HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Pelosi says House will co...

Wed Jun 1, 2022, 08:56 PM

Pelosi says House will consider assault weapons ban legislation

Source: CNN


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said next week she will bring forward legislation to ban military-style assault weapons, as the chamber moves to address gun violence.

She said "we will be having a hearing and marking up the assault weapon ban" as soon as the House addresses several pieces of legislation, including the package the House Judiciary Committee will mark up on Thursday.

Speaking at a rally against gun violence in San Francisco, Pelosi said, "We just are trying to hit it in every possible way," to try and curb mass shootings across the country.

The package being considered by the Judiciary Committee, known as the "Protecting our Kids Act," would likely pass the House but wouldn't overcome a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate.

The Senate's discussions revolve around less restrictive gun measures than the House Judiciary Committee's bill, including strengthening background checks and incentivizing mental health initiatives.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/politics/pelosi-assault-weapons-ban-legislation/index.html



Let's get ON IT!

33 replies, 2020 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 33 replies Author Time Post
Reply Pelosi says House will consider assault weapons ban legislation (Original post)
TeamProg Jun 2022 OP
J_William_Ryan Jun 2022 #1
TeamProg Jun 2022 #2
captain queeg Jun 2022 #4
BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #10
hack89 Jun 2022 #12
BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #14
sl8 Jun 2022 #16
BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #20
sl8 Jun 2022 #21
BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #23
sl8 Jun 2022 #24
BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #25
sl8 Jun 2022 #26
BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #27
sl8 Jun 2022 #28
BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #29
sl8 Jun 2022 #31
BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #32
Kaleva Jun 2022 #18
BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #9
sl8 Jun 2022 #17
BumRushDaShow Jun 2022 #19
sl8 Jun 2022 #22
LiberatedUSA Jun 2022 #3
TeamProg Jun 2022 #5
keithbvadu2 Jun 2022 #6
TeamProg Jun 2022 #7
PSPS Jun 2022 #8
Roy Rolling Jun 2022 #11
Novara Jun 2022 #30
hack89 Jun 2022 #13
twodogsbarking Jun 2022 #15
BWdem4life Jun 2022 #33

Response to TeamProg (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2022, 09:08 PM

1. "...to ban military-style assault weapons..."

Which will never pass in the Senate.

And if signed into law, will be struck down by the Supreme Court.

It’s time to focus on solutions that don’t involve the regulation of firearms, such as UBCs and ‘red flag’ laws.

And holding Republicans’ feet to the fire to expand Medicaid in all 50 states, if conservatives are serious about ensuring citizens have access to affordable mental healthcare.

Calling for a Federal AWB plays only into the hands of Republicans, allowing the right to lie about Democrats being ‘extreme,’ ‘tyrannical,’ and ‘anti-Second Amendment.’

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to J_William_Ryan (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 1, 2022, 09:12 PM

2. We had a ban from 1994 - 2004, and it lessened gun violence.


Congress let it expire. What a bloody mistake.


The 10-year ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on August 25, 1994 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994.[1] The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision. Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by the courts. There were multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none succeeded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamProg (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 1, 2022, 09:24 PM

4. I remember that. The main thing was it limited high capacity magazines.

At least that seemed to be the main thing. You could still buy guns that were essentially the same, more of a limit to styles and I think 10 shot magazines were the limit. It did help. Once the gun nuts could buy whatever they wanted there was a huge increase in military style weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to captain queeg (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 04:04 AM

10. It did a helluva lot more than that

See just below what I posted here (which includes the text of AWB portion and almost 4 pages full of actual banned weapons) - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2924901

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #10)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 06:00 AM

12. But you could still buy AR-15 style rifles

yes it banned rifles by name - the manufacturers simply removed the banned features and changed the name.

Sale of new AR-15s in the USA was banned by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994 to 2004. Colt and others continued to sell legally compliant versions during that period.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_AR-15

The gun Adam Lanza took into Sandy Hook would have been perfectly legal under the federal AWB. It was also legal under CT's more stringent AWB which was based on the federal AWB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #12)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 06:58 AM

14. Remember that legislation was devised back in 1993

NOT 2022.

It was the first attempt to get a handle on the problem and get "most" (but obviously not "all" ) out of circulation.

There were no "3-D" printers back then nor some of the current ways to mod the weapons to get around the rules.

Hell, the "ghost gun" thing is primarily a result of "kits" with "parts", where the parts themselves aren't considered "a weapon", but can be assembled (often with the help of a 3-D printer to make any additional ancillary pieces to complete the construction) to become a functioning firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #10)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 07:57 AM

16. Those 4 pages list firearms *exempted* from the ban, not banned firearms. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 08:38 AM

20. ONLY exempted because they had been manufactured on or BEFORE the effective date of the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #20)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 09:02 AM

21. No, they were exempted going forward.

Existing firearms that would meet the criteria to be banned were grandfathered in, perhaps that's what you're thinking of.

The 650 (?) firearms listed here were exempt, exempt, exempt, regardless of when they were manufactured.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Reply #21)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 09:11 AM

23. This is what I'm looking at

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #23)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 09:26 AM

24. Right, the ban does not apply to Appendix A firearms.

The Ruger No. 1, a single shot rifle, is listed on the exempt list.

The "as manfactured" part would prevent Ruger from naming a new, semi-auto rifle "No. 1" in order to qualifiy under this section.

Here's an article where Feinstein comments on this, the watered down version of her original bill (note the date as compared to the CR entries)

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-11-09-mn-54844-story.html


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Reply #24)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 09:44 AM

25. Paywall article

but I actually went down the rabbit hole with this, which is how I got the PDF to get the snapshot images of the actual amendment text from the Congressional Record since I couldn't find it anywhere else "published online" (at least in text format including what was at congress.gov as the actual Amendment 1152).

But that section I highlighted had bullet items of (A), (B), (C), etc., and it wasn't all "bolt action" or whatever weapons. They categorize the different types but some were those with a date of manufacture that exempted them.

And yeah I know she complained it was "watered down" AND had to include a sunset provision (which ended up being the only way to even get it enacted somewhere because it was going nowhere as a standalone). When I saw the sunset, I was looking to see if it was something that was associated with passage via reconciliation because those tend to have a 10-year sunset but nope, it was something forced in there. And that got some key GOP votes to allow the amendment to pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #25)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 10:39 AM

26. I'm not sure what else to say.

Last edited Thu Jun 2, 2022, 11:39 AM - Edit history (1)

I wasn't suggesting that all the firearms on the list were bolt actions, but the fact that the list contains bolt actions, single shots, over/under shotguns, etc., would suggest that it's not the list of firearms to be banned. There was a (much shorter) list of firearms to be banned, by name.


Here's an excerpt from the LA times article:

[...]

To limit the availability of such weapons, Feinstein sought to forge a compromise between separate proposals offered by retiring Sens. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) and Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio).

Feinstein dropped language from the Metzenbaum bill that would give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms authority to ban future assault weapons. To accommodate hunting and recreation enthusiasts, she exempted a 14-page list of 650 rifles and shotguns. She also inserted a 10-year sunset clause to satisfy critics who say that the bill would have no impact on crime. If a federal study proves the ban on assault rifles ineffective, the legislation would expire after a decade.

The legislation does not address the current possession of an estimated 1 million assault rifles nationwide.

“Essentially what this legislation does is (create) a freeze,” Feinstein said in an interview. “It’s not more, it’s not less. It would say you cannot manufacture these assault weapons, you cannot sell them and you cannot possess them in the future. It does not in itself take any off the streets. I don’t want to kid anybody.”

[...]



I'm not sure if it's what you're looking for, but here's a pdf of the Act:
https://www.congress.gov/103/statute/STATUTE-108/STATUTE-108-Pg1796.pdf


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Reply #26)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 11:11 AM

27. I have a PDF of the Act

I had been trying to find the literal "text version" of the Act or better, the text version of the included Amendment (would have made it easier to copy/paste) because congress.gov only referenced the Act "text" as being "available as a PDF" - https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355/text

There was a fascinating article that I had read that had been written (I think contemporaneous to this happening) that I have been trying to find again and it sortof had some "behind the scenes" narratives about the maneuvering and negotiating to get enough GOP votes. There were 3 things going on in 1993 & 1994 and that LA Times article (based on the date) was about the 1993 standalone Feinstein bill (thing #1) being worked on when the Brady Bill dealing with handguns (thing #2) was eventually passed and signed into law in Nov. 1993. The result of the "watering down" was what ended up as Amendment 1152 that was added to the 1994 "Crime Bill" that finally passed almost a year later (thing #3).

(sorry have been up and down to/from the basement washing clothes )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to sl8 (Reply #28)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 11:43 AM

29. Yeah been there but it didn't have the complete contents of Appendix A like the PDF

but did link to one of my fave reference sites -Cornell Law...

TITLE XI--FIREARMS

Subtitle A--Assault Weapons

Sec. 110101. Short title.

Sec. 110102. Restriction on manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons.

Sec. 110103. Ban of large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Sec. 110104. Study by Attorney General.

Sec. 110105. Effective date.

Sec. 110106. Appendix A to section 922 of title 18.


(and the "Sec. 110106" in that just has some section titles)

ETA - thank you for trying anyway!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #29)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 12:10 PM

31. No worries.

I just read through Appendix A - it's basically a list of all available sporting firearms, excluding certain infamous semi-autos. Want a single shot shotgun? It's in Appendix A. Want a lever action .30-30? It's in Appendix A.

I see 2 long arms in Appendix A that I bought in the the late 90s. One was a slide action .30-06, one was a bolt .22 RF.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Reply #31)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 12:24 PM

32. "One was a slide action .30-06"

My father (WW2 vet) and grandfather (WW1 vet) hunted elk and went fly-fishing (I still have my dad's bamboo pole) in upstate PA. As a kid I remember we had a subscription to "Field and Stream". My dad had a rifle that my mother would describe as a ".30-06" (and would literally pronounce it "thirty ought-six" ) which was in his closet. When he died, she gave it to one of her uncles.

So I do "get" hunting rifles but anything that basically attempts to mimic a "machine gun" (that term in quotes) is a weapon of war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to captain queeg (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 08:20 AM

18. High capacity magazines made overseas before the ban went into effect were legal to import

And there were millions of those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamProg (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 04:00 AM

9. Had posted the details of that noting the AWB was a Feinstein amendment rolled into the "Crime Bill"

Also noted this - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=739097

I had to really dig through the legislation but found her original bill language and also found the transcript of the Congressional record where she had made remarks and then the actual content of her bill was included (under "Feinstein (and others) Amendment No. 1152" ) into that record transcript - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16725309

The qualifying weapons were literally listed!











And consolidating with stuff posted here - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16725309

If anyone remembers what it took for James Brady to get something done after he and his party's gawd Raygun, were shot - i.e., from 1981 to 1993 before something was finally passed and signed into law in 1993 (H.R.1025 - Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act), then you can imagine trying to do the same now.

The following year, the controversial "Crime Bill" (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) was passed, which included a 10-year assault weapon ban, the text of which (PDF, see pgs. 28317 - 28321) was incorporated into that package (vs being separate legislation), which was to be sunsetted in 2004, and was never renewed after that.

As a note as I was going through the text of the debate transcript for Feinstein's Assault Weapons Ban Amendment, I saw where she had an exchange with gun-humper and "footsie-in-the-bathroom" Larry Craig (and I think I remember this exchange being referenced quite a bit) -

Mr. CRAIG. All right.
For a few moments this evening let
us do some reality checking. The Sen-
ator from California, in her arguments
tonight I must say, was somewhat typi-
cal of those who study the issue for the
first time and then, in a very sincere
and honest way-and I do not question
that in any sense of the word-begin to
make statements that I think are im-
portant for the record, that we estab-
lish the true context.

(snip lots of bullshit gun-humper stuff)

So the Senator from California needs
to become a little more familiar with
firearms and their deadly characteris-
tics. I say that--
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator
yield for a point of personal privilege
for a moment, please?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes, certainly.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am quite familiar
with firearms. I became mayor as a
product of assassination.
Mr. CRAIG. I am aware of that.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. They found my as-
sassinated colleague and you could put
a finger through the bullet hole. I pro-
posed gun control legislation in San
Francisco. I went through a recall on
the basis of it. I was trained in the
shooting of a firearm when I had ter-
rorist attacks with a bomb at my
house when my husband was dying,
when I had windows shot out. Senator,
I know something about what firearms
can do.

(snip)

pg 28293 of this (PDF)


Back in March, Feinstein made remarks at a hearing regarding the need for renewing her AWB -




Senator Dianne Feinstein
@SenFeinstein
Military-style assault weapons have led to the deaths of far too many Americans. Las Vegas. Dayton. Orlando. San Bernardino. Parkland. Sandy Hook. And now, Boulder. It’s time to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban and get these weapons of war out of our communities.
12:01 PM · Mar 23, 2021


And as a note, Democrats lost control of the House at the conclusion of the 1994 election after 40 years of controlling that chamber, and finally regained it 12 years later in 2006. Then we lost it again in 2010 and again got it back in 2018.

(sorry to dump all this in a reply to you but I bookmark these threads as it's easier to get to the references )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 08:02 AM

17. That large list of firearms is of firearms specifically exempted from the ban.

There is a small list of firearms that are banned by name, which was fairly useless.

The large list, Appendix A, is a list of (650?) firearms specifically exempted from the ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Reply #17)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 08:36 AM

19. "Exempted" because they were manufactured ON (or before) the Oct. 1, 1993 effective date

but could no longer be manufactured AFTER that date. One of the purposes was to cease the manufacture of these.

I.e., they weren't going to do a "Canada-style" retroactive taking guns away thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #19)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 09:06 AM

22. Not true.

The exemption applies going forward.

Look at the list - do you think they were trying to ban the bolt action rifles listed?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamProg (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2022, 09:21 PM

3. Whatever they pass...

 

…while it will fail in the Senate, will let everyone know what the plan is, should Democratic legislators win in November and who is against it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberatedUSA (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 1, 2022, 09:31 PM

5. Dems have to show me, and the public, that they're serious about gun violence.

Otherwise, WHAT GOOD ARE THEY IF THEY CAN'T PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY ?!?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to keithbvadu2 (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 1, 2022, 10:34 PM

7. That's it! Brilliant!

And when they all go to prison for assault, they can turn schools into prisons.

GOP wins again! Yay!



(edit to add, can’t be too careful. )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamProg (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2022, 11:14 PM

8. Laudable, but she knows it's doomed. Senators representing 11% of the country can veto anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamProg (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 05:38 AM

11. I will call my worthless Congressman

In fact, I’ll call him every fucking day with a different support story and statistic. Get ready, DUers, flood the Congress with old-fashioned phone calls.

Unlike emails, they MUST deal with EVERY caller.

Morons, Republicans never saw this coming. They want a 1950s America? Reach out and touch them with a personal phone call. That’s who WE are—personal and genuine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roy Rolling (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 11:59 AM

30. It may seem futile, but CALL THEM

Remind them that they work for us. They do have to log every single phone call.

If nothing else, at least you can say you tried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamProg (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 06:03 AM

13. It will only end the sale of new rifles, not ban ownership

that power is left to the states. So it will not actually take guns off the street.

All federal gun control is based on the Commerce clause of the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamProg (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 07:30 AM

15. I don't think our current system of government is working.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamProg (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2022, 12:28 PM

33. How bout we stop considering things

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread