Skip to comments.Whether the Semi-Automatic Weapons Ban Passes Depends on What Happens to the Senate Rules (McCain)
Posted on 01/08/2013 4:06:24 PM PST by Red Steel
McCAIN MAY BE WORKING TO STAB US IN THE BACK
It was reported yesterday that Vice President Joe Biden guaranteed to ailing Boston Mayor Tom Menino that sweeping gun control legislation would be passed by the end of January.
A quick look at Feinsteins semi-auto ban legislation suggests that up to 75% of all handguns currently in circulation would be banned, along with 50% of all long guns.
Depending on its configuration, the AR-15 you already have would probably be treated like a machine gun. You would have to be fingerprinted, background checked by the FBI, and undergo a six-month license application process to keep it. And when you die, the government will seize it.
If you dont get an NFA license, you can expect the SWAT teams to descend on your house.
But, you ask, how could such rabidly anti-gun legislation ever get past Congress?
For an answer, look at what happened on the fiscal cliff.
The Senate would change its rules so that it could pass a gun ban with only 50 votes (plus the vote of Vice President Joe Biden) - or so that you could write the gun ban in a House-Senate conference committee on a must-pass bill. Democrats like West Virginias Joe Manchin, Nevadas Harry Reid, and Pennsylvanias Bob Casey who will not have to run for reelection for awhile - will cast courageous votes for this gun ban.
And it will hit the House with enormous momentum - momentum which House Speaker John Boehner (who has already called for a dialogue on gun control) may not have the courage to resist.
But the first step will be to demolish the Senate rules so that gun control only requires 50 votes - or so that gun control can be inserted in the conference report on a must-pass bill. And this is where John McCain comes in.
McCain is angry that Kentucky Senator Rand Paul worked with Gun Owners of America on a variety of pro-gun issues that slowed down his defense funding bill. And it is no secret why McCain loves House-Senate conferences: Just last month, he and Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin used the DoD conference to demolish position adopted by Senate supermajorities, including the prohibition on indefinitely detaining American citizens without trial. Therefore, McCain and Levin are out to punish Paul and GOA for opposing his legislation to indefinitely detain American citizens.
So they are working together on a series of rules changes to, inter alia, make gun control a lot easier to pass.
The first McCain-Levin rules change would make it impossible to fight a motion to proceed to gun control legislation. Remember ObamaCare? Our last real shot to kill ObamaCare was by filibustering the motion to proceed to it. Once the motion to proceed was adopted, the bill became amendable and Harry Reid could play lets-make-a-deal.
The second McCain-Levin rules change would make it easier to add gun control to a bill in conference. Currently, senators can block a conference. If the McCain proposals are adopted, a must-pass bill could be sent to conference, amended in conference with a draconian gun ban, and then sent back to the House and the Senate on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
McCain will try to tell you that that would be outside the scope of conference. But scope of conference rules are never followed. Gramm-Rudman was written in conference from the ground up.
The third McCain-Levin rules change would block any amendments except for those Leader McConnell and Manager McCain proposed. All other senators would be out in the cold.
This McCain-Levin package must be stopped.
Senator Rand Paul is currently planning to offer an amendment requiring a two-thirds vote in the Senate before any anti-gun measure can be passed.
I know. I know. If it were up to me, gun control would not be able to be passed with 100 votes. But we need to propose something which will pass the Senate.
So this is the day of march. We saw, with the resolution of the fiscal cliff debate, how the diminution of the Senate rules (and Republican courage) can lead to historically bad results.
But if conservatives allow these rules changes to be implemented, they have no reason to complain when the rules allow them to be defeated in battles over the debt limit, the continuing resolution, and sequestration.
In those battles, the rules - which are now up for debate - will determine whether we win or lose.
If there is ANY possibility of this passing the House, it hardly matters what the Senate rules are, because the Senate will have 80 votes for it.
Why would I care what the clowns in the senate pass?
You need MEN, commited men, who are disciplined, organized and trained to go into unknown areas and go house-to-house to confiscate guns.
I can’t imagine self-centered, egotistical leftists who are willing to die on a hilltop for the glory of Buckwheat. They don’t exist. Given the choice of letting the mobs hang Buckwheat or bugging out, heading home and eating a jumbo bag of chips, the chips and dip win.
Sorry, DU. You lose, we win.
“There are so many soft targets,...”
So true. Think about who supports liberals. Think about how vulnerable they’ve made themselves by becoming wards to the state.
The rules change will be passed by Dem senators from conservative states- like Manchin.
So they can vote against bills like gun control- and the bills will still be passed.
Reid’s monkeys are despicable and unaccountable.
Ping for reference
We have a House of Representatives, too. It doesn’t matter whether or not it passes the Senate. The bill won’t pass the House.
“...proposal for reforming the Senate rules now has 26 co-sponsors, all Democrats. But they represent a healthy ideological cross-section of the entire caucus.
In addition to Udall, Harkin and Merkley, the resolution is currently co-sponsored by the following senators: Dick Durbin (IL), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Sherrod Brown (OH), Mark Begich (AK), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Michael Bennet (CO), Barbara Boxer (CA), Benjamin L. Cardin (MD), Bob Casey (PA), Christopher Coons (DE), Al Franken (MN), Kay Hagan (NC), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Joe Manchin (WV), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Jay Rockefeller (WV), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Jon Tester (MT), Mark Udall (CO), Mark Warner (VA), and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI).”
“Warner, Manchin, Tester and Hagan being aboard at this point is pretty solid. And there are others, like Frank Lautenberg, Ron Wyden, Claire McCaskill and others, who have their own rules bills with similar elements.”
The purpose of the rules change is to get Dem laws passed without Dems having to vote for them.
“Unconstitutional laws are not laws”
I don’t see the issue here. Plenty of freepers have been telling us that principles did not matter.
So they can just enjoy the results of principles not mattering.
The faces of the propaganda apparatus and the commissars of the welfare machine are very...out there.
by Doug Porter on January 7, 2013 · 1 comment
"Two of the leaders of the effort to reform Senate filibuster rules, Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Tom Udall of New Mexico, are now saying that 48 senators have confirmed their support for making the filibuster a real, talking filibuster. Further, all 48 have committed to reforming the filibuster by using the constitutional optionthat is, by changing the rules of the Senate with a simple majority of 50 votes plus the Vice President.
There are seven Democratic members of the Senate who have not yet committed to reforming the filibuster in this way: Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein of California, Carl Levin of Michigan, Max Baucus of Montana, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, and Patrick Leahy of Vermont.
You (should) know what to do. Contact Sens. Boxer & Feinstein today. Lets get this done."
48 Sen Dims without Feinstein?
yep, many places are going to loose their whole swat team to an ambush in their first few missions. They really have not done the math, “1 little, 2 little, 3 little indians” is going to be a big problem for them too.
“So you are glad Juan loss and Obama won?”
I’m sad that the RINOPublican party runs RINOs that cannot win and consequently allowed Obama to win.
I also prefer an enemy I can oppose to a friend who stabs me in the back. In that sense, I’m glad Juan lost.
In either case, both parties have participated in debasing the dollar, circumvented our Constitutional Rights, and enslaved generations with their borrowing and spending. Both are guilty.
Juan was just one more loser RINO in a very long list of RINOs. RINOmney was the latest. He spent $1BILLION and couldn’t even communicate why getting free stuff was a worse choice than freedom and opportunity.
Commie McCain rides again.
McCain also told us we don't have to be afraid of an Obama presidency.
But we need to propose something which will pass the Senate.
This is the mistake we always make and each time they
nibble a little bit more off the top.
If they want to do something, amend the constitution,
there is a process for that. Not this eating around the
edges until nothing is left, then what?
Just declare the 2nd amendment null and void?
It’s a shale slope and democrats want us to step
out a little further off solid rock. Don’t do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.