It’s been a dreadful year for mass shootings in the United States. As my colleague Clarissa-Jan Lim noted, after some back-to-back shootings over the weekend, the Gun Violence Archive has recorded “38 mass killings involving guns this year, defined as shootings in which four people or more are killed, not including the shooter.”
It wasn’t long after the report was published when the public learned of the shooting at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Around the same time on Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats tried to advance an assault weapons ban. As Reuters reported, the effort met with a predictable fate.
U.S. Senate Republicans moved to block a ban on assault-style weapons put forward by Democrats on Wednesday, as the United States recorded the highest number of mass shootings for the second year in a row. The motion, put forward by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, would have reauthorized the Assault Weapons Ban, which first passed in 1994 and expired 10 years later.
By now, the basics of the legislation are probably pretty familiar, though The Hill summarized its core elements: The measure intends to prohibit “semiautomatic rifles with pistol grips, forward grips and folding or telescoping stocks, as well as rifles outfitted with grenade launchers, barrel shrouds or threaded barrels to allow for noise and flash suppressors to be attached.”
The same bill would make it illegal to buy and sell high-capacity magazines.
When the original policy was approved, Americans saw fewer gun deaths. The Democratic goal is to try to save lives by restoring the successful law the United States already benefited from in the recent past.
Republicans nevertheless balked.
“Americans have a constitutional right to own a firearm. Every day, people across Wyoming responsibly use their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms,” Senate Republican Conference Chair John Barrasso argued. The Wyoming senator added, “Democrats are demanding that the American people give up their liberty.”
Every time I hear this argument, I’m reminded of the same obvious rejoinder: When it comes to firearms, Americans already accept plenty of limits. Sweeping restrictions on the sale of automatic rifles, for example, have been in place for decades, and even GOP lawmakers have made no effort to undo such laws — despite their interference with gun consumers’ “liberty.”
That’s because there’s a broad understanding that such restrictions help protect public safety and save lives — just as an assault weapons ban would. “The American people are sick and tired of enduring one mass shooting after another,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in floor remarks. “They’re sick and tired of vigils and moments of silence for family, friends, classmates, coworkers.” The bill failed soon after — just in time to learn of the UNLV shootings. Postscript: Just as an aside, I occasionally like to remind folks that the original assault weapons ban, when approved in 1994, passed the Senate with 56 votes. What about the 60-vote threshold? The assault weapons ban was approved by a simple majority because it wasn’t filibustered. As recently as 1994 — hardly ancient history — most bills were still considered on majority-rule votes. The routinization of the 60-vote threshold is a modern invention wholly at odds with the institution’s historical norms.
Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans' War on the Recent Past."
Latest Post
Recommended
