Extend the federal assault weapons ban
Warren's positions are largely in line with those of gun-control advocates, while Brown had long been endorsed by gun rights groups until he recently broke rank on a high-profile issue.
The candidates are most sharply divided about whether to renew the federal assault weapons ban, with Warren supporting an extension of the ban that expired in 2004 & Brown saying it is an issue best left to the states. Warren's campaign said she also supports proposals to require more rigorous background screenings, including for people who purchase firearms at gun shows; and opposes limits on the sharing of firearms trace information.
"There is a huge difference between the guns of a sportsman or homeowner and high-powered assault weapons with 100-cartridge magazines," she said. "I grew up around guns & gun owners, and I will work to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens. But the law must reflect the reality that, in the wrong hands, guns can be used for violent crimes, making neighborhoods less safe."
Supports gun control
Warren staked out traditional liberal Democratic positions on several big issues: She supports abortion rights, gun control, and gay marriage, but she opposes casinos. But she declined to offer specifics on where she differs with Brown or Obama.
Voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets.
Congressional Summary:- The term 'large capacity ammunition feeding device' means a magazine or similar device that has an overall capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition
- It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
- Shall not apply to the possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed before 2013.
- Shall not apply to qualified or retired law enforcement officers.
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes: Sen. BLUMENTHAL: This amendment would ban high-capacity magazines which are used to kill more people more quickly and, in fact, have been used in more than half the mass shootings since 1982. I ask my colleagues to listen to law enforcement, their police, prosecutors who are outgunned by criminals who use these high-capacity magazines. I ask that my colleagues also listen to the families of those killed by people who used a high-capacity magazine.
Opponent's Argument for voting No: Sen. GRASSLEY. I oppose the amendment. In 2004, which is the last time we had the large-capacity magazine ban, a Department of Justice study found no evidence banning such magazines has led to a reduction in gun violence. The study also concluded it is not clear how often the outcomes of the gun attack depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than 10 shots without reloading. Secondly, there is no evidence banning these magazines has reduced the deaths from gun crimes. In fact, when the previous ban was in effect, a higher percentage of gun crime victims were killed or wounded than before it was adopted. Additionally, tens of millions of these magazines have been lawfully owned in this country for decades. They are in common use, not unusually dangerous, and used by law-abiding citizens in self-defense, as in the case of law enforcement.
Warren says, "Warren (D-MA)"
Supports restricting the Second Amendment.
Warren supports the CC Voters Guide question on the Second Amendment
Christian Coalition publishes a number of special voter educational materials including the Christian Coalition Voter Guides, which provide voters with critical information about where candidates stand on important faith and family issues. The Christian Coalition Voters Guide summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Further restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms"
Ban large-capacity ammunition.
Warren co-sponsored Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act
Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
- to prohibit the transfer or possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device, except for its lawful possession within the United States on or before the date of this Act's enactment; and
- the importation or bringing into the United States of such a device (with some exceptions).
- Identification Markings: Requires a large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after this Act's enactment to be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that the device was manufactured after enactment.
- Whoever knowingly violates this law shall be fined, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
Even Everytown is starting to move away from assault weapons and magazines they think are too large. Perhaps we should let one of the many questionable "studies" they've published speak to that.
ReplyDelete"Mass shootings represent a small share of total U.S. firearm homicides. Less than
one percent of gun murder victims recorded by the FBI in 2012 were killed in incidents with four or more victims."
And the study goes on to claim that only 13% of the 1% of the homicides used an assault weapon or those scary magazines. The report is entertaining reading in that the definition of a gun free zone also seems to change and the report seems to claim that the Navy Yard shooting wasn't considered to be a gun free zone.
There you go with your statistics again. How many dead people does that represent? Explain to the parents of a child lost to gun shot your percentages.
Delete"Explain to the parents of a child lost to gun shot your percentages."
DeleteHave you ever noticed that when you even attempt to use anything resembling a fact and then its disproven somehow, you tend to lapse into an emotional justification?
Though most of the time you don't bother to try using facts.
I agree that extended magazines and assault weapons are involved in only a small part of the problem, but that's no reason to not regulate them. It's the same argument you make about swimming pools, cars, falling, cigarettes, and all the other things you say kill more people than guns. That's no reason to not regulate guns better.
DeleteI agree that extended magazines and assault weapons are involved in only a small part of the problem, but that's no reason to not regulate them.
DeleteHmm--"no reason to not regulate them," eh? Precisely what kind of "regulation" do you have in mind? Would that be an absolute total, confiscatory ban on private ownership of them?
If I remember correctly, that's been your position in the past (well, I'm not certain I've seen you call for confiscatory ban on magazines, but it's certainly been what you've called for with regard to the guns, and you did say, "Restrictions on certain kinds of guns and accessories cannot allow the grandfather clause," in a discussion about a gun and magazine ban).
It's instructive to keep your meaning of "regulate" in mind, when picturing what a "well regulated militia" would look like in Mikeb utopia.
SS, have you ever noticed you equate humans to numbers? A sick stance if ever there was one and you do it all the time.
Delete"Would that be an absolute total, confiscatory ban on private ownership of them?"
DeleteYes. I've always thought the grandfather clause is stupid and detrimental to whatever good might come from the law.
How about this, so TS doesn't get all upset about making felons out of so many good guys, how about we ban the high cap mags and require that all the ones out there be destroyed or turned into the nearby FFL guy for destruction. The penalty for not doing so is a simple fine if and when a person is found to be in possession of one. This way we stop producing them and get rid of a certain percentage of those already owned WITHOUT overly penalizing the scofflaws.
Please note this as an example of my reasonableness and flexibility with regards the one strike you're out idea.
"Would that be an absolute total, confiscatory ban on private ownership of them?"
DeleteYes. I've always thought the grandfather clause is stupid and detrimental to whatever good might come from the law.
How about this, so TS doesn't get all upset about making felons out of so many good guys, how about we ban the high cap mags and require that all the ones out there be destroyed or turned into the nearby FFL guy for destruction. The penalty for not doing so is a simple fine if and when a person is found to be in possession of one. This way we stop producing them and get rid of a certain percentage of those already owned WITHOUT overly penalizing the scofflaws.
Please note this as an example of my reasonableness and flexibility with regards the one strike you're out idea.
Not even offering compensation for the suddenly "illegal" items that were acquired absolutely legally, eh? Not that compensation could ever be adequate, unless paid in blood (and more than the government and its hired muscle can afford).
Delete. . . when a person is found to be in possession of one.
And "when a person is found to be in possession of" scores, dozens, hundreds? I literally don't know how many I have, and it's not worth my time to go through and count them--would I "merely" pay the fine for each one, thus going bankrupt, or do we start getting into incarceration when the numbers go up high enough?
Nope--pass whatever laws you can, and watch them be defied. I'm not giving up any mags--not even registering the ones I have, and such a law would be all the motivation I need to get a 3-D printer and start cranking out more.
By the way, I have magazines that oscillate between being scary, "high capacity" 30-round 5.56mm NATO/.223 Remington mags, and being politically correct 10-round .50 Beowulf magazines--based solely on what I load them with. So if caught, how 'bout I just call all my 30-rounders .50 Beowulf mags? What do you do now--ban the .50 Beowulf cartridge?
Kurt, thanks for the link and stroll down memory lane where Mike uttered one of my all-time favorite MikeB quotes:
DeleteMikeB: “By "voluntary" I mean, constrained by law which law-abiding people freely comply with.”
Good times.
Mike, keep giving other examples of when you consider yourself “reasonable” and “flexible” as you call it common sense.
DeleteSen. Grassly is wrong. There are published reports that show small capacity magazines will force a shooter to stop and reload and that saved lives.
ReplyDeleteMike, why aren't you getting on them for misuse of the word "ban"?
ReplyDelete•Shall not apply to the possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed before 2013.
That's not a ban according to you.
Because there's no attempt to mislead, unlike when you guys use the word.
DeleteBull Shit Double Standard.
DeleteHow could that be a double standard. What advantage would there be for my side to use the word ban? None, that's what.
DeleteWhat you’re saying is: “That’s our word! Only gun banners are allowed to use the word ‘ban’.”
DeleteWhere have I been misleading? I have been forthright whenever there is a grandfather clause, which is true when just about anything gets banned (because it is sadistic to not include it). But the gun control movement has also banned things without grandfathering sometimes- as you want to do for even toys and bb guns.
Y'all use the word ban, but then if we repeat you or use the titles of the bills, you jump at the opportunity to accuse us of lying.
Delete"That's our word!"--TS, you win the internets today. Award in the mail.
DeleteYeah! My Feb 6, 2012 Internets Award was getting lonely.
DeleteI bet she would exempt Bloomberg and Clooney's bodyguards from the "large capacity ammunition" ban.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, I looked at my comment and noticed that I forgot the cite. Here it is,
ReplyDeletehttp://3gbwir1ummda16xrhf4do9d21bsx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/themes/everytown/assets/everytown-mass-shooting-analysis.pdf
Its also interesting that using the Everytown study seems to prove that this statement is incorrect.
"This amendment would ban high-capacity magazines which are used to kill more people more quickly and, in fact, have been used in more than half the mass shootings since 1982."