"I don't want to lose a vote on this," said one progressive gun control advocate. "If we go too soon and we lose a vote then we are fucked."
>>> In other words, it will be a "progressively" incremental loss of the 2nd Amendment
One could say, with all the rapidity with which this has been undertaken, that this may not only be a 'rush to judgment' but it may also be a "rush to Judgment Day''
~J
Joe Biden Gun Control Recommendations: Background Checks To Be Top Priority
Posted: 01/11/2013 4:18 pm EST | Updated: 01/11/2013 6:36 pm EST
WASHINGTON -- Just days before Vice President Joe Biden
issues a sweeping series of recommendations on gun policy Tuesday, the
outline of his suggestions is coming into focus.
Multiple sources close to the talks tell The Huffington Post that the
vice president will make universal background checks for ALL gun
purchases the "top priority" of his suggestions. The idea has broad
support among politicians in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook
Elementary School, as well as backing from some traditionally pro-gun
rights voices. The clearest sign that background checks will be the
centerpiece of the Biden recommendations, however, is that a number of
gun control advocacy groups have also deemed it such, as opposed to
focusing their efforts on higher-profile measures, such as those that
would limit the types of guns available for purchase.
That said, those measures will also likely end up in Biden's set of
recommendations as well, according to an administration official. The
White House pushed back Friday morning on reports that it is shying away
from including some form of an assault weapons ban in its final
legislative push out of concern that it was too heavy a lift through
Congress.
"Those reports are false," White House spokesman Matt Lehrich told
The Huffington Post Friday. "The president has been clear that Congress
should reinstate the assault weapons ban and that avoiding this issue
just because it's been politically difficult in the past is not an
option."
The question confronting the administration at this juncture concerns
process as much as policy. After inviting input from virtually all
stakeholders in the gun policy debate, the vice president's team has a
general idea of what recommendations it will put forward in its final
proposal on Tuesday. Among the other ideas likely to be included are
funding for more police officers and first responders, a more
comprehensive federal database on gun violence and gun purchases, more
direct coordination between state and federal law enforcement officials,
a push for better mental health care services and measures to deal with
gun violence and pop culture.
But what's uncertain is the best way to get those policy
prescriptions into law. Does the White House introduce one comprehensive
package in hopes of passing the most thorough response possible to the
wave of mass-shooting violence? Does it pare down that package if it
runs into opposition on the Hill? Or does it pursue separate votes on
individual items so that at least some legislation is passed, with hopes
that legislative success begets more legislative success in the future?
The White House declined to address questions about procedural
tactics. But on and off the Hill, pro-gun control officials are
gravitating toward the latter option.
"I don't want to lose a vote on this," said one progressive gun
control advocate. "If we go too soon and we lose a vote then we are
fucked."
The most illustrative example of this conundrum involves the literal
gun control component of the equation. While the administration will put
restrictions on military-style firearms in its recommendations, both
the White House and advocates are far more bullish on the prospects of
prohibiting high-capacity ammunition magazines.
"I have never quite heard as much talk about the need to do something
about high-capacity magazines as I have heard spontaneously from every
group I have met with so far," Biden said prior to a stakeholders'
meeting on Thursday.
There's reason for such bullishness. Over the past days several
Republican lawmakers have said they could, in fact, support action on
high-capacity magazines but would oppose any ban on assault weapons.
"I think that’s a whole different issue, that can maybe be dealt with
without violating the 2nd Amendment, but I want to see the
legislation," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told the Des Moines Register.
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), who has a lifetime "A" rating from the NRA, made the same point in a separate interview.
"There are some problems, and maybe these huge magazines even for
someone who says, 'look, I just use an AR-15 for target practice,' but
do you really need to be standing there shooting at a silhouette a shot a
second or even quicker with that kind of weapon? For what purpose?" Gingrey told the Marietta Daily Journal. “I would be willing to listen to the possibility of the capacity of a magazine.”