Posted on 04/10/2013 11:41:31 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
FAIRBANKS—Democratic U.S. Sen. Mark Begich said Wednesday he may vote to sustain a threatened Republican-led filibuster on gun legislation when the matter comes to a vote Thursday as expected.
The decision would put Begich at odds with President Obama, a fellow Democrat who used his state of the union address in February to urge Congress to allow up-or-down votes on gun legislation in the aftermath of the December shooting massacre of students at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
“I think people should have the opportunity to vote if they know what they’re voting on,” Begich said in an interview with the News-Miner. “I might be one of those that at the end of the day that doesn’t vote for cloture, because anyone can talk about amendments, but we haven’t seen one of them yet.”
Cloture is the term used for a vote to end debate on a measure and thereby allow a measure to proceed to a vote.
Several Republican senators have threatened to filibuster gun control legislation of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. That could be modified with a bipartisan proposal announced Wednesday by Republican Sen. Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania and Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia to greatly expanded background checks for gun sales.
Begich appeared skeptical, saying his two Senate colleagues had only held a news conference. “There’s no bill, no amendment,” he said. “I’ve seen this played before. Until I see it in detail… I’m waiting to see what that looks like.”
Separately, Begich said Obama called him on Tuesday and that the two spoke for about 25 minutes, though not entirely about gun control. Obama has increasingly been pressuring senators to approve strong gun control measures.
“Obviously this was what he was calling about,” Begich said. “We had a robust discussion and I reminded him of the current law and asked why are we not enforcing that.” Begich, in his interview with the News-Miner, noted that anyone selling a gun at a gun show is required to have a license from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
“Why is that important? Because if you have an ATF license, you must by law have a background check.”
Begich said he explained the ATF license requirement, and its related background check, to Obama. “I said ‘Mr. President, you could go in gun shows … these people who are selling guns without licenses are doing it illegally.’”
Begich said Obama responded by citing difficulty from the National Rifle Association and lack of resources in the ATF agency. “I said if they are under-resourced, then as an appropriator, I can put money on the table.” Begich is a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
“I also said that if we are going to put some law forward and five years from now we haven’t resourced it properly, we’re selling a bill of goods to the Sandy Hook family and its unfair to the gun community,” he said. Begich said existing law causes him to “question even the purpose” of the Manchin-Toomey proposal.
Begich also said he had a second meeting of about 30 minutes with family members of some of the Sandy Hook shooting victims. He said he had a first meeting with family members about a month ago.
“There was a lot of concern about how do we move forward,” he said. “They didn’t come in saying vote for this, vote for that. It was ‘How do we make the system better.’ It was very emotional.”
Contact managing editor Rod Boyce at 459-7585. Follow him on Twitter: @FDNMeditor.
The Toomey-Manchin Kill The Bill of Rights Bill.TITLE ONE: GETTING ALL THE NAMES OF PROHIBITED PURCHASERS INTO THE BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM
Summary of Title I: This section improves background checks for firearms by strengthening the instant check system.
- Encourage states to provide all their available records to NICS by restricting federal funds to states who do not comply.
By "all their available records" just what records are they blackmailing states for with that statist bilge water? "All" is a pretty big word when only a very few records are applicable to denying someone their right to keep and bear arms.
- Allow dealers to voluntarily use the NICS database to run background checks on their prospective employees.
Does that means dealers can run NICS checks on prospective employees without their knowledge or consent? I have no idea what the word 'voluntarily' means there. Does it mean dealers will be allowed to not run NICS checks if they prefer not to?
- Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA).
Submissions of mental health records? Since when has it been legal to deny any American their rights without due process? Isn't it required that a person be adjudicated mentally deficient by a court of law to do that? Mental health records are entirely irrelevant except to those court proceedings. This bill sounds like Stalinist purge material.
- Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm.
Is that an admission that the Bill of Rights doesn't cover veterans or an admission that it doesn't cover anyone anymore?
This bill is worse than any ban on some specific models or types of guns. It's a huge foot in the door to trash the 4th Amend., the 5th Amend. and the 10th Amend. as well as the 2nd Amend. Was all of this gun control demagoguery really just a Trojan Horse to sneak this Bill of Rights killer into law?
Reasoned...
I’m actually shocked...
Begich is such a worm. He kisses Obama’s butt 98% of the time, and then when his reelection is at stake, “Oh, I’m going to join the filibuster, you know!”
Same here.
That guy could get kicked out of the party
I heard the “bi-partisan” bill is worse than the original Democrat one.
He must perceive that his position as Alaskan Senator is on the line....Kick him out anyway....post election he’ll backstab all the sourdoughs......a rat is a rat is a rat!
I emailed him also, for all the good it will do.
I worry that the votes for and against have already been counted, determined that there are enough for cloture, and the most vulnerable Democrats up for re-election in 2014 are being given permission to vote no to up their pro-gun creds.
I hope I’m wrong.
IMO, it's over people. If this passes, they will require people to register all their weapons with ATF so they can track them. Any reason they want will trigger a visit from jack booted thugs. Your wife leaves you and you get a script for Vallium and you lose your right to have guns.
If they don't require you to register your guns, what good is it? If I have 30 guns, I could buy and sell a hundred guns and they know NOTHING unless they require me to register them. If background check was just to check my name in a database, then I'm sure no one would care. They will never settle for that though. ATF has been copying FFL forms for years since Waco. They even raised the FFL licence cost to get casual gun enthusiasts out of the gun business. My brother in law had his licence to buy and sell for himself and family and friends. He charged nothing or very little because he didn't use it as a business. When the price went up, he gave it up. The BATF came to his home and took his books. Even Dan Rather on CBS News admitted that they were entering the data in a huge database even though it was illegal. To think you have a gun no one knows about is a pipe dream. If they come looking for it, you better produce it or the waterboarding will begin. Thus has it always been in every fascist country since the beginning of time.
Now the MSM will have to report that it’s a bipartisan filibuster. Excellent!
No more laws, period.
“Now the MSM will have to report that it’s a bipartisan filibuster. Excellent!”
I doubt it. The MSM seldom reports that which does not advance the agenda. Remember Fast and Furious. I have learned of many situations where what any reasonable person would consider important news is ignored by the MSM because it goes against the template they are pushing.
“I think people should have the opportunity to vote if they know what they’re voting on,” Begich said.......
Where was he when Odumbo-Care got railroaded through in the middle of the night and behind closed doors?
Remember, “We have to approve it before we can read whats in it”? ...or, what ever that dim-bulb Pelosi said)
Only if they get orders from The White House to do so...
FIRST AMENDMENT: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
SECOND AMENDMENT: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed."
1. Forcing religious institutions and private citizens who are opposed on moral and religious grounds to fund abortions through ObamaCare.
2. Soon forcing Christians to accept gay marriage and not preach the clear message contained within the bible under threat of imprisonment.
3. DHS buying large volumes of ammo to deprive us of our Second Amendment "right to bear arms" through back-door means.
4. Debating ANY new law that infringes on the "right to bear arms", unless through the Constitutional Amendment process contained within the Constitution:
"Article V of the Constitution provides for a two-step amending process with two alternatives. Amendments may be proposed by two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress or by a special convention called at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. Amendments are then ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by special state conventions, depending on congressional specification."
Just what do these F*ckers think they are Doing?
Is this true? No bill and no amendment and they are voting on both this morning?
We have to pass it to see what's in it?
That’s only because reid has enough Rep RINO votes to get this passed. He’s letting a few dems “go rogue” in red states so they can keep their seats—much like pelosi used to do.
Up for re-election next year. This is how it works. The democrats get enough idiot republicans to support their legislation so that democrats seats in danger can be protected.
McCain, Graham, Ayotte, Isakson, Heller and Flake plus 55 democrats makes 61. So Reid can afford to let Begich vote against it. And as more republican dupes join in (Chambliss, Johanns, Collins, etc.) that many more democrats can be protected (Landrieu, Pryor, Bauchus, Hagen, Warner).
Ya know, they know my voice as I call every couple weeks and send letters all the time and I get a bunch of the dem Indians to send letters.
Alaskans are libetarians when it comes to social issues and ultra conservative in most other matters. If Begich had followed that lead in the beginning he'd be getting re elected in 2014, he didn't and has already lost the 2014 election; and he knows it. I always remind them that ole Donny Young has got re-elected for over 30 years; he's as crooked as they come, but he's our crook, puts on a show, and everybody knows where he stands and trusts him.
I told Begich's staff that Mark better start shaking the tree if he wants to stand a chance in 2014.
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.