Harry Reid Drops Scary Looking Gun Ban From Anti-Gun Legislation

You could almost see this coming. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) is a fan of guns, and also knows that legislation like an assault weapons ban could seriously damage the Dems chances for the 2014 mid-terms for Senate races. And, really, how often did you hear him discuss the ban? Beuller?

(Politico) Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on Monday that a controversial assault weapons ban will not be part of a Democratic gun bill that was expected to reach the Senate floor next month.

After a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday, a frustrated Feinstein said she learned that the bill she sponsored — which bans 157 different models of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines — wouldn’t be part of a Democratic gun bill to be offered on the Senate floor. Instead, it can be offered as an amendment. But its exclusion from the package makes what was already an uphill battle an almost certain defeat.

The ban is supported by more than a dozen Senate Democrats and the White House, as well as gun-control groups.

In fact, S.150 is supported by only 21 other Senate Democrats, none of them named Harry Reid, which is a pretty low number considering how quickly Democrats attempted to use the Sandy Hook tragedy to assault 2nd Amendment Rights. Reid also knows that the Some Scary Looking Guns bill will most likely not make it past a filibuster.

Aside from the ban, three other major pieces of gun legislation have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee: a gun trafficking bill, a Democrats-only background checks measure and a proposal to increase school safety.

The gun trafficking bill should pass. The background check measure will most likely not be part of the bill brought to the floor, since it is will probably receive no support from Republicans, as it goes very, very far, particularly in retaining people’s information. And there’s a big danger in making the mental health information of citizens readily available to The Government.

Anyhow, we’ll see if DiFi brings her big and complicated scary guns legislation to the floor. It goes after not just the guns you expect, but bolt action and single shot rifles, competition rifles, and lots of shotguns.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Harry Reid Drops Scary Looking Gun Ban From Anti-Gun Legislation”

  1. Poco says:

    The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm people in order to prevent future tyranny. They need the tools to do this.

    The term “Well Regulated” in the Second Amendment meant “Well Manned and Equipped ” in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time.

    United States v. Miller also determined that the term “Arms” refers to “Ordinary Military Weapons” (not crew operated). American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. A Militia consisted of armed volunteers willing to fight with their personal arms and not under government control.

    The 2008 Heller v. Washington DC decision reaffirmed that the Right to Bear Arms was an Individual right. The 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision reaffirmed it yet again and made it clear that it applies to every state, every city and every town in the United States.

    To limit the Second Amendment to muskets would be the equivalent of limiting the First Amendment to writings in quill pens.

    Liberty is worth the risk of death!

  2. Gumball_Brains says:

    The gun trafficking bill should pass.

    I agree, it should pass. That way we can make trafficking of guns illegal.

    Oh.. it is already?


  3. gitarcarver says:


    Looking at the Miller case may not be the best thing. First, the case was argued without any opposition. The court only heard arguments from the government. Miller, the plaintiff, had passed away so over turning the lower court’s rulimg had no practical value as Miller was not going to be retried.

    Secondly, while the court did say citizens could possess military weapons, the court found the prohibition on the sawed off shotgun Miller was arrested for having was legal. This despite the case being tried after the sawed off shotgun was used extensively in WWI in trench warfare.

    Miller is one of the more perplexing cases in the history of the court says one thing, but orders another.

  4. The Miller Case is essential because it pinned down the meaning of the word “Arms” to mean Ordinary Military Equipment… and it pinned down the words “Well Regulated” to mean Well Manned and Well equipped… rather then government controlled.

    Miller did lose the case, but that is only because it was not proven at the time that a short barrel shotgun was used my the military. This does leave the door wide open that a Full Auto M-16 is protected by the Second Amendment.

    The Heller Case after that pinned down the Second Amendment to be an Individual Right and the McDonald case pinned down that the Second Amendment applies to all States and Cities.

    So there is a steady progression that builds up starting with the Miller Case leading up to the McDonald case.

  5. gumball_brains says:

    Any weapon that is allowed to be used by the military and government forces, are open for 2nd amendment protection. Damned socialists get in the way of the Constitution.

    And, it is hard to argue that automatic weapons need to be banned, when millions of people currently own automatics. how often do you hear on the news that an automatic machine gun was used in a violent act?

    Now, if they want to ease back in to ownership by having background checks before purchasing an automatic, that’ll be fine.

  6. They could not outright ban Full Auto Rifles because they were protected by the Second Amendment… So they were sneaky about it an prohibited their manufacture for the civilian market.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6103 access attempts in the last 7 days.