S.649: Reid's Base Gun Control Bill

Interestingly, Chuck Todd pointed out that Cornyn's reciprocity amend. got more votes that the original Toomey-Manchin one.
Click to expand...

I noticed that yesterday. If we could get it through the Judiciary comittee it would pass with a simple majority I think? Hard part is getting it out of a committee with Schumer, Durbin, Franken, Leahy, and Feinstein though.

National Reciprocity isn't as far off as we think.
 
Why not trade UBC for Universal Carry? Oh, guns are just bad, real agenda for compromise?
Click to expand...
Their idea of compromise:

1. Propose a 7 round mag limit and "compromise" to ten rounds, for now.

2. Propose a universal background check and then "compromise" by allowing you to leave a gun with your spouse at home for up to seven days without a UBC. If you're gone eight days, hubby and wife are felons.

Their idea of compromise is never about actually giving something up, it's simply taking less than they really want. They'll come back later for that.
 
NY Magazine had an article on Gov. Cuomo. The way he came up with the 7 round limit was that he was told that the way you take down a rampager is on the reload. Thus, someone suggested a 5 round limit. Then - it was pointed out that most mags (in the mag limiting states) were 10 rounds. So he said - let's do 7! It was later pointed out that this was ridiculous and then they said you could have a 10 but only load 7.

Even the NY Times and NY Mag (Not gun friendly) said he didn't know what he was doing. Haha.

I agree that there was no true compromise ever.
 
The funniest part to me, is it seems that's wide open to challenge. Someone with the right 1911 and mag would be able to fully load their firearm, while the guy with the 9mm glock wouldn't be able to get full use of their possession.
 
The base bill is S. 649, which contains Senator Schumer's S. 374 Registration, as well as two non-controversial parts (trafficking and hardening school security). The background check part of S. 649 is bad enough we don't want anything bad enough to pass it though. I wouldn't even trade an NFA Repeal for that.

The two amendments that passed today are:

1. Barasso - punishes states who publish private gun owner info (like CHL lists)
2. Harkins-Alexander - bipartisan mish-mash of various mental health and improved NICS reporting issues, including all of S.480 (good for us) and other bills I am still reading.

Reid pulled S.649. My take is that nothing will go anywhere unless someone comes up with a way to 60 votes. The antis will either have to take less than Toomey-Manchin or ride the next wave of emotion to 60 votes.

Having said that, Coburn's amendment could break the current impasse.
 
So with all of the good favor we have had today, let me ask a question, why not have an open discussion about various pro-gun pieces of legislation we would like to see crafted and possibly passed, and have a few of our more brilliant minds take the best ideas and package them as several (as many as possible) pro-gun bills that we can all send to our representatives and suggest that they push them?

If we flood them with pro gun bills as someone suggested earlier, it would knock them onto the defensive when they are already off balanced and hurt by today's losses. Keeping them on the defensive, not leaving them time to craft other evil is a good thing, and we might get a few really good pro gun pieces passed in the press?

Thoughts?
 
not leaving them time to craft other evil is a good thing
Click to expand...
None of these proposals is new. Feinstein's been trying to get the Assault Weapons Ban renewed every year since 2004, and we've had Lautenberg and Schumer trying to close the so-called gunshow loophole for at least 8 years.

This legislation will continue to be proposed in the House and Senate. The only difference is that they had Sandy Hook as a catalyst this time.
 
Sadly, they'll also be ready to pounce when the next horrific tragedy occurs that just so happens to involve a mad gunmen.

This is a fight that will go on perpetually I believe, that is until there is a ruling from the SCOTUS upholding the power for US citizens to RKBA
 
It's happening right now Kimio. The Marathon bombing suspects have allegedly shot two officers, killing one and seriously wounding another, while also allegedly using and detonating more explosive devices in their attempt to evade capture.
 
why not have an open discussion about various pro-gun pieces of legislation we would like to see crafted and possibly passed
Click to expand...

Since we now have background checks, which we didn't have in 86 (FOPA86), and since there is now a 3 round burst version of the EBR's, why not reopen the NFA list to allow us to purchase and possess 3 round burst versions of the M16. That would be a gun bill I'd like to see pushed.
 
Since we now have background checks, which we didn't have in 86 (FOPA86), and since there is now a 3 round burst version of the EBR's, why not reopen the NFA list to allow us to purchase and possess 3 round burst versions of the M16. That would be a gun bill I'd like to see pushed.
Click to expand...

I'm not against reopening the registry. I even see the allure of shooting one of those things once or twice. But I'm too cheap to "feed" one reliably. We all know the real cost of the shooting hobby is the ammunition.
 
With regard to Boston being used against gun rights, I think that could backfire, and will probably be a non-starter. 9-11 had a lot more Americans develop an interest in personal protection. If anything, I suspect this sort of incident (foreign terrorists) will work for, and not against, support by the public for self-defense rights.
 
It depends on how it's played out and advocated in the media. If the control advocates are more effective orators, we step backwards, if the pro-rights advocates, we'll see more owners.
 
Lucky for us, the controllers showed their true colors in a big way. While we need to stay on top of them, their inherent hubris is doing a lot of the work for us.
 
We can't let our knowledge and bias get in the way. Sure there are some control advocates that make it pretty obvious. But how many of the John and Jane Q Public's out there cared enough about universal Background checks to READ the bill Senator Schumer drafted? But still care enough to be angry the ephemerally vague "universal background checks" failed?

One of the reasons I think Mr LaPierre has not been a good advocate for our side, is that I don't think he does this. Our advocates make just as grievous a mistake by assuming the general populace has the same level of knowledge on firearms as we do. They need to work harder to think like their audience, rather than their "constituents".
 
One can criticize the NRA but here's a piece analyzing how their strategy was successful and probably will be for some time.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/nra-how-they-won-90315.html

Basically, solid grass roots politics and identifying senators who need to avoid being stampeded (to save themselves electorally) won the day.

The 60 vote ploy - using the Cornyn threat of reciprocity - was clever, as Chuck Todd pointed out.

In the future a massacre and changing demographics are a risk and should be planned for.
 
I think this fits in here:

Am I completely off base in thinking that, since Heller, can't the NRA lay claim to being a Civil Rights Organization?

After all, they and the ACLU were in some agreement on this bill.

W.
 
They already do. I'm not sure there's any legal benefit, requirements, or standing for being a civil rights organization though. Advocating the right of any group to do anything that may or may not be controversial, legal, illegal, or not yet recognized would be a civil rights organization. Unless someone can tell me otherwise, the phrase is a sound bite not a protected/enshrined class of advocacy groups.

Also remember, that because of legal regulations there are SEVERAL versions of the NRA. There's the NRA itself- the parent organization that conducts the safety classes, the public service announcements, and so on. There's also the NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) that does the lobbying, and possibly the judicial challenges. One of the reasons for keeping these separate both for us, and for them, is the tax exempt status of their donations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top