None of this is anything new, novel, or unexpected.

Carolyn McCarthy will be presenting a bill [pdf] on Tuesday, as yet un-numbered, to "prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes."  Yes, she's capitalizing on Saturday's tragedy in Tuscon.  Yes, it's revolting.  No, I really don't expect any better out of her.

Before anyone panics, let's remember that Ms. McCarthy has attempted to reintroduce the Assault Weapons Ban every single session since 2003.  It has never made it out of committee.  Tuesday's bill will be met with …

This week, 23 state Attorney Generals signed off on a letter (pdf) to Attorney General Eric Holder, in which they advised against any sort of renewal of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Part of the letter reads,

As Attorneys General, we are committed to defending our constituents’ constitutional rights –including their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. This duty is particuarly important in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent Heller decision, which held that the Second Amendment “elevated above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” The high court’s landmark decision affirmed that individual Americans have a constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. We, the undersigned Attorneys General, are staunch defenders of that right and believe that it should not be encroached upon without sound justification – and a clear law enforcement purpose. (…) we believe that additional gun control laws are unnecessary. Instead, authorities need to enforce laws that are already in place.

Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker, who has had a hit-and-miss record with gun rights, signed the letter.

This follows a similar letter sent by 65 Democratic Congressmen to Holder in March.

Ten years ago, these sorts of initiatives would have been unthinkable. Given the current administration's well-documented contempt for gun rights, it would seem even more unlikely now. Yet here we are.

We're winning, folks.

So, the debate around Coburn's amendment to the Credit Card Holder's Bill of Rights brings up several possibilities.

The one I've heard most of is reversing the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA. If you're unfamiliar with it, I suggest reading up here. It's a long but enlightening read.

The Hughes Amendment made it "unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun except in the case of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date of enactment." In plain terms, civilians cannot procure machineguns made after 1986.

The primary effect was to reduce the supply to a pre-existing pool of weapons, therefore raising prices through the roof. You want a machinegun? Find someone who already owns one and convince them to sell it to you. They can ask pretty much whatever they want.

Like many people, I'd like to see the Hughes Amendment repealed, but I know that the chances of such a thing are pretty much nil.

I'll defer to Alan Gura on this one:

The solution to 922(o) will have to be political in the end. The fact is, outside the gun community, the concept of privately owned machine guns is intolerable to American society and 100% of all federal judges. If I had suggested in any way — including, by being evasive and indirect and fudging the answer — that machine guns are the next case and this is the path to dumping 922(o) — I'd have instantly lost all 9 justices. Even Scalia.

In short, it ain't gonna happen.

In the wake of last week's violence in New York and Pittsburg, it's not unwise to expect calls for new gun restrictions. Couple that with this administration's published stance regarding gun rights, and we all have reason to be worried.

However, it looks like the current administration is learning from history, and they're not salivating over gun control as rabidly as they were fifteen years ago.

In an interview with Katie Couric, Eric Holder quickly backpedaled on his prior support for a new Assault Weapons Ban, stating,

I don’t think it has and in fact, I look forward to working with the NRA to come up with ways in which we can use common-sense approaches to reduce the level of violence that we see in our streets and make the American people as safe as they can possibly be.

When prodded further, all the elaboration he'd give about his support for gun control was,

These are issues that we’ll have to discuss. The president will be the one who will ultimately set policy — things that are politically saleable and things that will ultimately be effective.

The Left is realizing that gun control isn't as "politically saleable" as they thought going into this election. Holder's muzzling was echoed by the ever-articulate Robert Gibbs in Thursday's press briefing.

The following letter was sent to Attorney General Holder in response to his comments about a renewed Assault Weapons Ban. It was not sent by a gun-rights group. It was not sent by the NRA.

Nope; it was sent by 65 Democratic Congressmen. Read on.

So, here we go. Yet again. The whole thing is getting tiresome, and I've got a sneaking suspicion I haven't heard the last of it.

It works like this:

Someone in the current administration says, "hey, wouldn't it be great to bring the Assault Weapons Ban back?"
People on the internet (or Bob over in accounting, who "knows guns"), who have no clue how politics works, go into apoplexy. They start screaming that the Last Days have come, and discuss how they're going to cope. Usually this involves the phrase, "from my cold dead hands."
I am regaled, via internet and in person, by these people. I get hoarse and very sick of explaining political reality to them.
It turns out that the comments made by said official turn out to have no real gravity or effect.
Internet people come down off the roof, grumbling that we "dodged a bullet…this time."

Eric Holder made the remarks as a follow-up to a letter sent last week, which urged President Obama to pass a new ban. It was written and signed by 53 Democrats, all of whom seem to have only recently realized that we share a border with a corrupt third-world country.

The sky is not falling, people. Really.

So, H.R. 45 has been proposed and sent to a House committee for review. Big whoop. So does Carolyn McCarthy's revised Assault Weapons Ban. Every year, like clockwork, she throws it out there, and every year it withers on the vine.

This is no different.

So, the new President has transplanted his proposed policies from his own site directly to the official White House site. Under the "Urban Policies" header, we have a blueprint for his ideas on gun control.

Spin: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade.

Fact: This is a defacto gun registry. The Federal government will have access to all information a buyer includes on Form 4473, without having to obtain a warrant or prove cause. Remember, Obama voted for the Patriot Act, which included the ability of the government to engage in wiretaps on citizens without warrants.

Spin: Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals.

Fact: For Obama, “common sense” measures have included total registration, blanket bans on handguns and “assault” rifles, and a nationwide ban on concealed carry.

Spin: They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof.

Fact: Only 2% of guns used in crimes come from gun shows.

“Childproofing” was part of Washington DC’s onerous regulations, which were ruled unconstitutional in last year’s Supreme Court decision, DC vs. Heller.

Spin: They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

Fact: Of course they do; Biden authored the original AWB, which did nothing to reduce firearms-related crime. Violent crime in the United States had been steadily declining since 1992, and continued to decline after the sunset of the original ban.

None of this is anything new. This stuff is all taken directly from the Brady Campaign's playbook. The real question is, can they achieve any of it?

It seems highly unlikely that they'll try.