S.649: Reid's Base Gun Control Bill

A HuffPo whip count for Toomey-Manchin (52 for, 39 against, 9 undecided):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/15/gun-control-vote_n_3085610.html?

Tim Kaine up saying that that the Senate has lacked the courage to look at these issues for 20 years (i.e. 1994). Apparently he forgot this was thoroughly discussed and rejected by the Senate in 2004.

Warner sounds off in support for Schumer-Toomey-Manchin amendment (hereafter STM).

Senate resumes S.649 debate. Senator from Iowa slams STM and says gun control supporters do not have the votes despite all the arm-twisting.

Senator from IA rips them for voting to conduct debate on S.649 and then blocking all votes on all other amendments because they can't get support for Toomey-Manchin. Tells them the votes aren't going to be there.

Loser Senator from IL (pick one) up to babble. Durbin gives an example of murderer who bought through private sale. Durbin seems to think that because said murderer was denied under a NICS check and never prosecuted for it, it is a good example to sell background checks.

Durbin blames the NRA for blocking prosecutions of NICS denials because they won't approve the Administration's choice of ATF directors. :rolleyes:

Senate stands in recess until 2:15 Eastern for weekly party caucuses. Sounds like the votes are still not there.
 
Last edited:
The New York Times is reporting that Manchin and Toomey are considering making changes to their Bill in hopes of gaining support. One proposed change is to exempt citizens who live several hundred miles from gun dealers. Apparently this is designed to gain support from Senators in rural areas such as Begich from Alaska.

Also, the local Atlanta paper is reporting that not only will Chambliss oppose the Bill, but now Isakson intends to vote against it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/us/politics/senators-manchin-and-toomey-consider-changes-to-gun-bill.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=2&
 
Senate back up again. CT Senator blood dancing. Still no votes scheduled which suggests that STM still doesn't have 60 votes.

Sen. Murphy still blood dancing. Several people who are contacting their Senators are being told the STM amendment will not be voted on until Thursday now; but no official word on that yet.

Murphy finally relents. Quorum call.

5:01 - Boxer up babbling about AWB. Talking about School Safety act to harden schools now.

Boxer will support Toomey-Manchin, AWB, magazine ban and school safety act. No shockers. Senate Majority Leader up at 6pm Eastern.
 
Last edited:
What about all the pro gun changes?
Allan Gottlieb was on Guntalk Sunday, explaining the additions.
He made it sound like, with the changes, it's a whole new bill, with lots of good stuff for us.
 
That's the Manchin-Toomey Amendment, that AFAIK hasn't been voted into 649 yet. Plus no two people agree on what it does, other than make everybody unhappy.
 
Dave Kopel has written a detailed analysis of Schumer-Toomey-Manchin, as has the Heritage Foundation and our own gc70. All three of those agrees it weakens FOPA protections against a federal registry of firearms. Dave Kopel makes a convincing argument it weakens the interstate protections of FOPA and exempts the two worst offenders of FOPA travel violations.

My personal take is that Alan Gottlieb is wrong and Schumer-Toomey-Manchin is a bad bill that will be used against us.

It is a bill opposed by the NRA and GOA. It is a bill supported by Schumer, Boxer, Bloomberg, Joe Biden, Dick Durbin, etc.
 
Just don't get all this confused. there is the actual Bill, and then this Amendment and perhaps other less illuminated Amendments. Amendments depend on the Bill to pass and if there is something in the Bill that is a problem and the Amendment get's all the attention, what will we wind up getting as a solution that isn't supposed to fix anything?
 
Right now we are still stuck on the first amendment because Reid wants STM to go first and the votes aren't there for it. One newspaper says they are 3 short and Biden tweeted they were 2 votes short.

We won't have any idea what the entire bill looks like until all of the amendments are voted on.

Sen. Cardin (D-MD) up for mag bans, AWB, UBC, etc.

Still nothing of substance
 
Last edited:
He made it sound like, with the changes, it's a whole new bill, with lots of good stuff for us.
Click to expand...
It may have some good provisions for us, but it's still built on the foundations of something very, very bad. We should not be supporting destructive legislation just to get a few breadcrumbs that may be yanked later.

If Gottleib means to kill it with amendments, we need to be adding the most unpalatable things possible to do so. If that's his intent, I really hope he knows what he's doing.
 
If Gottleib means to kill it with amendments, we need to be adding the most unpalatable things possible to do so. If that's his intent, I really hope he knows what he's doing.
Click to expand...
That's the part I don't understand. Schumer's bill is quite unpalatable as it is; there seems to be general agreement that, as written, it stands little chance of passing the Senate and none of passing the House. Why on earth Mr. Gottlieb thought it was a good idea to help draft something that might pass unless it's loaded with "unpalatable" amendments... escapes me. Why not load up a worse bill with those amendments, in that case?

I get that Manchin and Toomey have something to gain, politically, in this; to some extent, everyone in Congress who has any number of antigun constituents would benefit from passing something they can point to. But what's in it for Mr. Gottlieb, the SAF, and gun owners in general?

Nothing good that I can see.
 
Why on earth Mr. Gottlieb thought it was a good idea to help draft something that might pass unless it's loaded with "unpalatable" amendments... escapes me.
Click to expand...
There are two possibilities. Perhaps he thought it was inevitable, and this is his way of mitigating the damage. If so, I'm not happy with him.

The other option is that his amendments are a poison pill. Remember the DISCLOSE Act? The NRA got an exemption for themselves, which was about the most reprehensible thing sponsors could imagine, and it killed the bill.

I think the latter is Gottlieb's game, but it's a risky one. Nobody thanked the NRA for their actions on the DISCLOSE Act, and I see this hurting the SAF's credibility in the eyes of many gun owners.
 
I think it's already damaged the credibility of the SAF -- it certainly has with this gun owner.

I could see the "poison pill" thing if Schumer's bill were more likely to pass... but as it is, it seems to me that all this does is muddy the waters.
 
Perhaps he thought it was inevitable, and this is his way of mitigating the damage. If so, I'm not happy with him.
Click to expand...


Congress is going to pass something. What do you want it to be?

If they don't pass something, we may lose the house in 2 years. Then, say goodbye to our rights.

I don't like it, but that's the way I see it.
 
Congress is going to pass something. What do you want it to be?
Click to expand...
We don't know that as a certainty. In January, folks were claiming another AWB as a foregone conclusion. That didn't happen. Then they claimed we'd have limits on magazine capacity. Nothing came of that, either.

As it stands now, the Fix Gun Checks law is so hopelessly gutted that hardcore antis are bemoaning it as toothless. Many will settle for passing anything related to gun control at this point, but this thing has gotten pretty feeble.

If it does pass the Senate, it'll be by a very slim margin, and it'll be a pale shadow of what advocates wanted. Then it goes to the House Judiciary Committee, where its fate is even less rosy.

If it does get killed, that leaves Gottlieb facing pitchforks and torches.
 
Ok, according to the Atlanta Journal Washington Correspondent they will be voting later today (Wednesday 4/17) on the following amendments.

Here are all nine of the amendments to be voted on Wednesday:

Manchin-Toomey amendment #715

Grassley substitute amendment consistent with the summary which is at the desk;

Leahy-Collins amendment #713 (trafficking)

Cornyn amendment #719 (conceal carry)

Feinstein amendment #711 (assault weapons/clip bans)

Burr amendment #720 (veterans/guns)

Lautenberg-Blumenthal amendment #714 (high capacity clip ban)

Barrasso amendment #717 (privacy)

Harkin-Alexander amendment relative to mental health, the text of which is at the desk.

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jamie-dupree/2013/apr/16/senate-sets-showdown-votes-gun-bill/
 
Vote on Toomey-Manchin, AWB, and Magazine Bans scheduled for 4pm Eastern tomorrow. I am hoping that the late in the day vote indicates the Dems are still searching for enough votes to pass Toomey-Manchin. And they may end up delaying the vote yet again at this rate.
 
Manchin: ‘We will not get the votes’ on gun compromise
By Aaron Blake, *Published: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 9:01 AM ET
* * * Aa *
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) conceded in an interview Wednesday that the gun control compromise he crafted with Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) isn’t going to pass in the Senate, but his office later backed off that assertion.

The official NBC News Twitter tweeted the following at about 8 a.m. eastern time.

Sen Manchin tells NBC News “we will not get the votes today” on expanded gun background checks – @kellyo

-- NBC News (@NBCNews) April 17, 2013

About 40 minutes later, Manchin’s office issued a clarification, saying he will continue to push for the Manchin-Toomey amendment.

"Sen. Manchin remains optimistic and hopeful that if Senators and the American people read the bill, they will support his commonsense approach to require criminal and mental background checks for advertised sales, including purchases at gun shows and online sales, without infringing on Americans' Second Amendment rights," Manchin spokesman Jonathan Kott said, adding: “He will continue to explain his bill to his colleagues and anyone with concerns until the minute they vote."

As we’ve noted before, the math remains very tough for the gun bill, with basically all remaining undecided senators needing to vote for it, in addition to getting Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who has been ill in recent weeks and unable to travel, to the Senate chamber.

Amendments to the gun bill require 60 votes, meaning Democrats needed to pick off a number of Republicans in order to pass it. So far, only three — including Toomey — have signed on, and several Democrats have wavered as well.
 
Reid toes the line then punts it. It appears he has firmly declared intent to support and vote for the AWB. Reid has been a tricky one to pin down on 2A matters, but this is pretty unexpected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top