Posted on 07/10/2014 10:09:20 AM PDT by Second Amendment First
Senate Republicans and Democrats blocked progress on a bipartisan hunting and fishing bill Thursday after Democratic leaders refused to bow to their demands for amendments related to guns.
The Senate failed in a 41-56 vote to end debate on the measure, which would make it easier to hunt and fish on federal lands. Sixty votes were needed to end debate.
Both Republicans and Democrats have demanded amendments related to gun control on the bill. Democrats want to vote on measures that would tighten gun control, while several GOP senators have offered pro-gun amendments. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) accused Republicans of filibustering their own bill given the fact that more than half the GOP conference is co-sponsoring the legislation.
"People who sponsored this bill voted against it," he said.
Republicans, who have repeatedly criticized Reid for not allowing amendments to legislation, said they were objecting because they wanted to offer their measures.
“When we don’t get amendments we don’t let the bill pass,” Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) said ahead of the vote.
Most of the no votes on Thursday came from the GOP side, but 11 votes also came from Democrats, highlighting the irritation on both sides of the aisle.
Democratic Sens. Cory Booker (N.J.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Ed Markey (Mass.), Chris Murphy (Conn.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (Calif.) voted against moving forward on Thursday. So did Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.), the second-highest ranking Democrat in the Senate.
Reid changed his vote from yes to no, a procedural move that allows him to bring the bill back to another vote.
Signs that gun control could upend the otherwise non-controversial bill emerged on Monday, when a number of Democrats voted against moving forward in an 82-12 vote because the bill lacked gun control measures.
The bill's chief backer is Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), and Reid had hoped to use this week's debate to bolster her tough reelection fight.
The Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act would also reauthorize wetland and fishing conservation programs and would allow online sales of duck stamps.
Congress is a bunch of neutered turds. They can debate until the cows come home, it will not matter. King hussein has a pen, a phone, and will rule by decree to overturn any law not to his liking. If you cross him, expect the full wrath of the federal regime to come down on you like a ton of bricks. Being CiC has its perks you know.
Can't wait to see him sent to the recycle bin, he's not even fit for Soylent Green.
Good to see the Republicans aren’t bending to Democrat political pressure to help the ‘Rats’ reelection campaigns. If this does get passed, it had better have some actual pro-rights amendments. Pretty much any of the following would do it for me:
1. National Concealed Carry Reciprocity
2. Restoration of Rights for veterans
3. End Operation Chokepoint
4. Abolish the ATF for all time and have its responsibilities entirely dropped (not picked up by anyone else)
5. Repeal the unconstitutional Gun-Free School Zone Act
6. Repeal the unconstitutional GCA and NFA
7. Hold anti-rights politicians to the same standards as their constituents (if we can’t have guns, they can’t have guns—and neither can their bodyguards)
Oh, and there had better not be any stupid anti-rights amendments, either. If those ‘Rats want to bolster their pro-2A credentials, make ‘em work for it!
I know this is how politics works, but it pisses me off when they add crap to their bills - even if it is good crap. Just make the bill what it is and leave the other stuff off. Just like the $2 billion that was for the illegal alien kids turns into $3.2 billion once all the other, unrelated pork gets added to it.
Apparently, an entire government-run playpen filled with mentally defective post-adolescent lawyers can’t figure out what “shall not be infringed” means.
Sorry, I don’t see how this is any victory for Pubs. They have and issue that actually does have widespread bipartisan support, and that’s good for gun owners (especially those that hunt), and they stall it because they can’t add amendments that won’t pass if they are added to the bill. Nothing but a beltway pissing contest.
Well, after the bill issue is compromised, fishermen and hunters can enjoy smiling at the new pan-zoom-tilt cameras mounted in remote areas on the CO Rockies (not to mention the perpetual cloud of pot smoke everywhere).
Nothing is going to pass now. It is all positioning for the election. Expect every hot button issue to be introduced just to see what response it gets.
The thing is, this is a non-issue bill. The point of it is not hunting; the point of it is posturing. This allows ‘Rat politicians from pro-rights states to say “See? We support gun owners! We’re good people! Vote for us!” even though they don’t really care about our rights as gun owners.
What the ‘Pubs are doing is trying to get actual pro-rights amendments put into this supposedly pro-gun-rights bill. In other words, if this bill’s ‘Rat sponsors want to see the benefits on election day in terms of being reelected, then the citizens should get some actual benefits out of it.
Gun Owners of America sent a news alert out a week or 2 ago about this very issue.
Actually it’s the people pushing the amendments who are posturing. They know it won’t pass, but they can act like they did something. Meanwhile, they are stopping a bill that would open more land for hunters. And while that may not do anything about gun rights in general, it’s still something good that could be achieved. Moreover, the anti gun people also want to get rid of hunting, because they know if there are fewer hunters, there will be fewer gunowners to fight them.
As you know, S. 2363 was a “nothing-burger bill” which existed solely to elect anti-gun Democrats in Red States. This includes Senators like sponsor Kay Hagan (D-NC) -- plus cosponsors such as Mark Begich (D-AK), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Mark Udall (D-CO), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Al Franken (D-MN) and Mark Warner (D-VA).All these Senators are rated as D’s or F’s by Gun Owners of America.
S. 2363 would have allowed hunting on federal lands -- unless Barack Obama determined that guns were dangerous. How likely do you think that is?
It would have allowed importation of polar bear parts. Okay, that’s fine, in and of itself. But that’s hardly a fair trade for passing a bill that will help reelect anti-gun Senators like Hagan, Begich, Pryor, Landrieu (and others) -- Senators who will vote to confirm Obama’s anti-gun Supreme Court justices, thus overturning the Heller and McDonald decisions.
Blocking passage of SB 2363 may have been posturing on the part of Cruz, Paul, and Lee, but no more so than the posturing on the part of Hagan for proposing a "pro-hunting" bill that doesn't really give hunters any meaningful benefits.
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.