How the Senate Will Attempt to Pass Gun Control

[Webleymkv]

The NRA supported the FOPA, which was a good bill. They, and everyone else, were taken by surprise by the Hughes Amendment.

They seemed to have learned from it as well. The NRA successfully lobbied to kill the original Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S. 1805) in 2004 after a renewal of the original AWB was added as a "poison pill". They subsequently lobbied successfully for a "clean" version which was passed (S. 397) and signed by President Bush in 2005.

Also, since Sen. Ried's bill, which is at this point pretty hollow, has no benefit for gun owners in it, I think the NRA would not hesitate to lobby to kill it if anti-gun amendments are added.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I understand: any new law has to pass BOTH houses of congress. The House is 2/3 republican. The chances of another AWB passing into law is ZERO, ZERO, ZERO.

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) is a co-sponsor of the latest AWB. Republican is not synonymous with pro-gun and there are only 220 NRA A-rated Reps in the House. Given the number of formerly A-rated Senators now pushing gun control in the Senate, I would not assume anything is a done deal at this point.

Sen. Majority Leader Reid has 7 Democrat Senators running for re-election in 2014 in pro-gun states. The vote itself doesn't do his reelection campaign any favors. Yet the Dem leadership is demanding a floor vote. Do you think they would be doing that if they felt there was even a 90% chance the bill dies in the House anyway?

The Democrats are not yet at the point where they can throw 7 Senate seats on the sacrificial fire of pointless symbolism. So my assumption is the Democrats think it is to their benefit to have a Senate floor vote.

 

[BGutzman]

In these days our rights are often compromised in law due to the process and the players. In recent years I have come to believe that the great give away is the number one key to who gets a seat at the table. Gun rights aren't about a give away and that makes it a issue that is much more complex than the usual fare in DC.

People tend to be wholly invested as either pro or anti gun with a lot of on the fencers who have no idea what either position actually represents in reality. Still we the people, seem to still believe in rights.

For myself I think we are at a watershed moment in history as a nation. Either we find a way to remember why we have these rights or we will lose them to whatever fad happens to be the flavor of this generation. The stakes are already set, the cards are dealt, we are all playing, know it or not.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

Tom, you are correct in that how I stated that was not factual.
The NRA supported the FOPA which included the Hughes amendment. A vote for the package was graded positively. I agree with the sentiment that they seem to have learned from the mistake. I would be very surprised if they repeat it.

I disagree the FOPA as passed was a good bill. They should have waited a year and come back at it. Now we have an infringement which will likely stand as long as the government does.

 

[JohnKSa]

The NRA supported the FOPA which included the Hughes amendment.

The NRA did not want the Hughes amendment.

They stated that it was "railroaded through in the closing minutes", called it a "bad amendment", stated that they did not compromise or sell out on that amendment to ensure passage of the entire FOPA. In other words, there was no deal made to allow the amendment or support it after it was made.

It's fair and accurate to state that the NRA didn't outright try to kill FOPA once the Hughes amendment was added, but it's inaccurate to make it sound like the NRA wanted or supported the Hughes amendment in any way, shape or form.

They were under the impression, at the time, that they could get the amendment repealed after passing FOPA and worked toward that goal for some time (funding some court cases and lobbying) before determining that they could not garner any support in Congress to make it happen.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The NRA also had an optimistic view of the courts at that time and thought the Hughes Amendment might be struck that way. Unfortunately when they challenged it in Farmer v. Higgins, they lost. An important historical point for those who are critical of the NRAs later skittishness in supporting Parker/Heller.