Possibe legislature and time

[dont_tread_on_me]

What legislature do you think will come out of the tuscon tradegy? Also how long do you think it will take to take effect? I've heard things from high capacity bans to bringing back the assault weapon ban of 1994.

[SwissFluCase]

I am not seriously worried. You will see the usual suspects roll out some sort of gun control bill, but there will be no traction. What we need to worry about more is our forward progress.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

[dwh100]

I don't know about "legislature", but here is King's (R NY) proposed legislation:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47428.html

[the_quark]

I think we'll see a few things. Federally:

First, there will be some idiotic stuff that will make Representatives feel like Important People. I'd say the 1k foot ban around them would be the most extreme example of this (and if it passes, it'll lose in court). But, mostly, it'll be stuff like extra funding for security details.

Next, some anti-gun folks will introduce things they think may have some traction, like large-capacity magazine manufacturing bans. These will fail. N.B.: In June you'll be getting chain emails about H.R. 1234 to implement Obama's plan to ban the manufacture of large-capacity magazines, and/or assault weapons!

Here in California, someone will introduce a bill banning the possession of large-capacity magazines. This will also fail (but only because of the "takings" issue). N.B.: In July you'll see thread after thread about S.B. 42 that would outlaw the possession of large-capacity magazines!

The only real effect I'm worried about is no longer having the wind at our backs. It's possible some craven members of Congress will use this as an excuse not to (e.g.) extend national CCW reciprocity. But, we'll see. This may blow over, as well. The first polls are looking good - and we know that's all most Congresspeople really care about.

[dantodd]

Some legislators have already said they well dust off their CCWs while at home. It would seen more likely they would extend their capability to defends themselves rather than limit it while in D.C. Reportedly Giffords had a CCW and liked tupperware. If she makes a good recovery she might be very strong voice even her Dem colleagues won't be able to ignore.

ETA: link to article: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47316.html

[jdogg2000]

I, too, was a little concerned about the legislative repercussions of this scumbag's terrible act. According to this article, perhaps we don't have too much to worry about?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/11/new-gun-control-legislation-in-congress-unlikely/?hpt=Sbin

New gun control legislation in Congress unlikely
By: CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash
Washington (CNN) - Accused gunman Jared Lee Loughner opened fire with a gun using a magazine holding up to 30 bullets before he was tackled while trying to reload.
Some Democrats in Congress argue such high capacity magazines should not be legal, and are renewing their push for a ban.
"That enabled him to do the kind of damage that he did. There is no earthly reason for these weapons to have that kind of bullet capacity," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey.
In 1994, President Clinton signed an assault weapons ban that made high capacity ammunition magazines like the one Loughner allegedly used illegal. But the ban lapsed in 2004 without much of a fight.
Senior Democrats who had been front and center pushing gun control in the 1980s and 90s concluded it was bad politics.
In the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore campaigned aggressively for what he called "common sense gun safety measures."
After Gore lost his home state of Tennessee and West Virginia, Democratic strategists argued they were forfeiting critical votes in rural America by advocating stricter gun laws; many Democrats are still wary of the issue.
"Gun control is probably not a winning issue," said Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who is known as a liberal, but supports gun rights.
That's why even in the Senate, where Democrats still have control, senior Democratic sources say gun control legislation is not likely to go anywhere.
"We're going to focus on fights we can win," said one senior Democratic source
...."

[edwardm]

I, too, was a little concerned about the legislative repercussions of this scumbag's terrible act. According to this article, perhaps we don't have too much to worry about?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...kely/?hpt=Sbin

Maybe, maybe not. We have to be vigilant. Legislation is the obvious way to hurt us, but there are other, more subtle ways. Agency rulemaking, changes to regulations, executive orders, agency/department appointments, staffing changes and so on.

[uyoga]

In the Senate, as long as Harry Reid continues to be pro-Second Amendment, I suspect very little legislation will be adverse to gun rights.

[SwissFluCase]

Maybe, maybe not. We have to be vigilant. Legislation is the obvious way to hurt us, but there are other, more subtle ways. Agency rulemaking, changes to regulations, executive orders, agency/department appointments, staffing changes and so on.

Vigilance is key. The lack of gun control coming out of Congress will free up resources for other battles. It doesn't mean we don't have to do anything.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

[command_liner]

Although the California Assembly, Senate and Governor's office seems quite content
to ignore the California Constitution, please realize we are -- again -- in the count-down
period to when the Assembly and Senate will be prevented from acting on non-budget
items.

The Proclaimed Fiscal Emergency declared by the outgoing Governor will be closing
the door on the Assembly at the end of this month. There will be no gun legislation,
or any other non-budget legislation, until the budget is resolved.

For this reason it is very important for all those pending federal rulings to happen
after the first of February. There is no provision in the California Constitution
to have a "civil rights emergency" override the current proclaimed Fiscal Emergency.
If a Federal judge strikes down California law, and all of us peons get our fundamental,
enumerated civil rights back, the Assembly will be prohibited from making quick law
to again violate those rights.

Imagine the panic if Sacramento if people again have all their Constitutionally
protected rights! There will be shrieks, moans, and whining.

[the_quark]

In the Senate, as long as Harry Reid continues to be pro-Second Amendment, I suspect very little legislation will be adverse to gun rights.

Well, good thing the NRA did everything they could to keep him on our side!