posted April 16, 2014 10:24 AM            

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., recently said he needs additional votes before revisiting a proposed expansion of gun sale background checks that the Senate derailed last April. That has left advocates of tighter gun curbs hoping Reid will allow votes on more modest proposals, such as one by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., to add convicted stalkers to the list of criminals barred from acquiring guns.

But with Reid wary of exposing Democratic senators facing tight re-election contests in some conservative and Western states to politically risky votes — and the Republican-run House showing no appetite to restrict guns anyway — people aren't holding their breath waiting for proposed gun restrictions to reach the Senate floor before Election Day.

"This kind of change doesn't happen overnight," said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "There are obviously a lot of other considerations and variables in play here, like elections."

Klobuchar's bill on stalkers would play into Democrats' campaign-season theme of pushing legislation that appeals to women, a key Democratic voting bloc. She said Tuesday she has discussed her legislation with Reid but didn't ask about holding a vote because she's first trying to round up Republican support to make the measure bipartisan.

Caution on the gun issue by Senate Democratic leaders has been displayed several times in recent months, even as the December 2012 killings of 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., that fanned interest in firearms restrictions fade further into the past.

The September 2013 shooting deaths of 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard and this month's slaying of three people outside Jewish community centers in Overland Park, Kan., were greeted with no fresh Democratic legislative pushes. And in the face of National Rifle Association opposition last month, the White House paused its effort to push its surgeon general nominee through the Senate — Dr. Vivek Murthy, a Harvard Medical School physician, Obama political organizer and gun-control supporter.

"They're waiting for another tragedy to exploit," Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said of the Senate hiatus on gun activity. "The question is, do they want gun owners across this country to be more enraged this election cycle than they're already going to be?"

White House officials say they've not abandoned the issue. They cite 23 executive orders Obama issued last year, including restarting federal research on gun violence, plus additional steps like starting to close a loophole that let some felons get machine guns by registering them to trusts or corporations.

"We're just going to keep pushing until Congress does the right thing as well," presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett told gun-control activists visiting the White House last week.

As the issue has ebbed in Congress, it has accelerated in the states, where legislatures are debating hundreds of gun-related bills, some weakening and others strengthening restrictions.

Meanwhile, powerful groups are revving up for the fall congressional elections.

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire and advocate of firearms curbs, plans to spend $50 million this year setting up a new group that will mix campaign contributions with field operations aimed at pulling gun-control voters to the polls.

The new organization, Everytown for Gun Safety, will focus on women, especially mothers, The New York Times reported on its website Tuesday.

"This is what the American public wants," Bloomberg said Wednesday on NBC's "Today." He said his group would reward candidates "who are protecting lives, and make sure that those who are trying to keep people from being protected lose elections."

Bloomberg made nearly $14 million in federal campaign contributions for gun-control candidates in the 2012 elections.

Also planning campaign activity this year is Americans for Responsible Solutions, a gun-control group headed by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and her husband, ex-astronaut Mark Kelly. The group reported late Tuesday that its political committee has raised nearly $14.5 million since it was founded in January 2013, and it plans to spend its money on federal and state races, said spokesman Mark Prentice.

Giffords was severely wounded in a Jan. 8, 2011, shooting rampage that killed six people and injured 13.

The National Rifle Association spent nearly $20 million on federal campaign activity in 2012 races. Its true strength, though, is viewed as its claimed 5 million members, many of whom consider gun issues strongly when voting.

One area where fights over gun policy seem likely is in the annual bills Congress must pass to finance federal agencies.

Those bills traditionally contain more than a dozen longstanding, gun-related provisions. These include language making it easier to import antique guns and harder for the government to get gun-tracing information from licensed firearms dealers.

When lawmakers consider those spending measures, Republicans could again try blocking requirements that gun dealers in states bordering Mexico report multiple purchases of shotguns or rifles to one buyer, an effort the Democratic-led Senate thwarted last year. Democrats could try requiring dealers to conduct annual inventories and report the results to the government.

A year ago, Reid fell five votes short of the 60 needed to bust a GOP procedural blockade against the background check measure. He and others have said they've not yet lined up any additional votes.

Also defeated were Democratic efforts to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, tools used by some assailants in recent mass shootings. Taken together, the measures were among Obama's top domestic priorities.

The background check provision, written by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., would have required such checks for all commercial firearms purchases at gun shows and online. Currently, background checks — aimed at preventing criminals and the mentally ill from acquiring weapons — are required only for sales handled by licensed federal gun dealers.

posted April 16, 2014 11:31 PM            

This is another dead bang loser for demoscats.

The facts are...the highest violent crime rates are in jurisdictions with the most strict gun control laws exercised against law abiding citizens.

The lowest violent crime rates are in jurisdictions with expanded citizen gun ownership rights and liberal concealed carry laws.

posted June 02, 2014 07:06 AM            

We have background checks to purchase firearms and a 3 day waiting period to purchase handguns.

We have a listing from the seller of everyone who buys loaded ammunition from a retailer. Loaded ammunition has to be signed for by the buyer.

We have restrictions against certain types of firearms...automatic weapons and outright bans against ownership of others.

Now Catalina/katatonic, post the link to that poll which says 79% of Americans want gun control.

Gun control: Ads can’t be taken seriously
April 25, 2013

On Sunday, April 21, “progressives” (a euphemism for statist liberals) ran large display ads apparently in all major Montana newspapers claiming that 79 percent of Montanans want more federal gun control. This humorous number becomes even funnier when it is attributed in the ad to “Mayors for Illegal Guns.” (Yes, “for.” Check your copy.)

A curious person might ask, why would any mayors be for illegal guns in the first place? And, which specific Montana mayors are for illegal guns? Another curious person might also ask why a group pushing more gun control would cite a “poll” from another group that is for illegal guns? Right. None of it makes any sense at all. However, it is stunningly consistent that those advocating gun control never make sense.

A poll run by the Helena Independent Record shows that fully three-quarters of Montanans oppose more federal gun control. That is accurate Montana sentiment.

The display ads run throughout Montana provides the names of a bunch of people who claim to live in Montana and be gun owners. Researching these people suggests they are mostly a bunch of liberal operatives, or just dingbats, and are very unlikely to actually be gun owners. None of them have been seen at competitive shooting matches in Montana. It’s a safe bet that hardly any of them regularly purchase hunting licenses. They’re so clueless they selected a photo for the ad of a man carrying a tripod, thinking it’s a rifle.

The real howler is that anyone associated with this significant advertising expenditure (probably out-of-state “dark money“) expects any Montanans to believe the theme of the ad – the joke, that most Montanans want more federal gun control, again according to “Mayors for Illegal Guns.“

posted June 02, 2014 07:38 AM            

Never before has such a comprehensive survey of law enforcement officers’ opinions on gun control, gun violence, and gun rights been conducted

In March, PoliceOne conducted the most comprehensive survey ever of American law enforcement officers’ opinions on the topic gripping the nation's attention in recent weeks: gun control.

More than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals took part in the survey, which aimed to bring together the thoughts and opinions of the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility.

Totaling just shy of 30 questions, the survey allowed officers across the United States to share their perspectives on issues spanning from gun control and gun violence to gun rights.

Top Line Takeaways
Breaking down the results, it's important to note that 70 percent of respondents are field-level law enforcers — those who are face-to-face in the fight against violent crime on a daily basis — not office-bound, non-sworn administrators or perpetually-campaigning elected officials.

1.) Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

2.) The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.

3.) About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.

4.) Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.

posted June 02, 2014 07:53 AM            

While voters still care about progressive issues — 71 percent want to see sweeping immigration reform and 79 percent want tougher measures on gun purchases
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum26/HTML/002541.html

Interesting analysis in that article...that because a lot of people consider the ACA an important topic that must be bad news for the Dems...

And another "likely voters" poll ie the pollsters have made up their minds who is likely to vote. Not exactly objective is it?

posted June 02, 2014 07:58 AM            

6.) The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.

7.) More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.

......Bottom Line Conclusions
Quite clearly, the majority of officers polled oppose the theories brought forth by gun-control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon capabilities and production would reduce crime.

In fact, many officers responding to this survey seem to feel that those controls will negatively affect their ability to fight violent criminals.

Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.

The officers patrolling America’s streets have a deeply-vested interest — and perhaps the most relevant interest — in making sure that decisions related to controlling, monitoring, restricting, as well as supporting and/or prohibiting an armed populace are wise and effective. With this survey, their voice has been heard.

posted June 02, 2014 09:38 AM            

Right, you mean the mixed message propaganda contained in that poll you cited that 79% of Americans want more gun control?

If that were even remotely true, demoscats would be out howling and demanding more restrictive gun control for law abiding citizens. Wuss republicans would be going along with demoscats on that issue.

But, it's not true or even remotely true. What Americans want is restrictions on criminals and the criminally insane purchasing guns.

Restricting magazine capacity, restricting the sale of semi-auto hand guns and rifles and making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase guns and ammunition ARE DEAD BANG LOSERS for demoscats and anyone else in politics.

It's not the NRA who caused the surge in gun and ammunition sales. That was caused by the Marxist Messiah O'Bomber and his Brown Shirt Nazi think alikes who ordered more than 2 BILLION ROUNDS OF HOLLOW POINT PISTOL AMMO FOR AGENCIES LIKE THE IRS, EPA, BLM, US PARK SERVICE AND OTHERS.

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
The Marxist Messiah, Barack Hussein O'Bomber

posted June 02, 2014 10:20 AM            

.

posted June 02, 2014 10:20 AM            

Whereas the numbers re gun reform and immigration are straightforwardly cited.

It came from politico, thought they were down your street? Whereas your quote is from a year ago. The Dems are indeed wusses if they kowtow to the 21% making a fuss.

posted June 02, 2014 10:25 AM            

The background check provision, written by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., would have required such checks for all commercial firearms purchases at gun shows and online. Currently, background checks — aimed at preventing criminals and the mentally ill from acquiring weapons — are required only for sales handled by licensed federal gun dealers.
(from the OP)