Senate panel OKs gun limits
WASHINGTON — After a couple of false starts, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill on Thursday that would ban assault weapons, restrict the size of ammunition clips and require universal background checks on gun sales.
But in spite of passionate pleas by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the bill's sponsor, it will head to the Senate floor with no Republican support, and it may not have the backing of every Democrat. The Republican-led House of Representatives is all but certain to reject it.
“As I've said before, the road is uphill,” Feinstein said when her bill cleared the panel on a party-line vote of 10-8.
Feinstein said that her bill, which bans 157 firearms, still allowed people to buy plenty of guns.
“It exempts 2,271 weapons,” Feinstein said. “Isn't that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need a bazooka?”
But the heated exchanges on Feinstein's bill, and the party-line vote to send it to the full Senate, illustrate the difficulties of coming to an agreement.
“I wish we could all come a little more to the middle on this issue,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
Feinstein's intensity was on display when Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, the state's junior senator and a Tea Party favorite whose confrontational style has gained attention, raised constitutional questions about her bill. He and other Republicans regard it as an intrusion on the Second Amendment.
“Would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books, and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of rights?” he asked.
“I'm not a sixth-grader,” Feinstein shot back. “Senator, I've been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I've looked at bodies that have been shot with weapons. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered.”
She was the lead sponsor of the original assault weapons ban Congress passed in 1994 but didn't renew 10 years later for lack of support. The political landscape has changed since then, as the toll from gun violence — including 20 elementary school children killed in December, and a congresswoman critically wounded two years ago — continues to climb.
But even that might not be enough to get restrictions on the use of assault weapons.
“It was a little miracle that it passed the first time,” said Robert Spitzer, the chairman of the political science department at the State University of New York at Cortland, an expert on the politics of gun control. “It has long odds now.”
Feinstein's critics, including the National Rifle Association, say that such laws do little to deter crime and infringe on the liberties of gun owners. But Feinstein, who once trained to use a gun to protect herself, said she has seen too many killings. She became mayor of San Francisco when two of her colleagues were slain, and there have been others: shootings that took place at universities, office towers, movie theaters and elementary schools, as well as violence directed at police officers.
“I think a lot of my passion comes from just what I've seen on the streets of cities in this country,” she said.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Scientists hope tiny robotic bee’s big dreams take flight
- Don’t eat tuna, Consumer Reports tells mothers-to-be
- GPS stations show drought-stricken California — not pushed downward by 63 trillion gallons of water — is rising
- $132.5M ransom asked for Foley
- $1T cost to sustain fighter jet in cross hairs
- EPA cites risks from air toxics in urban areas, improvements
- States can apply for more time before using student scores to evaluate teachers
- Utah woman gets 5 years in baby sitter’s overdose death
- Police say couple wanted Amish girls for slaves
- California attorney general to appeal ruling on death penalty
- Fla. ban on gay marriage upended