Gavin Aronsen

Reporter

Gavin is a Mother Jones reporter in the DC bureau.

Full Bio | Get my RSS | Follow @garonsen

Gavin is an Iowa native, and covered the 2008 first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses for the Ames Tribune. His work has also appeared in the Agence France-Presse, Iowa Independent, Manhattan Media, and VillageVoice.com.

Rand Paul Threatens to Filibuster Gun Control Bill

—By Gavin Aronsen

| Tue Mar. 26, 2013 8:19 AM PDT

Fresh off his 13-hour drone-protesting filibuster of John Brennan's nomination as CIA director, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is threatening to do the same with the Senate's soon-to-be-debated gun control package, Politico reports. In a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), co-authored by fellow Brennan-blocking senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), Paul wrote, "We will oppose the motion to proceed to any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions."

Paul's main gripe appears to be provisions drawn from Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) proposed assault weapons ban, which passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote but was dropped from the initial gun control package that is expected to get a vote in early April. Reid has promised to allow Feinstein's proposals—which include a ban on 157 specific models of assault weapons as well as magazines of more than 10 rounds—to be voted on as amendments.

Politico reports:

Though they don't use the word "filibuster" in the letter, the conservatives are leaving no doubt that they would filibuster on an initial procedural question—the motion to proceed.

Lee staged a test vote on the issue during consideration of the Senate budget last week. He tried to amend a point of order against gun control legislation to the budget but fell short. It needed a three-fifths supermajority and failed 50-49, needing 60 votes to pass. But the final tally emboldened Lee, Paul and Cruz because they were so close to a majority and a filibuster takes just 41 votes to sustain.

Even if Rand and his colleagues drop the filibuster threat and the assault weapons ban does manage to make it into the package, it will stand little chance of passing in the Republican-controlled House. Most gun control advocates now consider a bipartisan expansion of background checks as their best opportunity for reforming gun laws.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

The Assault Weapons Ban Ain't Dead Yet

—By Gavin Aronsen

| Thu Mar. 21, 2013 3:56 PM PDT

On Monday, Harry Reid told a disappointed Dianne Feinstein that her assault weapons ban, which passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote, wouldn't be in the gun control legislation Democrats are preparing for the full Senate because it had insufficient support to get past a filibuster. But Thursday night, Reid said in a statement, "I will ensure that a ban on assault weapons, limits to high-capacity magazines, and mental health provisions receive votes" as amendments to the bill.

The bill moving forward now will include the provisions on background checks, school safety, and gun trafficking, Reid said. The universal background check provision was also controversial, passing out of committee on a party-line vote, but Reid signaled that wasn't satisfactory. He is hopeful that negotiations during the upcoming Senate break will lead to a compromise that attracts bipartisan support for the measure, which has overwhelming support from the American public. "In order to be effective," Reid said, "any bill that passes the Senate must include background checks." West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin, a member of the National Rifle Association who expressed tepid support for gun control after Newtown, will reportedly lead the compromise effort.

Reid said the legislation will be added to the Senate calendar Thursday night to allow for a vote in early April. After opening debate, the assault weapons ban amendments will be introduced, in line with the Obama administration's continued commitment to keep it alive. But as Reid noted earlier in the week, even using "the most optimistic numbers," Feinstein's amendment had fewer than 40 votes.

Did Andrew Cuomo Just Backtrack on New York's Gun Ban?

—By Gavin Aronsen

| Wed Mar. 20, 2013 4:09 PM PDT

In late January, New York's Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law the nation's toughest assault weapons ban, the first gun control legislation passed in the wake of Newtown. But on Wednesday, Cuomo told reporters that he and legislative leaders would reverse one of the bill's most controversial measures, which limited magazines to no more than seven rounds, before the law goes into effect on April 15.

"There's no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine. That doesn't exist, so you really have no practical option," Cuomo said. Democrats plan to adjust the bill amid other legislative talks so that the new gun law will conform with existing state regulations banning magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Cuomo denied that the change would amount to a "rollback"; instead, he said, it's just a measure to clean up "ambiguities" and "grammatical errors" in the bill. It also appears to be a concession to ammunition manufacturers that potentially would've been hurt by the new law.

Still, the language on seven-round magazines won't be completely wiped from the bill. Cuomo said that while New Yorkers would still be able to buy 10-round magazines under the new assault weapons ban, they will face misdemeanor charges if they carry more than seven bullets in those magazines unless they're at a gun competition or shooting range. The president of the New York Rifle & Pistol Association, who has been preparing a lawsuit to overturn the law, told the AP that Cuomo's proposed revision will not change his plans to file suit.

[Read more in the MoJo blog]

Doctors Caught in Crossfire of Nutty Obama Conspiracy Theory

From South Carolina to Montana, legislators are pushing controversial "docs vs. Glocks" laws.

—By Dana Liebelson and Gavin Aronsen

| Wed Mar. 20, 2013 3:00 AM PDT

Vitaly Korovin/Shutterstock

South Carolina's youngest state representative, 24-year-old Joshua Putnam, recently proposed a bill that would ban most health care providers from asking whether their patients own guns. Its purpose is to fend off a nonexistent Obama plan to register all gun owners and possibly take away their weapons. "We don't want the federal government to come down and hold any Medicaid or Medicare dollars over our heads if doctors don't give up information about their patient's guns," says Putnam. "We want to protect physicians and we want to protect the citizens."

It's one among a recent wave of similar pro-gun legislation that doctors say could be detrimental to their patients. That pushback from medical professionals has made at least a few Republicans skittish: Three of the South Carolina bill's cosigners dropped off this month.

Introduced in January, Putnam's bill prohibits doctors from asking about a patient's firearm ownership. It makes exceptions for cases in which a patient is being treated for an injury related to a gun, has a history of mental health issues, or in which there is evidence of child or adult abuse. Putnam says the bill is modeled on an NRA-backed amendment that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) tried but ultimately failed to add on to Obamacare in 2010, which aimed to assuage gun-owners' fears that the administration would use the health care law to collect information about gun owners and use it against them.

But in states including South Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Montana, West Virginia and Oklahoma, this type of legislation has seen some momentum since the Newtown massacre. Fifty-four Republican state representatives (and zero Democrats) have signed on to Putnam's bill, even though it's based on a debunked conspiracy theory.

[Read the full article]

Feinstein's Assault Weapons Ban All But Dead

—By Gavin Aronsen

| Tue Mar. 19, 2013 8:51 AM PDT

As lawmakers passed Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) assault weapons ban bill through the judiciary committee on a party-line vote last Thursday, they were under no illusions about its slim chance of approval in the full Senate. Politico reports the bill's death knell may have sounded Monday night as Feinstein learned in a meeting that her legislation won't even be part of the gun-control bill Democrats plan to introduce for a vote next month:

After a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday, a frustrated Feinstein said she learned that the bill she sponsored — which bans 157 different models of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines — wouldn’t be part of a Democratic gun bill to be offered on the Senate floor. Instead, it can be offered as an amendment. But its exclusion from the package makes what was already an uphill battle an almost certain defeat.

...

Reid’s decision highlights the tightrope walked by the majority leader in governing the gun control issue. Trapped between the White House and rank-and-file Democrats who support broad gun control legislation following the shootings last December in Newtown, Conn., Reid must also be mindful of red-state Democrats up for reelection in 2014 who favor gun rights.

And the decision to drop the assault weapons ban from the package illustrates the fact that any big changes to gun control legislation will still be challenging.

As Politico notes, the assault weapons ban could still reach the Senate floor as an amendment to Democrats' gun-control package, which may be finalized as soon as this week. The pre-amendment legislation may include increased penalties for straw purchases of trafficked guns and provisions intended to improve school safety. It's less likely to include the ban on high-capacity magazines that's also a part of Feinstein's bill, or universal background checks, which also passed the judiciary committee on a party-line vote.

Senate Republicans have been reluctant to support any gun-control measures beyond increased penalties for gun traffickers, and would be expected to filibuster a bill that lacks bipartisan support.

Gavin Aronsen

From South Carolina to Montana, legislators are pushing controversial "docs vs. Glocks" laws.

Popular on Mother Jones

More Ways to Get your MoJo

Support our Advertisers

Advertise on Mother Jones