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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Must We Trash Tahoe Forever?

(Also at Daily Kos)



All may seem to be well at Lake Tahoe, but it really isn't. That seemed to be the underlying theme of this year's Lake Tahoe Summit. While there was plenty of pomp and circumstance surrounding Governors Jerry Brown (D-California) and Brian Sandoval (R-Nevada) signing a 65 year pact to improve clarity, the smiles couldn't be kept for very long.

The pact to reduce pollution to the lake comes as the effort between California and Nevada to control development at the lake is threatened by a new law in Nevada that requires an easing of the threshold to approve new projects. [...]

Before signing the agreement, [Jerry] Brown and [...] Brian Sandoval [...] held meetings for two days at Lake Tahoe and said Tuesday they would visit each other's state capitol to talk with lawmakers about how California and Nevada will work together.

The cooperative relationship is threatened by a bill signed into law by Sandoval this year that would withdraw Nevada from the bistate Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, which has overseen development at the lake since 1969, unless the compact governing the agency is amended to make it easier for members of one state to approve new development projects. Such a change would have to be approved by both the California Legislature and Congress.

And if that weren't bad enough, "austerity gone wild" on the federal level may make matters even worse for Tahoe.

Few have done more to try to protect Lake Tahoe than [Senator Dianne] Feinstein [D-CA], a co-author of the 2000 law that has brought more than $450 million in federal money to Lake Tahoe for environmental restoration over the past decade. She introduced a similar bill earlier this year – seeking $415 million over the next decade – but is not hopeful it will succeed.

"I don't think I can get the money," she said Monday at an inaugural fundraising dinner for the Tahoe Fund. The new nonprofit group formed last year to raise private money for collaborative restoration projects.

"That's the bad news," she said. "That's where the private sector has to come in."

Feinstein and her husband, Richard Blum, are contributors themselves. On Monday, she announced they would give $50,000 – a sum quickly matched by two other donors from Nevada. In all, about $200,000 was raised.

Scientists believe more stable water conditions created by climate change have led to an aquatic explosion of tiny diatom-algae cells that scatter light, reducing clarity.

They also said the algae growth is likely to be temporary and that erosion-control efforts remain critical. UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center said in its report, "Tahoe: State of the Lake Report 2011": "There is every reason to believe that if it were not for the decades of watershed management and water quality restoration projects, the lake's transparency would be worse than it is today."

Is this what we've come to? Lake Tahoe is one of the greatest natural treasures in the world...





And it's being threatened because the feds won't live up to their end of the deal while Nevada is threatening to rip the entire deal to shreds? And all of this is happening as Lake Tahoe clarity is dropping toward record lows and climate change may muddy the waters some more!

Sometimes, I have to ponder our ability to take so much of this planet for granted. For those of us living in The West, it's easy to picture an idyllic summer at a pristine Tahoe beach... Or perhaps an equally wondrous winter skiing the majestic slopes overlooking the crystal clear lake. Now imagine all of that gone. And imagine this being replaced by yet another toxic dump surrounded by endless tract house subdivisions and strip malls. And before you think it's "impossible", remember what's already happening to the Truckee River in Reno... And look at what's at stake at Red Rock Canyon near Las Vegas now!



Obviously, the trashing of the Truckee River up north and the constant threats to Red Rock Canyon down south didn't start overnight. It took years of mismanagement and ignoring of pleas for more sustainable stewardship. Oh yes, and it didn't help that overly ambitious real estate developers were eager to "build, baby, build"... Until it became "bust, baby, bust" as "The Real Estate Bubble" burst and The Great Recession began. Now, Reno and Las Vegas are left with half-baked "master-planned communities" surrounded by nowhere and the yucky side effects of overdevelopment.

However, this doesn't have to be the case in Lake Tahoe. Tahoe has had the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of Reno and Vegas, and Jerry Brown & California legislators now have a chance to avoid the mistake made by Nevada in threatening to blow up the regulatory safeguards needed to preserve Lake Tahoe.

And Congress has the opportunity to do its part to improve the health and well being of Tahoe by passing the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act that Dianne Feinstein and Harry Reid have introduced to continue efforts to improve the clarity of the lake and the health of the surrounding forests.

We don't have to lose Tahoe. We don't have to corrupt this jewel any further and risk destroying it forever. But if we don't act, we'll cede our opportunity to save Lake Tahoe.

DOMA Be Gone? Start Here.

Amidst all the crazy political buzz today, there was some actual good policy news coming out of DC. Here, take a gander.

Today, I will be introducing legislation to repeal the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) once and for all. I will be joined by my colleagues Sens. Leahy, Gillibrand, Blumenthal and Coons. I have opposed DOMA since I voted against it in 1996 and it’s time to erase this stain from our history books once and for all.

[...] I don’t take these things lightly. As I survey the field, I will tell you straight-up: I will need your help as I mount this campaign. I can work from the inside, but I need your help on the outside. We need a mass movement that can make calls, write letters, and mobilize your fellow citizens at a moment’s notice if we’re going to win this battle.

Yep, you saw that right. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is introducing The Respect for Marriage Act in The Senate as a companion to the House bill. This is the first time this bill has ever seen the light of day in the upper chamber, so just this introduction alone is a historic event!

As I said last month, this fight won't be easy. But with the stakes so high, a legal challenge to DOMA already pending in federal court, and House Republicans trying to politicize the issue already by mounting their own legal defense of DOMA, we might as well go on offense here.

So please join Senator Feinstein and Courage Campaign as a citizen co-sponsor of The Respect for Marriage Act, then encourage our Nevada Congresscritters to follow suit. It's really past due that we dump DOMA once and for all.

DOMA Be Gone? Not Yet, But Look Closer.

All of a sudden, hell froze over. President Obama directed the Justice Department to drop its legal defense of Section 3 of DOMA ("Defense of Marriage" Act), the provision of the 1996 statute forbidding the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. This prevents legally married gay and lesbian couples from accessing such basics like federal tax deductions and spousal Social Security benefits that they're otherwise entitled to, and this is the provision being challenged in federal court.

And now, we're also hearing this.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) today said, “My own belief is that when two people love each other and enter the contract of marriage, the Federal government should honor that,” and then announced her intention to introduce a bill to repeal DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act that bans federal recognition of same-sex marriages, into the Senate. This comes just hours after Attorney General Eric Holder announced President Obama believes DOMA to be unconstitutional and they have agreed to not defend the fifteen-year old law in court.

In a statement, Senator Feinstein announced, “As a Member of the Judiciary Committee, it is my intention to introduce legislation that will once and for all repeal the Defense of Marriage Act,” adding, “I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.  It was the wrong law then; it is the wrong law now; and it should be repealed.”

Wow. No, really. Wow!

So now President Obama realizes there's no credible Constitutional defense of discrimination? And Dianne Feinstein is going to the mat for equality in The Senate? What's going on?

Perhaps 2012 politics is already in play. And funny enough, I think that's a good thing. Let me explain.

For far too long, we queer folk have been subjected to being scapegoated for pretty much all the nation's woes, and we've been used and abused as political pinatas as politicians out-maneuvered each other on who was more homophobic. Basically, our suffering was considered "good politics".

But all of a sudden, that seems to be changing. Now don't get me wrong, we still have a long road ahead of us in becoming truly equal in this country. Still, it's funny to see more and more politicians embrace LGBTQ equality as a "winning issue" and embrace pro-equality policy as good politics. It may not seem like much at first glance, but it's quite the step forward.

Remember that just seven years ago, President Bush embraced a Constitutional marriage ban and Congress was debating whether to make us permanent second class citizens and enshrine bigotry in our Federal Constitution. So even if there's virtually no chance of Congress repealing DOMA this year, it's at least refreshing to see the legislative conversation move from taking away our civil rights to protecting our civil rights. And even if Congress doesn't repeal DOMA soon, the courts will one day.

So today may be one small step for Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein, but it's one giant leap for LGBTQ equality.