The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved a renewed assault-weapons ban, advancing the measure to the Senate floor where it will face intense resistance from Republicans and other gun-rights supporters. The bill was approved by the committee on a party-line, 10-8 vote. Chief sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she knows “the road is uphill” for the legislation, but sought to press her colleagues to consider the bill.

‘False sense of safety’

Republicans, though, described the legislation — which comes nearly a decade after the last assault-weapons ban expired — as an ineffective response to a genuine problem. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., noted that so-called assault weapons are used in a scant percentage of murders every year and said a ban would merely provide a “false sense of safety.” He critiqued another measure that would limit the size of magazines.

“I could see a situation where an individual citizen would need more than six bullets, or 10″ for self-defense, he said. “There are so many better ways to deal with this.”

‘Heavy opposition’

The vote comes after the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced bills earlier in the week to enact near-universal background checks and combat gun trafficking. The measure approved Thursday is the most controversial drafted since the deadly Newtown, Conn., school shooting.

But once it reaches the full Senate — probably in April — the measure faces heavy opposition by Republicans and some moderate Democrats, as well. Feinstein acknowledged she’d need more backing if it is to stand a chance on the floor — even then, it’s hard to imagine a circumstance where the Republican-controlled House would allow the measure to proceed.

The Judiciary Committee has already approved three other measures expanding the requirement for background checks for gun buyers; toughening federal laws against illegal gun traffickers and those who purchase weapons for people barred from owning them; and increasing aid for school safety.

Are you in favor of the assault weapons ban? Why or why not?

Source: Fox News

Image: Los Angeles Times