Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dumps more cold water on the AWB

[archangel689]

The Fat lady Sings!!!!


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will join Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the Nevada Democrat will preserve his traditional pro-gun rights voting record.

“Senator Reid would oppose an effort (to) reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future,” Manley told The Hill in an e-mail late Thursday night.

It was not immediately clear whether Reid would block the bill from the Senate, but his opposition casts serious doubt on its chances. Also, Manley noted that Reid voted against the ban in 1994 and again when it expired in 2004.

Reid’s stance joins him with Pelosi, who told reporters Thursday that the administration had not checked with her before Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters the administration would attempt to reinstate the ban. Pelosi gave a flat “no” when asked if she had spoken to Holder or any other administration officials about the issue.

“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it’s clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”

Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.


http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2009...t-weapons-ban/





The AWB would be really really bad for Nevada (Read: Vegas) financially.

[phillyd2]

Amazing. Absolutely amazing. <silent pray to hope its all really true>

[5711-Marine]

I think there is a larger issue here.

It appears that Pelosi and Reid are both publicly opposing this based upon the fact that the administration didn't discuss it with them first. If that is the case, it sets a dangerous precident for who is in control of the agenda for the next four years...

[adymond]

I think there is a larger issue here.

It appears that Pelosi and Reid are both publicly opposing this based upon the fact that the administration didn't discuss it with them first. If that is the case, it sets a dangerous precident for who is in control of the agenda for the next four years...

Whole heartedly agree. Either way we are fucked though.

[Jelanen]

I don't mind at all if they want to start a fight across Pennsylvania Avenue. Let the Congressional leadership get into a pushing match with the White House...sounds good to me.

[ChamberedRound]

I think there is a larger issue here.

It appears that Pelosi and Reid are both publicly opposing this based upon the fact that the administration didn't discuss it with them first. If that is the case, it sets a dangerous precident for who is in control of the agenda for the next four years...

I agree to a point. The Executive Office is not answerable to Congress, as such an office would be in a Parliamentary system. By that fact, the Executive Branch has no need to "check" with Congress about what it wants to do. The branch can do what it wants so long as it acts within the laws Congress makes, and its actions are restricted to executing/enforcing the law and other responsibilities given to the branch by the Constitution.

However, I also believe that the Executive Branch in recent decades has garnered way too much influence. The Oval Office isn't supposed to set an "agenda", because to further that agenda it must overreach its authority and influence Congress to support it. Congress isn't supposed to abide by the Executive, it's supposed to abide by the people. The people are supposed to tell their congressmen what they want, discuss/debate it with the rest of the Congress, and then pass (or not pass) laws. The "agenda" is supposed to come from the bottom up, not the top down.

So while I don't like Pelosi's choice of words, as the President doesn't have to "check" with her, I do like that the Congress, through his own party's leaders, is putting the Executive Branch back in its place.

And if that doesn't make my explanation complicated enough: while I like that Congress is reminding the Oval Office of its limits, I have concerns that Congress isn't doing it to push the agenda its constituents want, but instead to push the agenda THEY want, and to me that is just as troubling as an Executive office overstepping its bounds.

[Defender]

Me, Pelosi, and Reed in sync on an issue? I can't believe it!

[archangel689]

Reid is due for reelection. Nevada is a progun state. The dems dont want to lose him. they will give reid a "Safety Vote."

In otherwords they will discuss amongst themselves and add up the numbers before the vote actually happens, once they have enough yes votes, they will give the remainder of the dems in jeopardy "safety votes" to vote no.

In other words, this could very well be a trap. Maybe holder was a retard and let the cat out of the bag too soon; they might be trying to quell the masses cause they know we'll be manufacturing guns and ammo double time......Don't stop stock piling again, i could be wrong... but any way you look at it (Holder) the head doesn't know what the ass is doing.

[5711-Marine]

I don't mind at all if they want to start a fight across Pennsylvania Avenue. Let the Congressional leadership get into a pushing match with the White House...sounds good to me.

Except the executive hasn't proven he can (or will) stand up to the legislative.

If he does, it is a good thing, if not it is tragic.

[phillyd2]

of course it goes without saying that both would love a complete ban of all guns but that's not the point. The Dems just like the Rep are very good about message control. They all know and agree on all talking points and policies before anybody whispers it. Its way to early in their love fest to be squabbling, especially about this issue.

Remember Pelosi would lose no votes back home for supporting a AWB.

It may be that Holder made a off the cuff statement and both publically bitch slapped him but I don't think so. I would seriously doubt there is a major split between Congress and the WH. Both want more gun control but it appears that both have read the poll numbers and are backing off this issue for now. Bigger fish to fry and all.

If I had to guess my bet would be that Holder said what he said with approval from all sides to appease the anti gun crowd for now.

Still very interesting.