Assault Weapon Ban extension PASSES (Senate amendment to gun industry protection bill)

C-Span ^ | 3-2-04 | Sen. Dianne Feinstein D-CA

[Atlas Sneezed]

The vote was:

52 -Aye in favor of extending the ban 47 -Nay opposed to the ban.

[Hat-Trick]

Extension of the AWB is disgusting, but it isn't the end of the world. Worth fighting, but not worth self-destructing and allowing far more onerous restrictions and the political mechanisms for such to get enacted because one decided to throw a temper tantrum.

Just curious, and sincere, where do you think the line in the sand should be drawn, and what do you plan on having to arm yourself with as you stand immediately behind it?

Is there no single issue that would cause to to say "ENOUGH"? In all honesty, this issue is the one that does it for me.

[Lazamataz]

Two words: Conference Committee.

Senate passes.

House makes sure it doesn't.

Then it goes into Conference Committee, and it's put in again.

That's the system, and this thing is DEFINITELY going to make it to Bush's desk. And be signed. No law ever dies, especially when we need to control the sheep and prevent them from revolting.

You know, I don't even get surprised any more. I knew damned well it was going to make it in the Senate. I know damned well it will fail in the House. And I know damned well the Conference Committee will put it right back in.

And I know damned well Bush will sign it.

I will ping all the naysayers who respond to this post when it happens. I will do so wryly and with a heavy heart.

[TC Rider]

This is the regular Senate kubuki dance, it doesn't mean squat. Some R's in moderate states will be on the record now as voting for the extension.

Bush had said in 2000 he would sign the EXTENSION of the original AWB, if it landed on his desk.

The Dems' will never be happy with a simple extension, Feinstein and Schumer have already drafted AWB2, which Bush has never promised to support or sign.

I'm fairly certain that there will not be any AWB landing on Bush's desk, as long as DeLay and the other fine Republican House members still draw a breath.

[AntiGuv]

On the Gun Show requirement:

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---53
Akaka (D-HI) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Breaux (D-LA) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Clinton (D-NY) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Daschle (D-SD) Dayton (D-MN) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND)	Durbin (D-IL) Edwards (D-NC) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Graham (D-FL) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI)	Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---46
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Chambliss (R-GA) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID)	Crapo (R-ID) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Kyl (R-AZ) Lott (R-MS) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA)	Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Roberts (R-KS) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY)

Not Voting - 1
Johnson (D-SD)

[Blood of Tyrants]

Since the House and Senate bills differ it will go to a conference committee.

The anti-gunners have fallen into the trap. If the same members who voted FOR the worst amendments now vote FOR the overall bill, then the pro-2A senators can STILL vote against it, the overall bill will pass the Senate and then the crap can be stripped out in committee.

Time to find out who will be on the committee and lobby the crap out of them.

[Lazamataz]

I have freakin' had it with you compromisers. If it passes, f the Republicans. Period.

[spodefly]

This thing will be taken out in conference. Period. The AWB is dead as a doornail. Bush said he would sign an AWB extension, but can't afford to piss off his base. He wants DeLay to do the dirty work for him. DeLay will not only do the dirty work for him. He will enjoy doing the dirty work for him.

I sincerely hope you are right.

[ought-six]

"Bush by five points. Book that."

Booked. I hope you're right, but I don't think you will be come the morning of November 3. I'll take my winnings in gold, if you don't mind.

Chris, too.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I'm fairly certain that there will not be any AWB landing on Bush's desk, as long as DeLay and the other fine Republican House members still draw a breath.

I am not certain of any of these people. I trust none of them.

[Dane]

Folks like yourself are to the GOP what the Clintonistas were to the Democrats; just an ugly stain. You're an amen corner that deems it politically sophisticated to elevate your lack of principle into your highest principle. To whatever extent your type gains sway over the GOP, the Republican Party will simply become an inverse reflection of the unscrupulous Democrats

Well gee, Sabertooth, why don't you organize a million person march against CFR.

You can't, because people don't care about CFR, and you know that truth, but yet you wish to ignore reality and criticize people who acknowledge that reality and put yourself on an empty throne called "the most principled of all".

Whatever, pontificating from your empty throne is something that has not been taken away from you.

I will continue to live in reality rather than putting myself on some sort of throne proclaiming some sort of imagined greatness.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

As someone else has pointed out, the House has indeed already passed a clean bill w/o the AWB. The conference committee members, which does NOT include the entire House, will hammer this out. I do believe it won't survive the conference.

I fully expect this to come out of the conference with the AWB intact and it will land on Dubya's desk and he will sign it as he's promised to do.

If the above doesn't happen, then great. But, I fully expect the above to happen exactly as I've described.

What I am going to enjoy is to watch what the rationalizations coming from the Bush supporters after he signs this into law.

[xsrdx]

This is the regular Senate kubuki dance, it doesn't mean squat.

Precisely - but it does make for interesting drama.

[AntiGuv]

Eight Republicans in favor of gun show amdt: Chafee, DeWine, Fitzgerald, Hagel, Lugar, McCain, Voinovich, Warner.

Three Democrats opposed: Baucus, Miller, Nelson (NE).

Seems we've covered every single RINO in the Senate between the two votes. LOL

[Blood of Tyrants]

Two? There were TEN RINOs who voted for it.

Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island

Susan Collins of Maine

Mike DeWine of Ohio

Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois

Judd Gregg of New Hampshire

Richard Lugar of Indiana

Gordon Smith of Oregon

Olympia Snowe of Maine

George Voinovich of Ohio

John Warner of Virginia.

[TheBigB]

You can ping me if it does Laz, and I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. But at this moment, I'm willing to say I do not believe it will survive.

[Lazamataz]

I'm fairly certain that there will not be any AWB landing on Bush's desk

I'll send you one of the honorary Signing Pens that Bush will use to sign it in to law.

[JohnnyZ]

That's the system, and this thing is DEFINITELY going to make it to Bush's desk. And be signed.

Be prepared to get LazamaBUSTED again for talking through your hat.

[ArrogantBustard]

Here's my opinion, unchanged from late last year:

To: Javelina

The memories of Columbine, etc. that were used to sell the AWB in the first place are long-gone.

What's to stop another "Columbine" from happening at a very convenient time (and being hyped to high heaven by the 'Rat dominated media)? The Ugly Gun ban? Bwahahahahaha!!! ;'}

Why is this your make-or-break issue?

Good question.

Short answer: Because there's absolutely no excuse for its renewal to even be voted on by a subcommittee much less actually be passed by a Republican controlled congress.

Slightly longer answer: I have been a hard-core RKBA activist (off and on) for nigh unto twenty years. There is a plethora of blatantly unconstitutional anti-gun laws, dating to the late 1800s. I have seen that plethora grow in spite of my efforts to reverse it; the only real improvement has been the wave of "shall issue" concealed carry laws passed by many states. During this time, I have heard endless excuses from Republican Party apologists as to why we can't get anything repealed or reversed. The Republican Congress, they say, can't get anythign done with a Democrat President. The Republican President, they say, can't get anything done with a Democrat Congress. How this explains Bush41's ban-by-executive-fiat (BATF reinterpretation of GCA '68) of imported Ugly Guns eludes me.

Well, now, it's the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Three. By the Grace of God (so they tell me) we have a Republican President, a Republican controlled House of Representatives, and even a Republican controlled Senate. That Republican President, while still a candidate, promised to sign a renewal of the 1994 Ugly Gun ban. He was, so they tell me, triangulating; trying to win the votes of the whining leftists but also telling the Republican controlled Congress not to put an UG ban on his desk in the first place. If that's the case, that Republican controlled Congress had bloody well better not pass an UG ban. Here's the kicker: we're not asking the Congress to actually repeal anything. If the Congress does precisely nothing, in September 2004 the Ugly Gun ban ends. Poof. Gone. In 1994, the Congress put a 10 year poison pill in the Ugly Gun ban, and even so it just barely passed a Democrat controlled House. Asking the Congress to do nothing is not asking them to display any particular courage. So if the Congress passes an extension of the Ugly Gun ban, and the President signs it into law, I will know that they have deliberately, willfully, and with malice aforethought, stabbed me in the back. Any attempt by the Republican Party apologists to minimize or explain away such betrayal will, along with their previous two decades of excuses, be revealed as of no more value than the gibbering of baboons. So that's why it's a make or break issue for me. I don't vote to reelect traitors and back-stabbers.

508 posted on 11/18/2003 12:50:31 PM EST by ArrogantBustard

[ArrogantBustard]

The memories of Columbine, etc. that were used to sell the AWB in the first place are long-gone.

[Hat-Trick]

Lugar? Lugar? Lugar voted Yea???