AWB and senate control?


PDA






JBrady555
December 30, 2012, 06:08 PM
I have a question since I don't fully understand our political system. Since Feinstein is in the senate and the senate is under democratic control does that mean that we can't stop her bill if all or a majority of democrats support her? Republican house control wouldn't make a difference in this case would it? Sorry for such a dumb question. Thanks for any help.

If you enjoyed reading about "AWB and senate control?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bill2e
December 30, 2012, 06:10 PM
Any bill has to pass BOTH the House and Senate

JBrady555
December 30, 2012, 06:11 PM
Any bill has to pass BOTH the House and Senate
thanks

mljdeckard
December 30, 2012, 06:14 PM
There is a process it has to go through. Each bill has to be voted upon by the appropriate committee before it goes to the floor. The Senate Majority Leader sets the agenda, he decides what gets heard, and in what order. (If at all.) Harry Reid is the majority leader. And while I'm not (AT ALL) a fan of his, he has been very solidly pro-gun. Feinstein has wanted to do this for many years. She has introduced gun laws many times. They haven't gone anywhere.

MachIVshooter
December 30, 2012, 06:15 PM
If she gets a majority vote on it, it will pass in the senate. It will then go to the Republican-controlled house, where it will most likely die.

Her bill is so over the top, it's unlikely to even get enough support in the dem controlled senate. There are quite a few dem senators who are not guaranteed reelection like she is. Re-election is the sole motivator for 100% of congresscritters, so they will look to see how likely they are to retain a majority vote in their state if they vote for a given piece of legislation.

1996 wasn't that long ago. There are only two groups who remember how gun control measures were voted on after a couple of years, and vote accordingly. One of these groups is MUCH larger than the other.

Derek Zeanah
December 30, 2012, 06:17 PM
Google bicameral legislature.

Simplified: a bill needs to be passed in the Senate and the House. Then it can be passed on to the president. Oftentimes the bills passed will be slightly different, in which case they need to go to committee, find a revised combination bill ("reconciliation"), and put it up for vote again.

Geneseo1911
December 30, 2012, 06:25 PM
Also remember, at least one staunchly pro-gun Senator WILL filibuster the bill IF it makes it out of committee. This means that there will be a "cloture" vote, which will require 60 votes (instead of the 51 simple majority) to close debate and finally vote on the bill.

BK
December 30, 2012, 06:26 PM
If you follow politics closely, you know by now how strategic Reid is when it comes to the bills he allows to hit the floor for a vote. He essentially does not allow a Democrat bill to see a vote unless he's already counted up all the votes and knows it will pass. Doing this keeps him from ever technically standing on a losing side. Even if it is a bill he would love to pass, if it doesn't have the votes to pass, he won't let it see the floor lest his efforts be recorded as a failure. It's very cunning because doing this prevents votes being held against a candidate. Votes reveal each candidates loyalty and agenda. Either a Senator's loyalty is to his district voters or to the party. Voting for a gun control bill would be a very unpopular thing in many districts so he won't allow a vote in order to protect his flock from being punished for a futile vote on a failing bill. If he sends it out for a vote, you can bet that he know it will pass.

MachIVshooter
December 30, 2012, 06:34 PM
It's very cunning because doing this prevents votes being held against a candidate.

While this is true, the net result is the same. Makes no difference to us if a bad bill is killed or never voted on to begin with, so long as it doesn't pass.

As well, it's not much secret who supports what. Just because they didn't get to vote on it doesn't mean we can't make an informed guess on how they would have voted.

pendennis
December 30, 2012, 06:37 PM
There is also a rule in the Senate called "cloture". The cloture rule requires a miminum of 60 votes to bring a potential law to the Senate floor for a vote. Any senator has the ability to speak for or against a particular bill, and continue debate on it, until one side or the other votes to cut off debate, and bring the matter to a vote.

You've often heard the term "filibuster", and it's used when a senator threatens endless debate in order to keep an item from vote. If the majority leader doesn't believe he has the votes to cut off debate, he will then table the bill, which in turn, kills it. It requires a vote of three-fifths of duly appointed Senators to end debate.

There are exceptions to the cloture rule, and they usually involve appropriations bills, or bills coming out of joint conference committees (ironing out differences between House and Senate versions of the same bills). Presidential nominations for cabinet posts, judges, and justices, along with treaties, face cloture rules.

The Senate has a set of arcane rules, seemingly out of touch to a lot of folks.

Justin
December 30, 2012, 07:07 PM
I have a question since I don't fully understand our political system. Since Feinstein is in the senate and the senate is under democratic control does that mean that we can't stop her bill if all or a majority of democrats support her? Republican house control wouldn't make a difference in this case would it? Sorry for such a dumb question. Thanks for any help.

"I'm just a bill, here on capitol hill..."



http://vimeo.com/24334724

Yeah, it's a cartoon for kids, but it gives probably the most easily digestible breakdown of how a bill becomes law.

Dang, now I'm all nostalgic.

HD_Ride
December 30, 2012, 07:16 PM
Your question has been answered about the bill but keep in mind given the political landscape obama could *try* an executive order (AKA EO) to further stymie 2A Rights. Not a great example but more about that here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6b8X_LnoPc), and I'm sure you could find hundreds of posts just on that topic alone

MachIVshooter
December 30, 2012, 07:17 PM
Dang, now I'm all nostalgic.

Haha. I was still just a twinkle in my then-23 year old father's eye when that cartoon was made.

Texan Scott
December 30, 2012, 07:30 PM
LOL Justin, we must've grown up on the same Froot Loops, Saturday morning cartoons, and paint chips!

Sam1911
December 30, 2012, 07:36 PM
While I found "Conjunction Junction" a bit of a catchier tune, "I'm Just a Bill" should be a sticky here! :)

k_dawg
December 30, 2012, 08:07 PM
Not even Feinstein expects her bill to pass as written. However, this is how the Democrats and the mainstream media define 'compromise'.

Think of it is a thug holding up a store. He threatens the owner and demands $1000. The owner doesn't want ot be hurt or killed, but he only has $500 in the register. The thug then accepts the $500, and the media treats it as if it was a 'compromise'.

Notice there is not one single dang thing in the bill that increases the rights of lawful citizens.

Silent Bob
December 30, 2012, 10:44 PM
"Notice there is not single dang thing in the bill that increases the rights of lawful citizens."

Nor is there anything that would actually prevent a single murder or spree shooting. It will do nothing but infringe on our 2nd amen rights, and open the door to even more onerous legislation in the future.

XD Fan
December 30, 2012, 10:55 PM
Harry Reid is the majority leader. And while I'm not (AT ALL) a fan of his, he has been very solidly pro-gun. Feinstein has wanted to do this for many years. She has introduced gun laws many times. They haven't gone anywhere.

I guess we will see if he deserved that much ballyhooed NRA endorsement.

Impureclient
December 30, 2012, 11:07 PM
Who needs the House and Senate? EXECUTIVE ORDER!! woot woot.....No guns for anybody! Trade in all your guns for a gift certificate to Wendy's for a frosty. :neener:

KMatch
December 30, 2012, 11:24 PM
Man, that takes me back... Funny how I never really "got it". Also, note at 2:19 in the video - the reference to guns/hunting!

Now, to add to the original question sort of, are there any "tricks" Obama can use to squeak this through in case the bill can't make it on its own? I've heard of votes being snuck in (rumor?) and the possibility of an AWB being tagged onto a popular bill (such as the fiscal debate) to sneak them through (think fine print). What could happen out there?

MachIVshooter
December 30, 2012, 11:41 PM
the possibility of an AWB being tagged onto a popular bill (such as the fiscal debate) to sneak them through (think fine print).

The republicans know they're getting blamed no matter what with the fiscal crisis, so they have no reason to let the dems put a rider on that should go through on it's own.

22-rimfire
December 30, 2012, 11:55 PM
The bill has to also be brought up on the floor of the House by its Speaker. There are hurdles to be made in both the Senate and House.

The same bill is supposed to be introduced in both the House and Senate. So it thy get out of committee intact, they will be the same bills or the language will be the same.

barnbwt
December 31, 2012, 02:45 AM
The Senate has a set of arcane rules, seemingly out of touch to a lot of folks.

Just to us folks who went to public schools :o

TCB

r1derbike
December 31, 2012, 02:58 AM
Remember the Executive Order. This abuse of power could usurp any due process, and checks and balances in our political system. Obama has already used it to squash criminal inquiry into fast and furious.

Imagine what he has planned if the "New World Order" tyrannical disarmament of Americans gets hopelessly mired in the house/senate.

Care to take any bets?

Solo
December 31, 2012, 04:10 AM
I will take should you offer, and be a man of your word.

mljdeckard
December 31, 2012, 04:24 AM
The president can't just make new laws with executive orders. He can administrate regulations within the purview of the executive branch.

Queen_of_Thunder
December 31, 2012, 08:16 AM
The colture rule is under attack in the Senate in an effort to change how a filibuster in the Senate is conducted. Letters to Ried and other Senators should be sent in asking that they respect the history and rules of the Senate. If we fail to do so the Anti gun bills will only need a simple majority vote to accomplish their goals. So 2 letters are required. One to members of the House asking them to kill any gun control Bill and one to the Senate to support the current rules of the Senate. If the colture rule is changed or elimated we have lost a tool to defend the 2nd Amendment.

Sam1911
December 31, 2012, 10:31 AM
Obama Executive Orders Impose New Gun Rules July 2011

Through an Executive Order, the Obama administration is implementing new restrictions on the sale of certain weapons in border states, and increasing the penalties for violating certain firearms laws.


Sigh. Again, an Exective order defines how the President wants his law enforcement folks to handle various details about enforcing EXISTING laws. He doesn't get to create a new law (ever) or do anything specifically counter to the law.

How he inteprets the laws as written may not make us happy, but he has to stay fairly close to the original writing or he risks getting "checked and balacned" by the other 2 branches of government.

2ifbyC
December 31, 2012, 11:09 AM
I lost my thrill on Capitol Hill.

You should watch the movie, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It will give you some insight to the dirty world of politics. The movie was made in 1939 but nothing has changed in Washington since then or for that matter, since this country has become a Republic.

Hacker15E
January 1, 2013, 09:09 AM
I have a question since I don't fully understand our political system. Since Feinstein is in the senate and the senate is under democratic control does that mean that we can't stop her bill if all or a majority of democrats support her? Republican house control wouldn't make a difference in this case would it? Sorry for such a dumb question. Thanks for any help.

I'm glad you asked the question and received an accurate answer....

...but the bigger issue here is that, as an American, it is your civic duty -- part and parcel with being a free man and a citizen in this republic -- to know and understand this system.

I apologize if that sounds condescending, as I surely don't intend it that way, but it is simply dangerous for anyone to be governed by a system they do not understand.

x_wrench
January 1, 2013, 09:33 AM
yes, a bill has to pass both the house and senate and then be signed into law by the president. also along the way, any member of the house and or senate can attach another bill to the original, which if ratified by both houses and signed into law, that bill also gets signed into law. even though it may have nothing to do with firearms. a house rep or senator could attach a funding bill for a highway, or any pet project he or she wants to pass, and if the original bill is signed into law, that one is also. also, any of the reps or senators can modify the bill, then it has to go thru the ratification all over again in both houses. it is an extremely stupid set up. one in which all kinds of games to be played, which can and do get played. it not only wastes tax payers money, it keeps many good bills from passing and gets some really bad legislation passed, that would otherwise stand no chance of getting thru. realistically, our government rules NEED to be rewritten so all of the stupid game playing, including filibusterers stop. the government was SUPPOSED to work FOR this country. but it has not for a long time. they work for their pet projects, what special interest groups can bribe them into, and have little interest what this countries people want. they work for themselves, or the highest bidder and to heck with what is good for this country. v

barnbwt
January 1, 2013, 01:52 PM
He doesn't get to create a new law (ever) or do anything specifically counter to the law.

Was there already a law on the books limiting the bullion and individual could possess when the Roosevelt administration issued EO 6102
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

The order was rationalized on the grounds that hard times had caused "hoarding" of gold, stalling economic growth and making the depression worse.[
I didn't see anything in the article or order itself about exisitng laws. The Presdiency has definitely exceeded its authority in the past and gotten away with it, but fortuntely that is rarely the case. The function of this law was to force citizens to surrender their holdings at 20.67$ per oz, and the Feds then resold it at 35$ an ounce--inflation through confiscation.

The law was completely bogus, of course:
"There was only one prosecution under the order, and in that case the order was ruled invalid by federal judge John M. Woolsey, on the grounds that the order was signed by the President, not the Secretary of the Treasury as required"

But that didn't stop plenty of people from following it against their will:
"The price of gold from the Treasury for international transactions was thereafter raised to $35 an ounce ($587 in 2010 dollars) resulting in an immediate loss for everyone who had been forced to surrender their gold. The resulting profit that the government realized funded the Exchange Stabilization Fund established by the Gold Reserve Act in 1934."
From the page on the ESF:
"The fund began operations in April 1934, financed by $2 billion of the $2.8 billion paper profit the government realized from raising the price of gold to $35 an ounce from $20.67."
Whatever happened to the other $.8 billion, I wonder?

Governments are made of people, and people can try whatever they want--so long as no one questions them.

TCB

Sam1911
January 1, 2013, 02:03 PM
I haven't studied that matter, so I'm not qualified to speak on it. However, I have called out FDR, as well as others like good old Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, etc., as Presidents who have pushed executive power far beyond all reason -- to degrees far greater than anything our current President has attempted.

Agreed, though, the checks and balances have to be applied if such things are attempted.

If you enjoyed reading about "AWB and senate control?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!