Reid introduces gun violence bill
March 21st, 2013
06:15 PM ET
2 years ago

Reid introduces gun violence bill

(CNN) – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid formally introduced a much-anticipated gun bill Thursday, his office announced. The Senate is expected to debate the legislation when the upper chamber returns from a two-week recess.

The bill, released just over three months after the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, is made up of three measures. One measure expands the background check system, while the other two deal with school safety and gun trafficking.

“The bill I advance tonight will serve as the basis for opening debate," Reid, the Senate’s leading Democrat, said in a statement.

Reacting to the news that the Senate will consider a universal background check bill, NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told CNN they are "strongly opposed" to the legislation, which was initially pushed by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York.

“We have made our position clear, and we will do whatever we can to defeat it,” Arulanandam said.

The NRA has been running print and television ads in recent weeks against the idea of expanding background checks, and the group is expected to unveil news ads in the coming weeks.

“All options are on the table,” Arulanandam added.

Schumer, however, said in a statement this bill "moves the ball forward on gun safety in the Senate."

Reid will allow votes on amendments related to an assault weapons ban, high-capacity magazines and mental health provisions.

While there are some fierce advocates for the assault weapons ban, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, Reid said earlier this week that he didn't believe the measure would get enough support on the floor but promised he would allow a vote through an amendment.

"In his State of the Union address, President Obama called for all of these provisions to receive votes, and I will ensure that they do," he said.

Vice President Joe Biden, who's been a leading voice from the Obama administration on gun violence, commended Reid via Twitter.

– CNN's Kevin Bohn contributed to this report.


Filed under: Harry Reid
soundoff (107 Responses)
  1. Evervigilant

    The anti gun liberals are trying to salvage something to save face. I hope the NRA and other continue to put pressure on them.

    According to another article the bill would exclude in-person, noncommercial transactions between people who know each other. Well gosh that's most person to person private sales. Question is how well do you have to know the other person? For how long?

    March 22, 2013 06:50 am at 6:50 am |
  2. God

    Apparently Reid wants to lose every democrat in government. We the people will not allow this to ever happen without abolishing Washington and starting over. This will make 1994 look polite when every democrat is sent home.

    March 22, 2013 07:00 am at 7:00 am |
  3. king

    the last time there was a assault weapon ban, the American people made the dems payed darely at the polls, harry Reid is looking out for his people, especially from those folks from the urban areas, that doesn't seem to use logic as a commodity, but prefers to use emotion drummed up from the NRA and fox news. logical facts is not in their playbook. the way the rich and powerful play on the gullible minds is amazing.

    March 22, 2013 07:28 am at 7:28 am |
  4. Gurgyl

    Pass gun-ban laws. Period. Today quantico...

    March 22, 2013 07:31 am at 7:31 am |
  5. robert12121212

    In 1999 Wayne LaPierre said that expanded background checks were "reasonable," but now the NRA is against them because criminals "will never abide by them" This is from his tesstimony at the senate judiciary committee wednesday.
    Somehow this is logic?

    So, by that reasoning, why have any laws? Criminals are criminals by definition because they don't abide by laws. They don't abide, they should be arrested.

    March 22, 2013 07:32 am at 7:32 am |
  6. jim

    I will not comply.

    March 22, 2013 07:49 am at 7:49 am |
  7. Voter

    If they can infringe your Second Amendment rights by putting limitations and restrictions on that right; one day they will infringe on your First Amendment rights by telling you what books you can or cannot read; what you can or cannot believe; what you can or cannot speak about publicly.

    March 22, 2013 07:56 am at 7:56 am |
  8. Nameellen maiello

    It has come to my attention on a recent trip to Florida anyone can buy a gun from anyone at gun shows with cash; no id no credentials whatsoever!!!! OUTRAGEOUS "WHY IS THIS ALLOWED? This is legal? WHY?

    March 22, 2013 08:09 am at 8:09 am |
  9. BOB

    when is the goverment going to wake up and relize they work for us . we don't work for them. polling 1000 people is not a poll for america. they need to get there noise out of are businness and take care of the budget unemployment things they were voted in to do states can manage gay marriage gun control with out there help

    March 22, 2013 08:10 am at 8:10 am |
  10. We need gun detection instead of a gun law

    First, we need to design a gun with a RF chip (with a special code) impregnated into the firing mechanism of the gun. Design it so the weapon will not be able to fire if the firing mechanism is tampered. Second, we need to have all retail store, banks, schools, etcetera to install RF detectors at all enterances. If the RF detector pickup the special RF code, it will then alert the security or school officials.

    March 22, 2013 08:12 am at 8:12 am |
  11. carlos

    Typical, congress knee jerk reaction that will only make things worse.

    March 22, 2013 08:23 am at 8:23 am |
  12. Bill39

    Glad to see something happening. Expanding background checks is a step in the right direction. I'd like to see a stronger move.

    March 22, 2013 08:25 am at 8:25 am |
  13. T. Lee

    First – no American can purchase an actual "assault rifle" !!

    To be an "assault rifle", the weapon has to be capable of burst fire or fully automatic fire.

    Assault rifle "look-a-likes" such as the Bushmaster Adam Lanza used in the cowardly attack on the children of Newtown, CT, AR15s, or rifles built on the AR15 platform, etc., are NOT "assault rifles". Such weapons are SEMI-automatic – they are only capable of firing one round at a time with one trigger pull at a time!!

    You will not find any US forces carrying AR15s or weapons like the Bushmaster Lanza used built on the AR15 platform into the field of battle. Why not? Because those weapons are again NOT "assault rifles" – and from President Obama to Senator Feinstein to Peirs Morgan plus all the other talking-heads of the media should all become educated as to the difference between what is and what is not an actual "assault rifle" !!

    Secondly – how about CNN telling Piers Morgan to go home, find another Susan Boyle on "Britain's Got Talent" and leave American gun issues to Americans !!!

    March 22, 2013 08:25 am at 8:25 am |
  14. Cc

    Those who are against any gun control bill:
    1. As long as you can buy and own a gun, what is your problem if there is a registry? In what way it hurts you?
    2. "Unenforceable"," horse left the barn etc. comments" – Some where you have to start, again what exactly is your problem?
    3. I would like to own a gun some time my self, but i don't have any problem in having a registry or background check.
    4. Infact i will support tracking every bullet. If you have nothing to hide, why fear?

    Yes there are other things we need to do including mentally ill and such, but we need to hit the problem from multiple directions.

    March 22, 2013 08:26 am at 8:26 am |
  15. Ron

    Dead on arrival....its not going anywhere.

    March 22, 2013 08:30 am at 8:30 am |
  16. mike krishchun

    "the wall opposing gun regulation is cracking"???...hmmm have gone to every retailer within 40 miles and there is no ammo or guns to buy,,, americans are speaking loudly with their purses, the ammo/gun rush is not nearly over, good for the economy and makes me proud that the 2nd is being acted on with hard earned cash and not just words, the NRA has enjoyed a massive growth, makes no difference to me if you think that is right/wrong or indifferent but the american people continue to speak loudly with what matters to politicians and the ecomomy,,,,money...leave it up to dems to spend their time and our money to write up bills to "nowhere" that would stop the spending on the 2nd

    March 22, 2013 08:35 am at 8:35 am |
  17. Rudy NYC

    I think Sen. Reid is being pretty savvy by breaking up gun control legislation into as many votes as possible. His critics of that approach are wrong. Reid is smart for a number of reasons. He's building a voting record on gun control. There has not been many votes in the Congress, especially among Tea Party freshman, so they have no NRA scores.

    His moves also serves to protect some Democrats in swing districts and states. It provides Democrats an opportunity to vote for common sense legislation while the Repubilcans vote against it. It sets the stage for a referendum on the NRA. A practice run this year, for the real referendum on the NRA in 2014.

    March 22, 2013 08:44 am at 8:44 am |
  18. J C

    In response to Nameellen maiello – "It has come to my attention on a recent trip to Florida anyone can buy a gun from anyone at gun shows with cash; no id no credentials whatsoever!!!! OUTRAGEOUS "WHY IS THIS ALLOWED? This is legal? WHY?"

    Let me enlighten you a little more Nameelen. You can do that almost ANYWHERE in the United States, not just at a gun show. We can do that at Church, at your Grandma's house, in a public park, in a restaurant, ANYWHERE it is legal for two people to be. The only restriction is on gun dealers, which is the whole reason those restrictions are stupid in the first place. They don't do anything and neither will one put on regular people. The Feds cannot restrict local commerce, only interstate commerce. Any restrictions will get shot down by the Supreme Court.

    March 22, 2013 08:44 am at 8:44 am |
  19. Rudy NYC

    T. Lee wrote:

    First – no American can purchase an actual "assault rifle" !!

    To be an "assault rifle", the weapon has to be capable of burst fire or fully automatic fire.
    ---------------------------
    Your definition of "assault rifle" is meaningless and completely irrelevant. Just like the expired assault weapons ban, the legislation will prescribe its' own definitions for various terms, most especialy what defines an "assault weapon". Your technical definitions for various terms don't mean squat, and neither do mine.

    March 22, 2013 08:48 am at 8:48 am |
  20. usmc1488

    Those who are against any gun control bill:
    1. As long as you can buy and own a gun, what is your problem if there is a registry? In what way it hurts you? – Ask the Germans from pre WWII, registration leads to confiscation

    Im all for a back ground check that looks at mental history, even laws the close gun show loop holes but still alows for me to pass down guns to my sons

    March 22, 2013 08:54 am at 8:54 am |
  21. WillB

    So, far the media is doing exactly what it did in the run-up to Iraq. Ask no questions. And, we all know what the results will be. How does the background check law work. Ops! no one knows. Who can get a back ground check on who? Op! no one knows. Who pays for it? Op!No one knows. How much will they cost? Ops! No one knows. Who will perform the background check? Ops! No one knows. Who keeps the paperworks...........Best of all, why is it that no one knows? (a) no one is asking and (b) it won't work anyway. I bought a pistol in December. Full background check. It was stolen 2 weeks ago. Whoever has it now is not about to get a background check since it's been reported as stolen. I may get it back someday but likely it will have been sold and resold a dozen times prior.

    March 22, 2013 08:57 am at 8:57 am |
  22. Blah blah the wheel's off your trailer

    I believe the last time we had an assault weapons band in America was in 1994 and no one's guns were taken away. Its time the right wing cowards stop the fear mongering and propaganda about the government wanting to take your guns away. This is about being a responsible society that wants to take every measure to protect its citizens from domestic terrorism. I just saw an article about a Colorado company making bullet proof backpack for school kids. Is that what we want our society to be transformed into, a militarized society where our kids have to put on armor and bullet proof vests to go to school or to the playground like kids in the Middle East? Outrageous!

    March 22, 2013 08:59 am at 8:59 am |
  23. WillB

    If they wanted to do something about gun violence, they'd copy the laws in Florida. Anyone who legally can possess a firearm, can also legally obtain a concealed weapons permit. Second, any who commits a crime using a gun goes to prison for 10 years, no parole, fire the gun, it's 20 years no parole, injure someone, it's life. Now, compare that to the headlines in New York today with it's tougher gun laws and high rates of gun crime.

    March 22, 2013 09:04 am at 9:04 am |
  24. Rudy NYC

    Cc

    Those who are against any gun control bill:
    1. As long as you can buy and own a gun, what is your problem if there is a registry? In what way it hurts you?
    2. "Unenforceable"," horse left the barn etc. comments" – Some where you have to start, again what exactly is your problem?
    3. I would like to own a gun some time my self, but i don't have any problem in having a registry or background check.
    4. Infact i will support tracking every bullet. If you have nothing to hide, why fear?
    ------------------
    They make the "slippery slope" argument against a national gun registry. The argument is ridiculous because such a gun registry has existed for decades for fully automatic weapons, like those machine guns that gangsters used, since the 1930s, and not one registered weapon has ever been confiscated. If anything, the registry guarantees that the weapon cannot be confiscated because its' ownership has been authenticated. Collectors can keep their "tommy guns."

    March 22, 2013 09:06 am at 9:06 am |
  25. Bereal

    As always house never thinks of what they are doing. Just a knee jerk reaction. Lets just ban something because it sounds good. Just like all the economic damage already caused. Do you see any of them losing pay no. Now they want to ban weapons so called assault weapons, but by whos definition? But a criminal does not care about laws, do they? At law abidding citizens expense. If you think this will stop or slow a criminal down your wrong, come on use commen sense!

    March 22, 2013 09:08 am at 9:08 am |
1 2 3 4 5