From Brady to Bundy

March 30, 1981, seemed to be just another day in DC. Then President Ronald Reagan and his staff were leaving the Washington Hilton after the President delivered a midday speech. Just as Reagan was heading towards his presidential limousine, John Hinckley, Jr., opened fire. Hinckley fired his "Saturday Night Special" Rohm AG-15 at Reagan in hopes of convincing Jodie Foster to date him.

Reagan was shot in the chest and the lower right arm. And even though his lung was punctured, the President was able to fully recover from his injuries.

Then White House Press Secretary James Brady was also shot. A bullet hit his head. He was also rushed to the hospital. And while he survived the assassination attempt, he did suffer permanent injuries.

On Monday, Jim Brady passed away.



After surviving the shooting, Jim & Sarah (his wife) founded the Brady Campaign. They decided to dedicate their lives to preventing future tragedies like the one they experienced. They committed themselves to stopping rampant gun violence.

And they weren't alone. Even though he had fostered a political legacy suggesting otherwise, Ronald Reagan also took action to curb gun violence. He signed a law banning fully automatic weapons in 1986, penned a New York Times op-ed in support of the Brady Bill (which first established the national background checks system in 1991, and even endorsed the first Assault Weapons Ban in 1994.



Remember, John Hinckley, Jr., used a "Saturday Night Special" he obtained under a false identity in his assassination attempt. And when he was Governor of California in 1967, Reagan teamed with the NRA (??!!) to pass the Mulford Act to prevent the carrying of any loaded firearms at any public location in California. (Back then, both Reagan & the NRA feared the message of armed resistance preached by the Black Panthers.)

Why is it so easy to forget our history? Armed militia movements aren't new. And neither are government regulations of the firearms industry. And neither are regulations meant to prevent criminals from obtaining lethal firearms.

While this isn't new, we haven't seen in a while this brazen call to arms against the rule of law. He may not have invented the American militia movement, but Cliven Bundy has breathed some new life into the extreme anti-government Patriot Movement by declaring a "Range War" against state & federal law. Even now, the Bundy Bunch continue their call to arms in the age old battle between good and evil", a call to arms that Jerad & Amanda Miller, Brent Douglas Cole, and others have been all too willing to take heed.

What is relatively new is the NRA's full embrace of this armed extremism. Once upon a time, the NRA supported a number of gun safety regulations. Only when a slate of radicals took over the NRA board in the late 1970s did the NRA begin to turn around and reflexively oppose any and all gun safety standards... But even this has been a gradual process. Even as recent as 1999, the NRA endorsed expansion of background checks for gun purchases. It wasn't until 2013 when the NRA killed a very modest background checks bill in Congress.

Once upon a time, Republicans like Ronald Reagan championed gun safety laws and the NRA didn't object. After Reagan himself was nearly assassinated and Jim Brady was seriously injured, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to curb gun violence. But now, the NRA encourages "armed resistance" and enables the kind of violence that changed the Brady family's lives forever and nearly killed our 40th President.

Packing Heat

We've never quite understood why some of our friends have this ongoing love affair with Chipotle. Sure, we love the actual pepper. The fast food chain, on the other hand? Meh.

Earlier this year, certain groups decided to go beyond simply declaring their love for Chipotle (the fast food chain). They actually decided to #OccupyChipotle. But why? Oh, they wanted to feel their chiles with their military grade assault weapons.

Understandably, other Chipotle customers were disturbed by this. So Chipotle corporate headquarters just began asking customers to refrain from packing heat inside restaurants. And the gun fetishists were upset over Chipotle executives asking them not to bring their guns.

But wait, how did this even happen? How can this happen? In Texas, it's legal. And actually here in Nevada, it's legal.

And since we and several other states have no restrictions on military grade assault weapons, these individuals were able to carry their weapons into Chipotle. And since we and several other states don't guarantee background checks for gun purchases, we haven't really known who were packing heat at Chipotle and why they were doing so.

This is the problem. Not alleged "attacks on FREEDOM!" Not supposed "threats" based on outlandish conspiracy theories. No, this is the problem.

Sure, Chipotle's food may not pack much heat... But does that give certain customers the right to pack their own heat in the form of dangerous weapons? Keep in mind that at least some of these heat packing customers never underwent a background check.

We may not be all that into Chipotle, but other people are. Don't they have the right to order their (not really all that) Mexican food in a safe atmosphere? Must they be subjected to yahoos packing heat and brandishing weapons they could have obtained at a gun show or back alley without any background check? Shouldn't the heat be in the food, not in some customers' hands?

The Big Picture

Last month, a number of progressives were furious at Senator Harry Reid (D-Still Searchlight) for leaving the Assault Weapons Ban out of his initial gun safety bill. Many were asking why Senator Reid would "pre-compromise" and water down the bill so quickly. Yesterday, they got their answer when Senator Dean Heller (R-46%) announced not just his intention to vote against Senator Reid's bill, but even the Manchin-Toomey Amendment that would further weaken the bill by limiting its provision on expanding background checks for gun purchases.

Earlier today, Senator Reid delivered a powerful speech on gun safety reform on the Senate floor. He expressed sorrow over the likely demise of his bill. He mourned the lives recently lost to gun violence. And he even made a shocking surprise announcement.

Reid —a moderate Democrat who has a ‘B’ rating from the National Rifle Association —tore into conspiracy theorists who use “shameful scare tactics” to claim that requiring more gun buyers to undergo screenings would lead to the creation of a national gun registry. He argued that the amendment offered by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) specifically outlaws a registry “on page 27″ and would strengthen existing prohibitions against federal officials who store the names of gun owners.

“The courage today is to say yes,” Reid said, as he called on his fellow senators to vote their conscience:

"Today our decision will determine the decision of our country. Today I choose to vote my conscience, not only is Harry Reid a United States senator but also a a husband, a father, a grandfather and I hope friend of lots and lots of people, I choose to vote my conscience because, if tragedy strikes again, I’m sorry to say, Mr. President, it will, if innocents are gunned down in a classroom, theater or restaurant, I would have trouble living with myself as a senator, as a husband, a fathers, or grandfather and friend, knowing that I didn’t do everything in my power to prevent that incident." [...]

Reid also announced his support for Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) assault weapons bill, noting that “maintaining law and order is more important than satisfying the conspiracy theorists who believe in black helicopters and false flags.” He made a similar case for Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s (D-CT) high capacity magazine amendment and pointed out that hunters don’t need 30 rounds, as they are already limited in how they can target animals. “Don’t people deserve as much protection as birds?” he asked.

Earlier today, Manchin told reporters that his background check amendment is unlikely to attract the 60 votes it needs for passage and accused the National Rifle Association of spreading misinformation.

The last time the Assault Weapons Ban had a vote on the Senate floor (in 2004), Senator Reid opposed it. He also opposed the original version in the 1994 Crime Bill. So today marks a major change of heart for Senator Reid.

And yes, that's what it is. I've already been seeing accusations of this being some cold, calculated game of charades. Sorry, but I must call bullshit on that.

And I must explain why. Senator Reid has faced harrowing incidents of gun violence in his own life. Yet because of his family's and Nevada's overall storied gun culture, it's been difficult for him to break too far from the NRA.

That began to change in recent months. Senator Reid hasn't forgotten the NRA's refusal to endorse him in 2010. He's witnessed their bizarre, outlandish, and increasingly belligerent reactions to calls for even modest gun safety reform measures. And perhaps most notably, he's been bearing the brunt of their scorched earth campaign to kill a compromise of a compromise. And today, he's witnessing the innocent victims of the Newtown massacre watch in horror & disgust as Congress looks increasingly set to follow the NRA's marching orders & kill this compromise of a compromise.

The “gun rights” forces like to make several arguments about the involvement of the families in this drama. Some like to say it constitutes “emotional bullying” or “using the families” when gun control advocates cite their desires. Rand Paul today accused the Obama administration of using the Newtown families as “props.”

The problem with this, of course, is that these families are doing all of this of their own accord, and if they want to channel their grief into lobbying for gun reform, that’s their right. As for those gun control advocates who cite the family’s desires, the families share the same policy goal as they do,so why shouldn’t they?

Others like to say that the Manchin-Toomey proposal “wouldn’t have done anything to stop Newtown.” But that elides the obvious point that the families are lobbying on this issue because they are hoping to prevent other shootings of innocent people later,in hopes of sparing other families from getting torn apart they way their families have. “I’m not just here for the 26 that died at Sandy Hook,” Nicole Hockley said recently. “If we can make any steps forward to help save lives, then it’s a step worth taking.”

Many Senators stood and applauded when Obama, during his State of the Union Speech, intoned again and again that the Newtown families “deserve a vote.” But it’s not emotional manipulation to refer back to that moment; the families are actually in the Capitol asking for a simple majority vote. They could have gotten one. Senators who will vote No today had the option of voting Yes on the Toomey-Manchin amendment, which requires 60 votes, and then voting No during the simple majority vote on the final package of proposals. These Senators could have justified this by saying they believe Toomey-Manchin deserved a straight up or down vote and shouldn’t be killed by a supermajority requirement.

But these Senators apparently don’t believe this. We’re now learning that a number of them —red state Democrats and purple state Republicans alike —who genuinely seemed undecided on the proposal can’t bring themselves to allow such an up or down vote on it. As the families themselves will witness in person today, a simple majority vote in the United States Senate on expanding background checks —which is supported by over eight in 10 Americans –is apparently not going to happen.

I wholeheartedly believe all of this has been weighing on Senator Harry Reid. And as a result, Reid himself has had a dramatic change of heart on gun safety reform. And Senator Reid may not be alone.



That was Senator Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) expressing shock and horror over his amendment, one that's meant to weaken Senator Reid's background checks provision and essentially written by other gun industry lobbyists, suddenly being put to death in the Senate. How could something as milquetoast and broadly accepted as his amendments go down in flames like this?

Earlier today, Joan Walsh noted just how much of a milestone today has been.

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin had an A rating from the NRA, winning the endorsement of its PAC for his staunch defense of gun rights (and opposition to even sensible gun regulations.) He made national headlines during his 2010 campaign with an ad that featured him shooting a copy of a cap and trade bill with a rifle, proving with one unforgettable image that he loved guns and hated energy regulation.

So it was big news when he decided to hook up with Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey on compromise gun control legislation expanding background checks and closing the so-called gun-show loophole. When Manchin announced that he was working on such measures, the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent said it represented “real movement in the right direction” and might even “give cover to all of the other red state Democrats who are skittish about embracing this common sense step.” Sargent was also encouraged that the NRA darling said he was discussing the measures with the NRA.

But two months later,with a vote on the Manchin-Toomey measures set for Wednesday afternoon, the senator’s work is expected to end in defeat. He admitted as much to NBC News today, and on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” he even accused his former political patrons, the NRA, of lying about his legislation. The NRA is claiming that the amendment would “criminalize the private transfer of firearms by private citizens,” Manchin noted, complaining “It is a lie.” The senator pointed out that his measure exempts sales between private individuals from the screening requirement. [...]

[NRA Chief Agent Provocateur Wayne] LaPierre’s seemingly crazy no-compromise strategy actually worked. As Zeff argues: “By effectively shifting the conversation far to the right, he also shifted rightward what constituted a ‘compromise’ in the gun discussion.” Meanwhile, Zeff notes, many gun control advocates abandoned Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban proposal, which probably never could have been passed, but could have served as a countervailing force to pulling the “compromise” on guns so far to the right. Liberals, by the way, never seem to think that way, preferring to seem “reasonable” from the get-go and to negotiate with themselves.

Still, to look on the bright side, aside from a few stalwarts like the Brady Campaign, the pro-gun control forces had mostly surrendered over the last 10 years. Inspired by Newtown, they engaged with new fervor, and powerful new allies, like deep-pockets Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Tucson massacre survivor Gabby Giffords. Manchin’s “education” by his former NRA friends is the kind of life experience that might bring change. He once believed he was allying with a gun-owners’ lobby; he’s now discovered he was flacking for the gun-manufacturers’ lobby. This experience could change Manchin and other NRA supporters.

Actually, I think it already is. In witnessing both the extreme positions of the NRA and the extreme level of juice the NRA enjoys on Capitol Hill, it's forced many to rethink their loyalty to an organization dedicated to maximizing gun manufacturer's profits at the expense of many Americans' lives. Again, I believe that's what's led to Senator Reid's change of heart. And perhaps there's hope of Senator Manchin and others following along soon.

What's happening in Congress today is simply disgusting. Even with at least some gun safety reform measures attracting majority support, everything may ultimately be filibustered to death anyway. The only "victory" gun safety activists may see this week may be in watching the NRA's lurid poison pill amendments to the bill get filibustered to death as well.

This week may be full of heartbreaking defeat... But it may also be the start of real, positive change. Don't lose sight of the big picture.

Misrepresentation

It's not easy representing such an expansive district. That's something Rep. Steven Horsford (D-North Las Vegas) has had to learn the hard way. And he's especially had to learn as Congress and the nation debate gun safety reform.

In January, Horsford was quick to endorse the entirety of President Obama's gun safety agenda. Later that month, Rep. Horsford even want on "Ralston Reports" to talk with Mr. Nevada Pundit himself on gun safety.

Yet since then, he's stepped back. Sure, Horsford still personally supports gun safety reform. However since taking office, he's been listening to constituents throughout his district to seek their input on the subject.

[... A]nyone who was listening to Horsford in the wake of December’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. — a galvanizing event in the gun control debate —knows Horsford promised to back an assault weapons ban in Congress. The children who had been killed with a semiautomatic rifle in Newtown were the approximate age of his daughter, Ella, he noted at the time.

“I come at this not as an elected official but as a parent,” Horsford told the Sun two weeks before being sworn in as a U.S. Congressman.

But since taking on his elected role, Horsford has repeatedly and noticeably tempered that personal conviction, suggesting his mind is not made up about the more controversial points of gun control legislation, such as an assault weapons ban.

“As a parent I have a personal viewpoint on military-style weapons not being in our neighborhoods,” Horsford said in a recent interview at his congressional office. “As a policymaker, it is my job to listen to my constituents and then vote on the legislation that comes before us to represent the view that I’ve heard from my constituents.” [...]

“Part of what I’ve experienced listening to people in my district, particularly in the rural communities, is ‘respect my right to own a gun. I live in a community where I may not have police or law enforcement protection for 30, 60, 100 miles, and I need to be able to protect myself … and I have the right to do that,’” Horsford said. “And I agree, and respect that right, and have said without wavering that that is a right that we have to respect in this process.”

Horsford tells of some Republican, National Rifle Association-member constituents who he says, once they realize he respects their Second Amendment rights, are willing to talk about getting some of the higher magazine clips and semiautomatic rifles off the streets.

But, he admits, he also has several other constituents for whom “listening to them and then voting for a ban is not going to make them feel any better.”

“I’m honestly, in the core of my job as a public servant, trying to represent the needs of all my constituents,” he said. “I take it very seriously that my job … is to represent my constituents. Not some of my constituents. Not the ones I agree with only. My job is to represent the whole district.”

Indeed, Nevada's 4th Congressional District is quite diverse and expansive. NV-04 stretches from Yerington and Ely in rural Northern Nevada all the way down to Pahrump, then crosses the Spring Mountains and Sheep Range into Clark County, where just over 80% of the district's population resides. And even the Clark County portion of NV-04 is incredibly diverse, as it stretches from exurban Mesquite to minority heavy West Las Vegas and affluent Summerlin.

So Rep. Horsford represents not just a wide swath of Nevada land, but also a wide array of views on gun violence. And he's been doing his best to show respect to all his constituents. Why can't more Members of Congress do this?

And let's not forget, this isn't a one way street. In fact, February's KLAS-SUSA poll showed that 57% of Nevadans support the Assault Weapons Ban while only 33% oppose! And not only that, but the poll showed 71-23% support among Nevadans for a state gun registry and 76-19% support for expanded background checks. Oh, and since then, multiple polls have shown 86% support for expanded background checks for gun purchases!

So why am I bringing this up now? It's important to note just how out of touch Senator Dean Heller (R-46%) is with his constitutents. Instead of talking to Nevadans from throughout the state on what they'd like to see on gun safety, he's making excuses and even using "tea party" talking points as reason to oppose what 86% of Nevadans support.

And now, because Senator Heller is thumbing his nose at 86% of his constitutents, gun safety reform may finally be dying in Congress.

As a policy matter, [Heller's excuse for joining the G-O-TEA filibuster of gun safety reform] is gibberish. Indeed, it's so wrong, it's almost insulting. There's nothing unconstitutional about background checks -- indeed, background checks must be legally permissible, since they already exist without legal controversy. What's more, fearing the creation of a national gun registry from the proposal is idiotic, given that the legislation explicitly bans such a registry. The Toomey/Manchin language strengthens the prohibition against the very registry Heller is worried about.

Also note, as recently as February, Heller called background check expansion a "reasonable step forward." Since then, he saw a poll showing 87% of his constituents support the idea. Then Heller used a ridiculous rationale to oppose the popular policy.

Of course, it's not just Heller who's been irresponsible. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell wouldn't even meet with Newtown families yesterday.

And then there are a handful of red-state Democrats who aren't just prepared to oppose background-check expansion, but are also likely to side with Republicans on the filibuster. It's not enough to vote against it; they're prepared to join the GOP in denying the popular measure a vote at all.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), sounding very discouraged, said last night, "I honestly just didn't believe GOP Senators would turn their back on 90% of Americans. I was naive."

That's another thing to keep in mind. Not only is Senator Heller opposing any and all gun safety reform, but he doesn't even want to give these proposals a vote! He's joining the "tea party" backed filibuster on all these measures, even the background checks proposal with 86% support. Why won't he even allow a vote on the bill and related amendments?

Ask that. And remember this. And go ahead & wonder if Senator Dean Heller is actually doing anything to truly represent Nevada.

Motion to Proceed

Apparently, Carson City isn't holding a monopoly on legislative action this week. Just minutes ago, something fairly amazing happened in Washington, DC. For the first time in nearly two decades, the US Senate voted to proceed debate on gun safety reform legislation.

With families of victims of the Newtown, Conn., massacre watching silently from the chamber, the Senate thwarted a threatened filibuster with a vote of 68 to 31 and will proceed next week to debate a package of legislation that would expand background checks for gun buyers and increase the penalties for criminal sales, in addition to a variety of other amendments. Those include the renewal of the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

Twenty-nine Republicans voted against the measure, as did two Democrats.

"Americans across this great country are looking to us for solutions and for action," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, "not for filibustering or sloganeering." [...]

The vote, while a short-term victory for gun-control advocates, in no way presages passage of new gun laws. The impending bill will again need 60 votes to end the debate after consideration of contentious amendments offered by both supporters and opponents of new laws.

This has been a long time coming, but we're finally here. And by the way, Senator Dean Heller (R) ultimately voted to end the filibuster on the motion to proceed with official debate. So he essentially voted with the majority to allow for formal debate to Senator Harry Reid's (D) gun safety bill, and to allow for potentially many votes on many amendments to it.

Remember, this is far from over. And although it doesn't feel as such, this is officially only just the beginning of the US Senate's official consideration of Senator Reid's gun safety bill. We're certainly still a far distance from a final cloture vote on a final bill.

So what will Senator Heller ultimately vote for? We don't know yet.

And what will Senator Reid allow to be added to his bill? We don't know completely just yet (though we know he is open to at least some amendments).

So what will finally happen here? You tell me. Otherwise, we must wait & see.

Let the "Sausage Making" Continue.

The past two days have been very topsy-turvy on gun safety legislation in Congress. On Monday, pundits were wondering if anything and everything was finally dead. But yesterday, hope sprang again as several Republican Senators (including Nevada's Dean Heller) decided to break an expected filibuster on a motion to proceed (which allows for formal Senate debate and consideration of legislation). And today, a deal has been made on background checks.

Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., were expected to announce a background check compromise on Wednesday. Subjecting more firearms purchases to federal background checks has been the chief goal of Obama and gun control supporters, who promote the system as a way to prevent criminals and other risky people from getting the weapons.

After weeks of negotiations, Manchin and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters late Tuesday that a gun control agreement was close.

The emerging deal would expand required background checks for sales at gun shows and online but exempt transactions like face-to-face, noncommercial purchases, said Senate staffers and lobbyists, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks. Currently, the checks are required only for sales handled through licensed gun dealers.

Though many details of the emerging agreement were unclear, Manchin and Toomey are among their parties’ most conservative members and a deal could make it easier for some hesitant senators to support the background check measure, at least for now. [...]

The gun legislation Reid wants the Senate to debate would extend the background check requirement to nearly all gun sales. Assuming the deal between Manchin and Toomey is completed, Reid would try to replace that language with their agreement once debate begins, a move that would require a vote.

The Manchin-Toomey deal still leaves in place a loophole for "face-to-face, noncommercial purchases" (however that will be allowed to be defined) and possibly other types of private sales, but it looks like this deal will allow for expanded background checks for other gun purchases that are currently exempted from such. But whether they, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York), and Senator Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) introduce this as an amendment to the bill or Senator Reid replaces the language himself, it looks like the bill's advocates are ready to accept this deal.

However, there are still some Senators who think even Reid's bill as is doesn't go far enough. We've talked before about Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and her determination to pass a new Assault Weapons Ban to replace and improve upon the one that expired in 2004. Last night, she discussed with Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC why she still refuses to give up.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

“If they don’t help me invoke cloture on this bill, we’re going to vote on these things anyway. It might take a little time,” said Reid. “As I’ve said for months now, the American people deserve a vote: on background checks, on federal trafficking, on safety in schools, on the size of clips and yes, assault weapons.”

The Obama administration continues to fight to gain bipartisan support for new gun measures to expand background checks for people buying guns and ban assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is leading the charge to revive a ban on military-style assault weapons, told MSNBC that she plans to offer assault weapons bill as an amendment and remains optimistic.

“I have a commitment from the majority leader that I will have a vote and I take him at his word,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell on Tuesday. “What’s important to me is to dry up the supply of these weapons so that over time they are less apt to fall in the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, people who are mentally disabled and criminals.”

Last month, Reid dropped the controversial restriction on military-style weapons from the bill in order, he said, to save the larger piece of gun reform legislation.

Feinstein said lawmakers must press on: “It’s important to the nation to know where people stand on a matter that’s as important as this.”

As we discussed yesterday, this will be a process. It will take a while. And there will clearly be many amendments. Some amendments will be introduced to weaken the bill, while others will be introduced to strengthen the bill.

But finally, there is a bill. The bill is S 649. And it will likely get its day(s) on the Senate floor.


This has been a long time coming. But now, finally, the "sausage making" on gun safety legislation has begun... And progressed for a change.

The Disconnect

This can be very confusing. Sometimes, it seems like a deal is near on gun safety reform. Even former REPUBLICAN National Committee Chair Michael Steele said this morning on MSNBC that he doesn't understand why a few gun owners (prodded by the NRA) fear background checks and registration.



And on the US Senate floor yesterday, US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) vowed to press on for floor votes on a wide array of gun safety measures. And not only did Reid demand a floor vote on his own bill, but he even went as far to suggest that the Assault Weapons Ban deserves a floor vote as well (as an amendment). Perhaps all the G-O-TEA filibuster threats truly are getting to him. And unfortunately for Senate Republicans, it's happening the opposite effect of what they had desired. (No really, think about it.)



Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) had been planning to effectively give the NRA veto authority over any and all gun safety legislation. And he's willing to do so because he's currying the gun lobby's favor just in time for his own reelection campaign in 2014.

“Sen. McConnell opposes the Reid bill,” the minority leader’s spokesman, Don Stewart, told TPM. “While nobody knows yet what Sen. Reid’s plan is for the gun bill, if he chooses to file cloture on the motion to proceed to the Reid bill, Sen. McConnell will oppose cloture on proceeding to that bill.”

In other words, if a bipartisan deal is struck, McConnell may very well forgo the filibuster and possibly even vote for the final version. But his threat is weighty because he’s an extraordinarily clever strategist and has a proven track record of unifying Senate Republicans behind his will. And so his filibuster threat will likely force Democrats to win his approval for any passable bill.

Crucially, McConnell is up for reelection next year in bright-red Kentucky, and is carefully watching his right flank. That means he won’t dare get on the NRA’s bad side, but he could also be on the hook if any wayward Republicans decide to buck the party line and join Democrats on a bill the powerful gun industry lobby dislikes. In other words, McConnell seems to have taken it upon himself to make sure any new gun legislation will be NRA-compliant.

On that score, lawmakers have an escape hatch to say they support background checks without actually doing anything doing anything to make it harder for people to avoid them when buying a firearm at gun shows or in private sales. The NRA supports enhancing mental health reporting in existing background check systems, a policy that some pro-gun senators back and point to as evidence that they support background checks

And here's the most depressing story from yesterday. While the Senate was debating whether to even allow for votes on gun violence prevention bills, a 4 year old child shot a 6 year old child in New Jersey. No really, that happened.

Authorities are deciding whether to charge anyone after police say a 6-year-old was shot in the head by a 4-year-old in New Jersey.

The older boy is in serious condition.

Authorities are still investigating how the younger child obtained the .22-caliber rifle from his family’s Toms River home Monday night.

Police Chief Michael Mastronardy says the children were outside the 4-year-old’s home when the boy went inside, got the rifle and shot the 6-year-old about 15 yards away. It’s not clear if the 4-year-old pulled the trigger or if the rifle accidentally discharged.

The parents of the 4-year-old were home at the time.

Yes, this actually happened while Congress was wrestling over gun violence yesterday. What also happened yesterday was this.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In context, [President Obama] was noting the overwhelming public support for support universal background checks -- "How often do 90 percent of Americans agree on anything?" Obama said to laughter -- and the fact that public opinion on the issue crosses partisan boundaries. Even large majorities of gun owners and NRA households agree with the American mainstream. [...]

"If our democracy is working the way it's supposed to..." is a phrase that stuck with me, largely because it seems our democracy is not working the way it's supposed to.

Indeed, as of yesterday, 15 Republican senators said they're prepared to prevent the Senate from even debating any bill that changes any gun law in any way. Forget voting for or against efforts to prevent gun deaths, the GOP lawmakers are prepared to ignore the overwhelming will of the American mainstream and kill popular legislation in its infancy.

In fairness, I should note that this is not a universal attitude among congressional Republicans, and just this morning, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said pending legislation "deserves a vote, up-or-down." Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) added that his party's filibuster threats are "wrong."

But the larger trend is hard to miss. As Ezra Klein explained this morning, "Gun control has emerged as an unusually clarifying test case for how Congress really works. On one side of the ledger is most everything that we think moves Congress: Public opinion, a national tragedy, the president's bully pulpit, elite opinion. On the other side is everything we wish didn't move Congress: a powerful but increasingly controversial interest group and, arguably, the minority's natural incentive to foil the majority's agenda. Guess which side is winning?"

I suspect many Americans have a rudimentary Schoolhouse-Rock-style understanding of how a bill becomes a law, and may expect something like background checks to pass, given the larger circumstances. But, once again, our democracy isn't working the way it's supposed to.

That's what's perhaps most frustrating about what's happening in Congress now. While there's broad consensus among the American people on gun safety reform, a rigid minority refuses to even allow votes on it. And while calls for action continue from constituents, some Senators are clearly ignoring their constituents. (Does Senator Dean Heller [R] really want to go there?)


Something must change.

Something's Happening (on Gun Safety.)

On Tuesday, we noted US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nevada) decision not to include the Assault Weapons Ban in what's supposed to be his comprehensive gun safety reform bill. He's actually gotten some blowback on this since Tuesday. Yesterday's news just seemed fo exacerbate this.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Perhaps the blowback compelled Reid to say this on Twitter just moments ago.

Tonight, I'll start the process of bringing gun violence prevention bill to Senate floor. It will include provisions on background checks.

I will ensure that a ban on assault weapons, limits to high-capacity magazines, and mental health provisions receive votes.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) has been working on a new Assault Weapons Ban since December. And she's not the only one who wants it. So does President Obama. And so do these parents of Newtown massacre victims.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Don't mistake what's happening now. The tide is finally turning. After enjoying nearly two decades of unchecked power on Capitol Hill, the gun lobby is finally being checked. And not only that, but Members of Congress are now noticing.

Of course, gun safety activists can't get too giddy just yet. After all, they will have to fight to include the Assault Weapons Ban and the high-capacity magazine ban via amendment(s). But at least now, even Senator Reid is recognizing the changing tide of public opinion and new momentum for gun safety reform.


There's clearly more work to be done. Not all of it may get done this year. But at least now, something's happening. And it's smart gun violence prevention legislation for a change.

Gun #FAIL

Perhaps this was bound to happen. As soon as Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) introduced the new Assault Weapons Ban, DC pundits were already declaring it dead. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) stayed eerily mum.

Earlier today, Harry Reid admitted to (again) omitting the Assault Weapons Ban from his omnibus gun safety bill. And he claimed he had to do in order to pass the bill. There's just a problem with Reid's latest claim. Can you notice it?

“We cannot have votes on everything unless I get something on the floor. It’s a legislative impossibility,” he said. “I’m not going to try to put something on the floor that won’t succeed; I want something that will succeed. I think the worst of all worlds would be to bring something to the floor and it dies there.”

While the looming failure of an assault weapons ban has been obvious for some time, there’s been no apparent progress on mandatory background checks since it lost steam earlier this month, when Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) quit bipartisan talks with Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Joe Manchin (D-WV). Democratic leaders are wary of bringing such a proposal up for a vote unless more Republicans sign on.

When TPM asked Reid if background checks would be in the final bill, he was circumspect.

“I am working to put something together that I can get 60 votes to put a bill on the floor,” he said. “I’m going to do everything I can to do that. There are a couple of different background check proposals floating around. Manchin and Kirk are working on one. Schumer’s working on one. I don’t know who else is working on a bill.”

Manchin says he’s courting Republican support. But it’s hard to find. Given the popularity of background checks, Republican senators don’t want to go on record opposing the idea and would seemingly rather let it die by default.

Asked separately Tuesday if they would consider supporting gun background checks, Sens. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and John McCain (R-AZ) each dodged.

Earlier this month, Republicans were even backing away from expanded background checks. And the NRAhas declared any and all gun safety reform legislation as "assault on freedom". Does anyone think shunning the Assault Weapons Ban can suddenly improve odds for gun safety reform?

Salon's Joan Walsh isn't having any of it. She reminds us of Dianne Feinstein's own history with gun violence, and of the kind of power the gun lobby still has in Washington.

Clearly Reid cares more about red-state Democrats beholden to the gun lobby than he does about gun safety. Remember, this is the same NRA-backed Reid who put an amendment in the Affordable Care Act declaring that wellness and prevention efforts should not collect or disseminate information about whether patients had guns in their home.

Feinstein has had some of her finest moments on gun safety issues, most recently dressing down the insufferable Ted Cruz, who lectured her on why an assault weapons ban is unconstitutional. “I am not a sixth grader,” Feinstein told the arrogant mansplainer. “Congress is in the business of making the law. The Supreme Court interprets the law. If they strike down the law, they strike down the law.”

As a San Francisco County supervisor in 1978, Feinstein found the body of Harvey Milk after he and Mayor George Moscone were shot by Dan White. In 1994 she successfully pushed for an assault weapons ban after a massacre at a San Francisco high-rise killed nine people and injured six. “I’ve worked 40 years on these issues —guns. I’ve seen so much violence,” a shaken Feinstein told reporters today.

Compromise-oriented Democrats say dropping the ban gives a gun-control package far more chance of passing. At the Plum Line, Greg Sargent argues that the ban was a bargaining chip on the way to a push for universal background checks. But background check legislation passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the exact same 10-8 party-line vote as the assault weapons ban. Sen. Chuck Schumer talks optimistically about finding GOP partners, but early discussions with Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn fell apart, and there are currently no Republican senators on record supporting background checks, either. Talking to TPM, Reid refused to commit to putting background checks in the bill, either. “I am working to put something together that I can get 60 votes to put a bill on the floor,” he said.

We could ultimately wind up with Democrat-sponsored legislation that merely toughens penalties for so-called straw man gun purchases and beefs up school safety. That would be a shame. For a while it felt like the outrage over Newtown would be more transformative than that inspired by other gun carnage. But it seems NRA lobbyist Bob Welch was right when he said the organization would prevail once “the Connecticut effect” passed.

On one hand, I can see Harry Reid's logic. How can a bill reach 60 votes when it has a thorny provision that can't even reach 49 votes? Sometimes, one must compromise in order to get anything done.

However, there's a flip side to this. The NRA & "tea party" refuse to budge on even background checks. And they're pressuring even Republicans who were initially open to some kind of gun safety reform to oppose anything and everything. Is it worth Democrats dropping a key priority for President Obama and progressives to pursue passage of some bill, any kind of bill?

At this point, Reid can't even guarantee expansion of background checks in his final gun safety bill. Come on now, this is the provision that regularly polls near 90% support! Even the Assault Weapons Ban has broad support. And somehow, Congress possibly can't pass either, let alone both?

And then, of course, there's the actual policy FAIL here. When did it become more important to protect gun manufacturers' profits than the lives of our own people? Think about that. And the chatter on Capitol Hill starts to sound even more absurd. This is the true EPIC FAIL of what happened today.

The Needed Reality Check

It finally happened today. The Assault Weapons Ban finally had its day (of hearings) in the Senate Judiciary Committee. And there was plenty of explosive testimony on this key aspect of gun safety reform.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), the Chair of the Judiciary Committee who has also introduced the new Assault Weapons Ban, oversaw testimony from various experts. One was a doctor who actually treated



Also on hand to testify was Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Police Chief Edward Flynn. Unfortunately for him, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-South Carolina) tried to derail his testimony by badgering him over prosecutions of people who fail background checks. Nonetheless, Flynn was able to make his point by correcting Graham on what police officers are supposed to do.



Neil Heslin also testified today. He lost his son in Newtown. And he asked a simple question, the same one that we keep asking here.



Basically, today's hearing refuted what Joe Heck asserted during his town hall in Henderson last week. Assault weapons are truly dangerous weapons meant to kill masses of people in a very short amount of time. The kind of "recreation" they were created for is illegal in civilian society (hint: murder).

Heck should know better. And so should Harry Reid & Dean Heller. They need to look beyond the twisted politics of Capitol Hill and notice what's happening here in the real world.

Remember this: The NRA is NOT the victim. Look at the real victims. This is what our Members of Congress must do.

Heck Pulls Back on Guns

Yesterday morning, we saw fireworks. Rep. Joe Heck went on KDWN's "Alan Stock Show" and agreed with Stock calling Gabby Gifforda a "prop" as both were decrying President Obama's push for gun violence prevention.





At last night's town hall in Old Henderson, on the other hand, he was singing a very different tune. Last night, he actually started answering questions his constitutents have had on gun safety. And not only that, but he also suddenly found some common ground with President Obama on this matter.





However, there was a catch. While Heck was willing to extend an olive branch on universal background checks and curbing illegal gun trafficking, he was not willing to do the same on the Assault Weapons Ban and ban on high-capacity magazines.



Even though last week's KLAS/SUSA poll showed 57% of Nevadans support a ban on military grade assault weapons (and only 33% opposed), Heck didn't want to budge on this. He even claimed that the previous federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994-2004) didn't work. Unfortunately for Heck, the data on hand shows otherwise.

These so-called “external features” not only themselves allow for faster rates of fire and other more lethal uses of the guns, but also serve as effective proxy definitions for the sort of weapons best suited to kill people as efficiently as possible. The definition of “assault weapon” in the new federal ban proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) with respect to semi-automatic rifles and pistols is focused on two kinds of each. The rifles are civilian equivalents of “assault rifles,” the main class of rifle used by modern militaries. “Civilian” versions are distinguished only by their inability to fire either automatically or in bursts without a conversion kit. The pistols have features that make them liable to be converted to full automatic versions (that is, into submachine guns) or otherwise enhance their lethality (e.g., allow for faster rate of fire).

[The new Assault Weapons Ban] picks out those sorts of weapons in two ways. First, it bans specific guns (like the AR-15s used by James Holmes in Aurora and Adam Lanza in Newtown) that are particularly deadly. Many of these guns are civilian equivalents of military assault rifles, because — as assault rifle expert C.J. Chivers puts it — these guns were “conjured to form solely for the task of allowing men to more efficiently kill other men” because they are “smaller, lighter in weight, more tactically versatile and require a lighter per-man effective ammunition load than the infantry rifles that preceded them.” The Feinstein provisions, unlike in the 1994 federal ban, specify that “altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof” are also banned, so taking out a single screw and calling the weapon something different would not allow manufacturers to skirt the ban. The second provision defines generic features — like barrel shrouds that allow for faster fire or (for pistols) magazines outside the pistol grip —and bans any gun that has more than one of them and a detachable magazine (the old ban allowed a maximum of two features, making it easier to skirt).

These aren’t merely cosmetic features: they’re the ones that mark guns optimized for effective performance in combat-style situations. They also mark guns easily convertible to full automatic fire, like the TEC-9 submachine guns once favored in gang killings. One such kit is fully legal, despite the 1934 National Firearms Act banning the possession of automatic weapons without a permit. The kit produced by the company Slide Fire product allows you to turn your AR or AK series assault rifle into a rapid-fire machine without technically running afoul of the federal definition of “machine gun.”

The notion that assault rifles are similar in caliber to hunting rifles, and hence no more dangerous, doesn’t stand up to scrutiny for similar reasons. As the California Attorney General’s office explains, “Caliber has no bearing on a weapon’s status as a series weapon and should be disregarded when making an identification. For example, upper receiver conversion kits are available to convert almost any AR series weapon into .45 ACP, .40 S&W, 7.62 X 39 mm, 9 mm, 10 mm, or .223 caliber.” [...]

There is evidence that the 1994 federal ban saved lives despite a series of loopholes closed in the Feinstein bill and several state bans. Though there isn’t reliable data on the number of people killed by assault weapons in the United States, there is strong evidence from the Mexican border that both California’s assault weapons ban the federal assault weapon ban lowered the homicide rate. The clearest comes in a 2012 academic paper that treated the expiration of the federal assault weapon ban in 2004 as a natural experiment —California still had its assault weapon ban, but Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona didn’t have equivalents. The authors tracked homicides and weapon seizures in the Mexican provinces bordering the states, finding disproportionately lower homicide rates in provinces near California. This difference remained when other potential causes (like police presence) were accounted for, suggesting the federal and California bans had successful kept assault weapons out of the hands of cartels and other criminals. The expiration of the federal law, on this paper’s model, has gotten roughly 239 people killed on the Mexican border per year since 2004. This is consistent with another paper that found “the expiration of the AWB is responsible for at least 16.4 percent of the increase in the homicide rate in Mexico between 2004 and 2008.”

The 1994 ban, according to a Department of Justice review, also appears to have caused the percentage of crimes involving assault weapons in some major US cities to drop from 72 percent to 17 percent.

Even with its loopholes and other flaws, the 1994 federal ban actually did work to a large extent. And the new proposed ban goes a long way to fix those past flaws.

What's the purpose of civilian ownership & use of military grade assault weapons? And why are high-capacity magazines needed? How are these fit for "recreational use"? Heck didn't really answer that. And his spin falls flat once the facts are brought out.

Otherwise, it seems like Heck at least wants to be seen as "moderate" and "reasonable". So at least he's now open to background checks, curbing trafficking, and even lifting the ban on CDC researching gun violence. So maybe there's a chance of something getting through this Congress? Heck seems amenable to at least some measures, but it remains to be seen if his House G-O-TEA leaders allow a floor vote on anything... And if Alan Stock and the rest of the Nevada "tea party" will tolerate this talk from Heck.

It's Time to Act.

Last night offered a bizarre and jarring juxtaposition. Just as the Christopher Dorner manhunt was reaching its shocking conclusion in Big Bear, California, President Obama delivered his State of the Union Address to Congress. Yet as both stories played out last night, gun violence was front and center.



The President closed on gun safety. He evoked recent victims of gun violence in calling for a vote on gun safety reform. This was perhaps the most emotionally charging part of last night's address.

[... T]he heart of the speech came during his remarks on gun violence. Legislators wore green ribbons to remember the victims of Newtown, but Obama made sure that the victims of violence in urban neighborhoods had their moment here.

He introduced the parents of 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton, the majorette who was shot in a Chicago park just a mile from Obama’s home. “Just three weeks ago she was here with her classmates, performing at my inauguration,” he said, describing a girl who loved Fig Newtons and her friends. He urged Congress to back gun control legislation for Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, “along with two dozen other Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence.”

“They deserve a vote,” he said three times, and went on:

"Gabby Giffords deserves a vote.

"The families of Newtown deserve a vote.

"The families of Aurora deserve a vote.

"The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence –they deserve a simple vote." [...]

On guns, Obama seemed resigned to only getting part of his agenda, but it’s important that he continues to demand a vote on all of it. OK, so insisting “Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress. If you want to vote no, that’s your choice” may not be the approach of the toughest political boss, but on guns, it’s progress, when leaders of both parties scheme to keep popular measures from coming to a vote. Obama seemed to be arguing with absolutists in both camps when he remarked, “We were never sent here to be perfect. We were sent here to make what difference we can.”

And now, we have families throughout Southern California who have lost loved ones as well.

View more videos at: http://nbclosangeles.com.

Randal Quan, who worked hard as a police captain and then as a lawyer defending his colleagues when their jobs were in jeopardy, must live without his daughter.

Monica Quan had grown up beautifully, becoming an assistant basketball coach at Cal State Fullerton and becoming engaged to a young man who may have followed her father’s footsteps into a law enforcement career.

The Lawrence family was proud of Keith, Monica’s fiancé, who worked as a safety officer at USC and dreamed of a career among the ranks of those who protect and serve.

Two young children will grow up without their father, Riverside police officer Michael Crain, gunned down by Dorner while sitting in his patrol car at a traffic light. Crain’s partner, whom police have not yet named, was injured, and continues to fight for his life at a local hospital.

Crain’s wife, Regina, will have the company of hundreds of her lost husband’s colleagues at a funeral service planned for Wednesday, but she will still have to face a future without him. The scars left on her children, still unknown, will surely haunt all three of their lives.

The family of a San Bernardino sheriff’s deputy killed during Dorner’s last stand will also experience these ripples of grief. The deputy, who was not identified as of Wednesday morning, died after coming to help two state Fish and Wildlife wardens who had spotted the fugitive on the winding, snowy roads around Big Bear Lake on Tuesday.

Remember that Christopher Dorner owned a home here in Southern Nevada, about nine miles from The Strip in the Southwest Valley. And while we still don't know how or where he acquired his weapons, we do know he was a frequent customer at Lock N' Load in Henderson. He may have purchased his suppressors there.

Lock N' Load is near Eastern Avenue & the 215 Freeway, right in the heart of Joe Heck's Congressional District. On Monday, several constituents traveled to his Southwest Valley office to ask that he consider all of President Obama's gun safety agenda, including the Assault Weapons Ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines. Even though California already has strict gun safety laws, Dorner likely circumvented them by accessing assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, suppressors, and other dangerous items from a state where they can be easily found. Nevada happens to be one of those states.

We saw two major stories develop last night, and both highlighted the need for better federal gun safety standards. On Capitol Hill, President Obama asked Congress to hold a vote on life-saving gun safety reform measures that most Americans support. And while he was making his request, Members of Congress sat among survivors of gun violence. Joe Heck and Senators Dean Heller & Harry Reid all had to face Obama and these survivors.

Yet as this was happening, we saw even more gun violence victims mourn their lost loved ones in Southern California as the Christopher Dorner chase reached its stunning conclusion in Big Bear. A fourth victim's life was lost as a San Bernardino County Sheriff was shot down during the final standoff. And it's likely he and his colleagues were initially outgunned by Dorner.

What more must it take for Congress to act? Don't these victims deserve a vote? Last night served as another saddening reminder of what must be done.

Outgunned

We've been hearing quite a lot on gun safety lately. However, we haven't often heard from those who have the most first-hand experience in the matter. That changed last night when Washoe County Sheriff Mike Haley (D) went on "Ralston Reports" to talk about the subject.

(Jump to 9:00 for Haley.)



I can't overstate how critical this is. This shows just how broad and wide support for gun safety reform truly is. And it always helps to have those on the front line, like Mike Haley, speak up and remind us of what's at stake here.

Harry Reid may very well be paying attention. After all, he's finally got the ball rolling in the US Senate. And as we discussed yesterday, it does include most of President Obama's gun safety agenda.

However, there is one thing missing. And it's pretty big. And some gun safety advocates are upset over this glaring omission.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

President Obama asked yesterday why police officers should be outgunned on the streets. And he asked why weapons of war must be allowed into civilian environments. Believe it or not, this argument doesn't fall entirely onto deaf ears, especially beyond Capitol Hill.

So far, it looks like President Obama wants to fight for his entire gun safety plan. And that's music to progressives' ears. Salon's Joan Walsh likely isn't alone in demanding more courage from Congress on gun safety.

I’m tired of red- and purple-state Democrats getting a pass on gun issues because hunting, say, is popular in their states. Who could be more valuable than a red-state Democrat in telling hunters that Obama’s agenda won’t take away their hunting rifles? So I’m glad Obama’s demanding that Congress vote on an assault-weapons ban rather than letting leaders table it, as he did with other first-term priorities,even if that means conservative Democrats must take some tough votes. Of course, letting conservative Democrats crush an assault ban may also serve to protect them from the NRA. That’s allegedly why Reid is open to a vote on the issue. But it could have the unintended consequence of letting those newly motivated by Newtown single out Democrats who deserve criticism, or even a primary challenge, on the issue of guns.

Dianne Feinstein insists that she will push for her assault weapons ban bill, and Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, who used to represent Newtown as a congressman, derided those who’ve declared that push futile. “Too many people in Washington want to eulogize specific pieces of gun reform legislation before the debate has even started,” Murphy told “The Rachel Maddow Show.” The time to act is now.

Let me be clear: I think compromise is crucial to getting new policy crafted, and if it turns out legislators can find common ground on a limited package of reforms, chief among them universal criminal background checks, I’d support that. Greg Sargent featured a fascinating interview with crucial GOP House Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia, who represents a purple district that went for Obama in 2012. Rigell is teaming up with another Republican, Rep. Scott Meehan, along with Democrats Elijah Cummings and Carolyn McCarthy, to push legislation to crack down on gun trafficking designed to evade background checks. Rigell also says he is open to universal background checks, though he is undecided. “I certainly see the merits of that,” he told Sargent.

Still, being open to compromise is different from suggesting that Democrats should stick to supporting only measures that they know have broad support. The point of leadership is to lead, and as we saw with gay marriage, when the president stakes out a forward-looking stance on a divisive issue, he can help bring people along with him. I’m glad he’s continuing to push for the assault weapon and large magazine ban, even as the serious sensible people of the Beltway insist it will never pass. Maybe he’ll surprise them.

Because of Newtown, we’re in a new era for gun control legislation, which doesn’t mean we’ll get everything we want. But it requires a new approach to political leadership and negotiation, and the president is providing it.

Certainly, it's a good start that Harry Reid is finally being proactive on gun safety reform. And definitely in this case, something is better than nothing. Taking action on expanding background checks, curbing illegal gun trafficking, and limiting magazine capacity can save many lives.

But let's not forget the source of the tragedies in Newtown and Aurora. The most common ingredient in these mass slaughters is a military grade assault weapon. And it doesn't stop there. In inner city neighborhoods, street gangs can outgun law enforcement with their assault weapons. This is a real problem.


Can Congress secure a real solution?

Son of a Gun

Last weekend, we saw some troubling news out of Texas. Yep, there was yet another shooting.

Chris Kyle, a former Navy SEAL and author of the best-selling book American Sniper, and a second person were shot and killed Saturday at a gun range in Erath County, U.S. Marshals said.

Late Saturday, Lancaster police arrested a man who they say matched the description of a man wanted in connection with the slayings. After a brief chase, officers arrested 25-year-old Eddie Ray Routh, according to Lancaster police spokesperson Kelly Hooten.

Reporting on the shootings, the Stephenville Empire-Tribune said Erath County Sheriff Tommy Bryant would not discuss the victims. But the newspaper said that a source working at Rough Creek Lodge, which has a gun range at which the newspaper reported the slayings occurred, confirmed that one of the victims was Kyle.

WFAA-TV (Channel 8) reported that Kyle was shot point-blank while helping another soldier who is recovering from post traumatic stress syndrome.

This guy was a former Navy SEAL. He was highly trained in armed combat. And he was killed at a gun range. It just goes to show how no one is really immune from this kind of danger.

Against this saddening backdrop, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid finally came forward with his own plan to tackle gun safety reform. Fortunately, Reid's bill addresses a number of issues, including magazine capacity & universal background checks. However, there is one thing notably missing from Reid's bill.

An aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sketched out a plan for post-Newtown legislation to the paper that includes a lot of stuff gun control advocates want — but left out the ban.

“The bill would likely seek to limit the capacity of ammunition magazines; expand background checks to include sales at gun shows and other private transactions; and require better record keeping to keep guns out of the hands of those with mental illnesses,” the story said. “It would also try to curb gun sales in states with more relaxed gun laws to buyers in states with stricter laws.”

On ABC’s This Week on Sunday, Reid said he’ll allow amendments on a gun bill giving Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the sponsor of the new assault weapons ban in the Senate, a chance to include it in a final package. But Reid was noncommittal on whether he’d vote for Feinstein’s ban (he’s voted against bans before), and repeated his promise to move a gun bill he thinks the Republican-controlled House could actually pass. That likely means no assault weapons ban.

So at least Senator Reid has finally put something on the table. And to his credit, he's ignoring the gun lobby's bullpuckey and proposing common-sense items that are wildly popular. However, he still seems to be afraid of the Assault Weapons Ban that President Obama, his good friend Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), and at least 58% of Americans support. Why is that?

Why are military grade weapons OK for regular civilian exposure? How are they necessary for hunting or recreation? Remember that these assault weapons are specifically designed to kill masses of people in very little time.

But an assault weapons ban is designed for an entirely different subset of homicides. It targets the mass shootings that have occurred roughly once per month since 2009, according to the Mayors Against Illegal Guns data.

When assault weapons or high capacity magazines are used in a mass shooting — 23 percent of the time since 2009 — more people are shot and more people are killed.

Mass shooters who use an assault weapon or a high capacity magazine shoot more than twice as many people than those who use handguns, according to the MAIG data. The data also shows them to be 54 percent more lethal.

This chart shows the average number of casualties at a mass shooting event since 2009. When a shooter doesn't use an assault weapon or high capacity magazine, he or she shoots 7 and kills 5.4 people on average. When a shooter is using a high capacity magazine or an assault weapon, he or she shoots 15.6 and kills 8.3 people on average.

And that's just the start. There's even more data pointing out the need for complete gun safety reform. And President Obama perhaps hit on the most easily understandable reason today in Minneapolis.

President Obama on Monday reiterated his call for a ban on assault weapons during a speech in Minneapolis, saying, "Weapons of war have no place on our streets or in our schools or threatening our law enforcement officers."

"Our law enforcement officers should never be outgunned on the streets," Obama said.

Think about it. Why are these military grade weapons on the streets, in schools, in houses of worship, in shopping malls, or anywhere else other than a war zone? When did we start living in war zones?

Why is this even controversial on Capitol Hill? We all know the answer (3 letters: NRA), but it's still so nonsensical. And even Reid's more conservative bill may still be "too much" for House Republicans. No really, we still don't know yet of House Speaker John Boehner will allow a floor vote on any kind of gun safety reform.

The House GOP leadership has not said whether it will allow votes on either the trafficking or background check proposals. So it needs to be reiterated that these are both no-brainers that don’t infringe on the rights of the law abiding and are supported by law enforcement. Hopefully we’ll soon see more leadership like that shown here by Rep. [Scott] Rigell [R-Virginia] from a handful of other House Republicans.

As unlikely as it might seem that these two proposals could ever get through the House, it is premature to write them off as completely dead. And if they both pass, that would constitute passage of two thirds of Obama’s gun control agenda —and would amount to a major achievement, with or without any assault weapons ban.

Even with a couple smaller bills attracting bipartisan support, we don't know yet what can pass Congress. How many more deaths must occur before they start waking up & smelling the bloody reality out here in the real world?

It's Time to Act.

Just over a week ago, President Obama revealed his comprehensive gun safety plan. Today, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) unveiled her own take on the cornerstone of the President's gun safety agenda. Feinstein shepherded the original Assault Weapons Ban through Congress in 1994, and she's ready to do it again in 2013. But this time, she insists this bill will be even more effective in curbing the dangerous level of access to both military grade weapons and high-capacity magazines.



So what's in it? Let's start here.

“No weapon is taken from anyone,” Sen. Feinstein said on Thursday. “The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time.”

The bill expands the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that Feinstein approved but Congress declined to renew in 2004, after lawmakers argued that, as it was written, the ban had many loopholes.

The new legislation would ban the sale, manufacture, importation, and transfer of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines as well as ban high-capacity ammunition the holds more than 10 rounds.

It also requires anyone who already owns an assault rifle to use a secure storage and safety device and bans them from selling high-capacity clips. Weapons purchased before the law’s enactment would be grandfathered in, a measure drawn to avoid alienating gun owners.

“Getting this bill signed into law will be an uphill battle, and I recognize that, but it’s a battle worth having,” Feinstein said at a press conference Thursday afternoon.

So is this more effective than the past version? Wonkblog's Brad Plumer has more details. Basically, this version lists more military grade weapons, updates the definition of "assault weapons" (so that gun manufacturers can't sidestep this bill if enacted into law), and sets in place programs (like voluntary buybacks and strict ownership guidelines for current weapons in circulation) to gradually reduce the circulation of these military grade assault weapons. All in all, Feinstein's new bill looks much stronger and less prone to loophole poking than the 1994 bill.

What's likely the bigger challenge is getting this bill passed. Already, the gun lobby is engaging in hysterical fearmongering to build opposition to any kind of gun safety reform. And Nevada's own Harry Reid has been cagey on the subject. (He recently said he'll allow Senate floor votes on Obama's proposals, but he hasn't declared yet what he will personally support.)

We know gun safety reform has broad public support. Yes, even the Assault Weapons Ban has the support of 58% of Americans. This is why Senator Feinstein and progressive grassroots groups like Courage Campaign demand action. So now, it's time for Senator Reid to act.