GOP, Dems Inch Toward Compromise on Magazine Limits
Once again we see the two political parties at their favorite game: Compromise. Forget honor, integrity, Principle, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, it is all about Compromise. The gun control extremists launch outrageous attacks on the Second Amendment, asking for almost total bans on every kind of gun and magazine. So-called staunch defenders of the 2nd Amendment cry out that they will never agree to such draconian infringements of the Rights of the citizens. But then the C-word makes its way into the debate. Slowly those so-called staunch advocates begin to cave in. They forget their principles. They forget their Oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. See them toppling, one by one. Harry Reid, Mark Warner, Angus King – Shorty Dawkins, Associate Editor
Monday, 18 Feb 2013 07:23 PM
An increasing number of lawmakers in both parties appear willing to compromise on high-capacity magazines, the one component of gun control legislation that seems palatable to Republicans who view a full ban on assault weapons as politically toxic.
The New York Times reports that there appears to be some willingness on both sides to limit the type of magazines that can hold 15 and 30 rounds that have been used in mass shootings like those in Newtown, Conn.; Tucson, Ariz.; and Aurora, Colo.
Lawmaker told the newspaper they see a distinct difference between limits on magazine sizes and a full ban, which would not gain enough support.
“I see them as separate,” said Sen. Angus King Jr., an independent from Maine. “It’s the difference between appearance and functionality. High-capacity magazines have contributed to a lot of these tragedies.”
Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader who has been a strong supporter of the National Rifle Association (NRA), remains staunchly opposed to an assault weapons ban. But even he has indicated a willingness to limit magazine sizes for civilian gun owners.
“I think it is something we ought to discuss,” he said.
Constitutional lawyers and some conservatives generally believe that limiting magazine size falls within the boundaries of recent Supreme Court decisions on gun rights.
Evidence suggests that a ban on magazine size would indeed reduce the number of those killed in mass shootings, largely because of the difficulty in changing clips, particularly among amateur gun users.
Senate Democrats up for re-election in states that generally support gun rights are among those most concerned, however. They worry the limits would erode the rights of law-abiding citizens.
“I’m ready to step off the status quo on guns,” said Sen. Mark R. Warner, D-Va. “But I’ve got to work this one through in my mind.”
In a New York Times/CBS News poll last month, some 63 percent of respondents said they would favor a ban on high-capacity magazines, while 34 percent opposed the idea.
The NRA has staunchly opposed a ban on weapons, arguing that it would have no effect on gun violence.
“If you prioritize things in terms of their value and likelihood of them getting passed,” said James Pasco, the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, “I don’t think there is anyone who will tell you that background checks aren’t the most important thing to get done.”
Those in law enforcement have argued that combining background checks and penalties for straw-purchases would do much to reduce the criminal use of guns.
President Barack Obama has called for a limit of 10 rounds. However, many gun-rights activists argue that standards would limit too many weapons.
“We have to consider the millions of weapons out there that will be rendered useless,” said Robert A. Levy, a lawyer who was a principal architect of the victorious strategy in the 2008 Supreme Court decision that upheld the rights of residents in the District of Columbia to bear arms.
Levy supports a ban on magazines with over 20 rounds, which he said “would rule out very few weapons.”
Whatever course is taken, it appears a limit on rounds would have to be a bill separate from the assault weapons ban if it stands a chance to pass.
Colorado House Democrats Monday passed new ammunition limits and expanded background checks as part of a package of bills responding to recent mass shootings.
The Democratic-led House voted to ban large-capacity magazines, placing a limit of 15 rounds for firearms and eight for shotguns. Lawmakers also passed a requirement for background checks on firearm sales between private parties.
The debate on the measures has attracted attention from the White House.
Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!
SUPPORT OUR BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN
Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath
SUPPORT OUR NASCAR CAMPAIGN
February 19th, 2013 at 7:21 pm
The political class keeps playing with fire. What are the citizens of Colorado going to do about this? They better get their act together and hold everyone of these traitors accountable for their actions against the U.S.Constitution. It seems that the so called leaders want this nation on an express elevator to hell.
February 19th, 2013 at 8:58 pm
Majority rules crap. Will people rebel on this? probably not.
Which sucks, because it’s these little cuts that matter the most.
Death of a 1,000 cuts here we come.
February 20th, 2013 at 4:52 am
Here in Co we are really mad about these UNCONSTITUTIONAL SO TO BE LAWS that infringe on our 2A rights. Most people do not know what to do, do we vote these traitors out if possible, take up arms, or wait and see if it goes to the Co supreme court where there is little chance of these laws to be overturned. We are in a way TRAPPED. We don’t want to have to take up arms against our own people, some or should i say most Co Sheriff’s are on our side, but not many local or state LEO’s will stand with us, not until it hits them like it does us. What is the right answer? GOD HELP US IN Co.
February 20th, 2013 at 1:33 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZWnT_I8H9M
February 23rd, 2013 at 2:48 am
I will support to a law requiring each citizen to own a MINIMUM of 5 magazines for each weapon they possess, of a capacity not to be LESS than 10rds unless the weapon is not capable of holding more, like a 1911 which will only hold 8. Any military style rifle must have 5ea -30rd mags. And these magazines will be provided by our federal government at no charge to aid in defense of this nation against foriegn invasion or tyrannical domination from within. And since our tax dollars are used to arm our military and are being given to banks and foriegn governments, its the only fair and right thing to do. ITS OUR MONEY ANYWAY.
I will also support a law requiring ALL veterans of our Armed Forces and Police be awarded a full auto weapon of their chosen force after basic training, which they will be required to own for the duration of their life. Switzerland has done this, and they have the lowest crime rate in the world. It works for them and it will work here. People can be trusted, governments cannot. Thats a historical fact, one that Jefferson stated many times.
No one will be limiting my magazines. Period.
February 25th, 2013 at 4:11 pm
These so call compromises, are nothing more than Pure Treason..we have had out rights whittled away for 40 plus years of democratic control..NOMI They are trying to disarm us Period..Matters little how they accomplish their Goals, one bite at a time, or all at once…Republicans are not our Friends, lest we should Rise up with a Third Party. or start a full blown Insurrection, they keep poking us in the Chest..Advise..BACK off! and there won”t be any trouble!
Semper Fi