Leahy Goes Soft On Guns

He supports outlawing private transfers and magazine bans, and he’s going to hold hearings. Leahy’s committee is where all the anti-gun bills will be referred to, so this is a significant bellwether and it does not bode well for us at all. Folks, we have to get writing. Vermont, unfortunately, has a long history of sending anti-gun legislators to Congress, so if you do live in Vermont, get writing. We have to keep a close eye out, because now that Obama has fired the starter pistol, we’re going to find out how many more “friends” never really were.

15 thoughts on “Leahy Goes Soft On Guns”

  1. As far as the Senate goes, I’m thinking Harry Reid has told the NRA that “You’re on your own.” So it doesn’t surprise me one bit that Leahy is going to push for Anti-Gun Legislation.

    And with all those RINOs in the Senate, I’m thinking the “Line in the Sand” will HAVE to be in the House, while the Legal Challenges creep through the Federal Courts. But since we know that many House Members only give Lip Service to the 2A, I’m not feeling real “Warm and Snuggly” there. Mid-Terms aren’t that far away.

    But it never hurts to try.

  2. Well, the fact that he’s going to hold hearings isn’t really a problem. And just cause he’s chair it doesn’t mean anything gets out. Here are the Republicans on the committee:

    Chuck Grassley, Iowa, Ranking Member
    Orrin Hatch, Utah
    Jeff Sessions, Alabama
    Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
    John Cornyn, Texas
    Mike Lee, Utah
    Tom Coburn, Oklahoma

    Leahy is going to need to get them to agree with him. And that won’t be easy. The only one who might get squishy is Lindsey Graham, and of course, he’s up for election (ie: he wont be squishy over the next two years, especially on this issue).

    Also telling that he won’t support an assault weapons ban. Know what that means? Its already off the table.

    1. Graham was pretty strongly out there early in this, and speaking as an AR-15 owner. I’m not sure Graham is going to be a problem. But I’m just as scared of a magazine ban as I am an AWB. Really, in practical terms, the magazine ban had more impact on me during the federal ban than the rifle ban.

    2. I tallied it up a couple days ago, of the 18 members of the Senate Judiciary, 10 have a high probability of siding with us, all either A rated or AQ rated by the NRA. Just have to keep the pressure on them…

      1. 10???

        Well, there are 7 Rs. Which three Ds from this list will side with us

        Patrick Leahy, Vermont, Chairman
        Dianne Feinstein, California
        Chuck Schumer, New York
        Richard Durbin, Illinois
        Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
        Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
        Al Franken, Minnesota
        Chris Coons, Delaware
        Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut
        Mazie Hirono, Hawaii

        1. I’m sorry I must be losing my mind. Looking at it again, I have no idea where I got two Ds on our side. Disregard my first post…

          1. No prob. I was thinking you might have looked at House Judiciary, or something else.

          1. 1. Chuck Grassley, Iowa, Ranking Member
            2. Orrin Hatch, Utah
            3. Jeff Sessions, Alabama
            4. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
            5. John Cornyn, Texas
            6. Mike Lee, Utah
            7. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma

            Who is the 8th?? If you go to the Judiciary Committee web page it also lists Jon Kyk, but he’s not in the Senate anymore.

            1. That’s the disconnect. I just counted the members on the webpage. Had no idea Kyl was no longer in the Senate…

    3. Grassley has been squishy on mag limits. Maybe that is his way of sounding reasonable. At least he doesn’t support a fresh AWB. Of course, my other Senator, Harkin, is worse than worthless- he’s always been actively anti-gun.

      1. Yep. But I assume Grassley holds the line here. Of course, this is going to be ultimately a battle about 2014. Rs are going to want to give Ds enough rope to hang themselves. And if they let it out of the committee, especially knowing that its DOA in the House then they can really cause political damage to the Ds majority (and not risk any negative political harm themselves, except from those in the base who don’t get the larger strategic picture).

        1. Well, that means they’re going to have to keep their fingerprints off it. If one of those Republicans—who I’ll note are not NE RINOs like the Maine ones—votes for it, that gambit goes down the drain. If there aren’t enough Democrats to pass it and a Republican vote pushes it over the top there will be hell to pay.

  3. The dems have the votes to get it out of committee. I don’t see looking at that list of communists, er, I mean democrats, how we get any of their votes. However, the bill still has to be voted on by the entire senate, so it can easily be killed there. There is also the House where the republicans have a firm majority.

Comments are closed.