Jared Loughner.

The bill would mandate that clips sold in the United States allow for at most ten rounds. The clip allegedly used by Loughner, which became legal when Congress allowed the assault weapons ban to expire in 2004, could hold up to 33 rounds.

Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey plans to introduce the bill, which would not ban the possession of high-capacity clips purchased before passage of a ban, in the Senate.

(At left: A YouTube video of a man shooting a Glock 19 with a 33-round high-capacity clip.)

"How many people have to die because of these clips?" McCarthy asked in introducing the bill Tuesday. A longtime advocate of stronger gun control laws, McCarthy ran for Congress following the 1993 shooting of her husband and son on the Long Island Railroad. Her husband was killed in the attack.

McCarthy said at the unveiling that such clips are "not needed in our society," while Rep. Jim Moran, a Virginia Democrat, deemed the proposal "extremely moderate." Yet as Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, noted at the hearing, no Republicans have come out in favor of the bill. And it cannot get through the GOP-led House without at least some Republican support.

The alleged gunman who shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 19 other people, killing six, used a Glock 19 9mm semi-automatic pistol.

/ AP

A CBS News poll last week found that Americans are split on whether to strengthen gun control laws in general. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll found, however, that 57 percent support a nationwide ban on high-capacity clips.

Yet that support may well not translate into support on Capitol Hill, in large part because of the power of the gun lobby and the National Rifle Association, which has successfully pushed rollbacks on back many gun control measures in recent years.

The Center for Responsive Politics found that gun rights groups spent $3.9 million and employed 49 lobbyists during the first nine months of 2010. Gun control advocates, meanwhile, spent just $180,000 and employed nine lobbyists.

The Center for Public Integrity, meanwhile, found that MidwayUSA, which sells the high capacity clips, has raised more than $5 million for the NRA's lobbying efforts.

In a statement last week, the NRA's lobbying arm opposed a ban on high-capacity clips, as well as other new gun control measures.

"These magazines are standard equipment for self-defense handguns and other firearms owned by tens of millions of Americans," the group said. "Law-abiding private citizens choose them for many reasons, including the same reason police officers do: to improve their odds in defensive situations."

[aldolaghi]

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington quote
guns is why America is the land of the free and Europe is the land of the slave

[RobAla]

The problem is not the guns, the clips, the huge knives used in Africa to kill thousands, or any other object. The problem is with the hands that these objects are in. The people are the problem. We need to protect responsible people from those who aren't.

[praharin]

So, what you're saying is that we need to ban people's hands. That seems more reasonable. Without hands, you couldn't even have fist fights. I'll write my Congressmen.

[Rob459]

"The clip allegedly used by Loughner, which became legal when Congress allowed the assault weapons ban to expire in 2004, could hold up to 33 rounds."

Why won't the media stop spreading this lie? These magazines have never been illegal. The so-called "ban" only disallowed manufacture, not possession, use, sale, or even import (if the magazines weren't date stamped, which most foreign magazines aren't). There were, and are, literally billions of large capacity magazines legally owned and used in the US. They also cannot be tracked, traced, or registered, because they do not carry serial numbers or other identifying marks, so this law would be unenforceable even if it weren't otherwise stupid and worthless.

Also, even if a complete ban had been in place for decades, there is no indication whatsoever that it would have helped in the Tucson shooting. While the shooter was tackled while reloading, it was only because he had a difficult time properly loading the extended magazine, which was not originally designed to be used in the Glock 19, though it will fit. Had he been using the more easily handled and more reliable magazines designed for the gun he had, he would probably have been able to load quickly and effectively, and continued shooting for an extended period, causing even more casualties than he did. Or he could have just brought his other gun along as well so that he wouldn't have to stop shooting to reload. This law would do absolutely nothing to stop this exact same kind of incident from happening again. All it is is an attempt to legitimize the concept of gun control by exploiting the ignorance of the public and the suffering of the victims.

[Bandofotters]

I wonder if the 57 percent who support a nationwide ban on high-capacity magazines realize that the law being proposed also bans the standard magazine of just about every 9MM full-sized or compact pistol sold today. Where the proposed ban would limit the number of rounds to 10 and the standard sidearm of the U.S. military is 15 rounds, I doubt that the bill would pass Constitutional muster with the Heller & McDonald decisions.

I've read scores of reports regarding McCarthy's proposed legislation and every single one refers to magazines as clips. This article was the first to use both terms as if they were interchangeable. Why would that be? Is she as ignorant about the difference between a clip and a magazine as she proved to be with respect to her lack of knowledge of a barrel shroud? That video is priceless and available on youtube yet she still has credibility?

[noloyalisti]

Just do what they do in Canada: 1) firearm must be registered and the owner certified, 2) the owner must have safety training course, 3) the buyer must have a signed permission letter from their spouse or ex-spouse, 4) there is a 30 day waiting period to buy one, 5) certain weapons like the Glock with 30 round clips are illegal.

[wyodutch]

While our Founding Fathers were bleeding and dieing to free themselves and their posterity from British rule... the residents of what is now 'Canada' were bowing to the British King.

Enough about what works in Canada.