Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced a new version of the assault weapons ban on Thursday.
And it’s already looking like a lost cause.
Most everyone agrees that the ban is the most ambitious and politically difficult item on President Obama’s and Vice President Biden’s gun control agenda. And there is increasing evidence that it will be cast aside in favor or more doable proposals. Below, we look at four reasons why.
1. Joe Biden is downplaying it
The same day that Feinstein introduced the bill, Biden suggested that magazine sizes were the most important part of a gun control package. ”I’m much less concerned, quite frankly, about what you call an assault weapon than I am about magazines and the number of rounds that can be held in a magazine,” Biden said in a Google Hangout. He added that “more people out there get shot with a Glock that has cartridges in a (high-capacity magazine)” and also suggested that shotguns are more deadly than so-called assault weapons. Biden then again downplayed the ban again during a two-hour roundtable discussion on Friday.
This, we remind you, is all within 24 hours of the assault weapons ban being introduced by a Democratic senator. And Biden is already giving us reasons why it’s not that big a deal.
Biden is the point man on all of this. His words matter, and he’s quite aware of the current politics of his issue. The fact that he’s downplaying the assault weapons ban suggests that it’s not likely to happen and he doesn’t want the whole thing to be viewed as a failure if the ban isn’t passed.
2. The votes aren’t there
As Bloomberg reports, red-state Democratic Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Joe Manchin (W.Va.) have all suggested they won’t support an assault weapons ban, as have independent Sen. Angus King (Maine) and moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins (Maine).
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) stands next to a display of assault weapons during a news conference Thursday on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
And that list doesn’t include some other red-state Democrats who are up for reelection in 2014, including Sens. Mary Landrieu (La.), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Tim Johnson (S.D.).
Quite simply: passing an assault weapons ban in the House is difficult enough. If even a few Senate Democrats bolt, Republicans will suddenly have no incentive to cast risky votes, and there is no hope for the bill. And it’s very hard to believe that all of these red-state Democrats are suddenly going to come together and vote for an assault weapons ban.
Time is the enemy
Every day that the country gets further and further away from the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., the Obama Administration’s quest for new gun measures becomes more difficult.
While there was arguably more impetus for gun control after Newtown than there has been in years, it’s clear that the momentum has waned to some extent and people have, as the always do, refocused their attention on other political things, like illegal immigration, the budget and Obama’s Cabinet nominations.
Obama knew this was a possibility, stressing in the days after Newtown that the Administration wouldn’t simply ignore the recommendations of Biden’s new gun control panel, as has happened with other special commissions. Obama made good on his promise, but in the intervening weeks, the immediacy of the issue was lost and senators, predictably, became much less willing to go out on a limb politically.
Obama and Biden don’t need the ban
Even if the final result includes universal background checks and some of the other items, with no assault weapons ban, Obama and Biden can still lay claim to the most significant gun legislation in years/decades. They — and the red-state Democrats mentioned above — can still say they did something to avert future massacres and feel good about their efforts.
Whether it will be seen as a victory or not will depend a lot on how they prepare the American public for the outcome. After all, it’s far better to under-promise and over-deliver than vice versa.
When it comes to the assault weapons ban, Biden and Democrats like Feinstein are setting expectations somewhere between “not going to happen” and “unlikely.” And that’s probably about where they should be.
When the 1994 assault weapons ban was approved, it passed by the narrowest of margins in the House, 216-214.
That was despite three big factors very much favoring passage:
1. Democrats had a 79-seat majority in the House
2. There was much higher public support for stricter gun control laws
3. It was significantly less restrictive than the current proposal
Yet even with those three things, 77 Democrats voted against the bill, and just 38 Republicans voted for it.
Today, Democrats are a 32-seat minority, meaning they need to have a completely united caucus and about 17 Republicans to jump on board.
In addition, just like the American public, the GOP caucus today is even more conservative on guns than it was back then. And perhaps most illustrative, even some Republicans who voted for the 1994 ban are not supporting today’s version.
Just four Republicans who voted for the 1994 bill remain in Congress: Reps. Peter King (R-N.Y.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Bill Young (R-Fla.).While King and Smith still support the ban, a spokesman for Ros-Lehtinen told The Fix on Wednesday that she will oppose it.
Moderate former congressman Chris Shays (R-Conn.), another “yes” for the 1994 ban who actually guided the bill through Congress, has also deemed the bill ineffective. After the theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., and during his unsuccessful Senate primary campaign last year, Shays said the ban “didn’t achieve anything.”
Shays told The Fix that such legislation amounts to simply getting rid of “the ugliest gun” in order to make people feel better.
“Do I think the assault weapons ban made a difference? Frankly, I don’t think it made a difference,” Shays said. “The only reason to vote for it is public perception that you’re doing something meaningful.”
Shays also said he could count 19 Democrats who lost elections because they supported the 1994 ban. “This vote is deadly for some members, and maybe times have changed, but it is a real deadly vote,” Shays said.
The fact is, if an assault weapons ban could barely pass in a heavily Democratic House in 1994, a more restrictive version stands very little chance of passing in a Republican-controlled House in 2013.