“This is a big deal,” says Punchbowl, breathlessly.

Is it? A bill that’s going straight down the toilet in the Senate sounds like the opposite of a big deal to me.

The “big deal” here is that the bill is being sent to the House Judiciary Committee for mark-up, the first time since the original federal assault weapons ban passed in 1994 that that’s happened. But so what? Not only is it a nonstarter in the upper chamber, especially now that Republicans have done their legislative good deed on guns for the decade, it may end up hurting House Democrats politically more than it does the GOP.

If there’s “news” here, it’s the fact that the Dem majority has clearly entered the lame-duck stage of their term. They’re stuck waiting around for Joe Manchin to decide what he wants to do on Build Back Better and they’re at a dead end with McConnell and the Republicans on USICA. The best use of their time with less than four months to go before the midterms is to start forcing House Republicans to take uncomfortable “show votes.” Or, rather, what are supposed to be uncomfortable show votes.

Coming soon to a Senate garbage can near you:

The Cicilline bill – which currently has 211 Democratic co-sponsors and no Republicans – would make it illegal for anyone to “import, sell, manufacture, or transfer” semi-automatic rifles that have certain “military features.” These features include a “detachable magazine” or “a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.” Semi-automatic pistols and shotguns with similar features would also be covered.

The proposal does not – and we want to be very specific here because this will come up immediately – call for the removal or confiscation of any covered weapon that any American currently owns. However, this proposal would prohibit the manufacture or sale of new weapons if it were ever signed into law by President Joe Biden.

Exempted from these restrictions are antique firearms, as well as more than 2,000 different models of hunting or sporting rifles. The Cicilline bill includes a long list.

A show vote on banning assault weapons makes a certain amount of sense in the flush of grief and anger after the Uvalde and Highland Park shootings. In fact, it was a plea from Brad Schneider, who represents Highland Park in the House, that reportedly convinced Dems to move forward with the bill. Just yesterday, mass-shooting survivors gathered in D.C. to demand a ban. “What if the gunman never had access to an assault weapon?” asked the mother of one young girl murdered in the Uvalde massacre.

A few days ago I wrote about how the priorities of working-class voters and college-educated voters have diverged. The working class is obsessed with inflation, of necessity. More well-off voters can afford to worry about gun control. The new bill to ban assault weapons ban is aimed at driving up turnout this fall among the latter group, to keep the momentum going that Dems believe they’ve gained from Roe being overturned. In theory, suburban moms are sticking with Team Blue this fall despite higher prices everywhere because they’re outraged by abortion bans and wanton mass shootings.

In order for that play to work, though, Dems have to be able to get the AWB bill through the House and to convince all 50 Senate Democrats to support it in a losing effort to overcome a GOP filibuster. If the bill fails in the House or falls short of 50 in the other chamber, the GOP gets to say that opposition to a ban is bipartisan. Which would, er, greatly complicate the Dem message to suburbanites that only by electing Democrats this fall can a ban feasibly pass next year.

Do they have 218 votes in the House? Punchbowl reports that they’re “’right on the line’ for passage, with a handful of moderate Democrats not fully supportive or outright opposed to the measure.” Pelosi may fall just short and need Republican help to get it through:

Here are the 4 Republicans that will likely be the reason why the House "assault weapons" ban passes or fails. Without them the magazine ban it passed in June wouldn't have made it. These are the representatives to watch. https://t.co/OBhSnKxneL

— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) July 15, 2022

These are the Democrats to watch for the House's upcoming "assault weapons" ban push. They voted against the magazine ban and Dems may need to flip up to two of them if they can't get any Republicans to vote for the bill. https://t.co/OQy9gNHGIH

— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) July 15, 2022

Imagine the agony of House Dems who represent purple or reddish districts, being forced to cast a vote on this bill knowing that there’s no way to please both sides back home *and* that the bill is doomed in the Senate even if it passes. It’s a pyrrhic victory for the party even if Pelosi can get to 218. Which makes me wonder if she knows that she can’t and is sending the bill to the Judiciary Committee simply to signal to lefties that their leaders are interested in passing something … before the bill quietly disappears and never comes to the floor for a vote.

Schumer would face the same problem in the Senate. What does he gain by calling a vote on the House bill knowing that doing so will force vulnerable incumbents like Mark Kelly and Maggie Hassan to cast a thankless vote shortly before the midterms? Senate Dems almost certainly won’t get to 50 votes on the bill in any event; Punchbowl notes that Dianne Feinstein’s AWB bill has only 37 sponsors. Which means not only will the bill fail, it may fail spectacularly and hand Republicans a “Dems in disarray” talking point. So much for Team Blue’s big play for suburbanites.

Even the polling makes it hard to understand why House Dems are pushing this now. It’s true that banning assault weapons has traditionally been popular, but Quinnipiac discovered last month that it’s less popular than it used to be:

Half of Americans (50 percent) support a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons, while 45 percent oppose it.

In today’s poll, 50 percent of registered voters support a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons, while 45 percent oppose it. This is the lowest level of support among registered voters for a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons since February 2013 when the question was first asked by the Quinnipiac University Poll. The highest level of support among registered voters for a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons was in a Quinnipiac poll on February 20, 2018 when 67 percent supported a ban and 29 percent opposed.

A 50/45 issue that’s trending in the wrong direction for Dems, and this is their big “show vote” ahead of the midterms? With zero assurance that their House and Senate caucuses will hang together on it? That’s some mighty thin gruel.

Exit question: Would a federal assault weapons ban even be constitutional in light of the recent SCOTUS decision in Gruen? AR-15s are very much “in common use,” a key factor in the Court’s reasoning, and nearly all of them are used for “lawful purposes.” (Much more so than handguns are.) So how could Congress lawfully ban them presuming they had the votes to do so?