4 more Senators now oppose Toomey-Manchin amendment


PDA






ngnrd
April 16, 2013, 05:48 AM
From the give-credit-where-credit-is-due department:

CNN TV's Situation Room is now reporting that four Senators [Saxby Chambliss (http://www.chambliss.senate.gov/public/index.cfm), Richard Burr (http://www.burr.senate.gov/public/), Jeff Flake (http://www.flake.senate.gov/index.cfm), and Roger Wicker (http://www.wicker.senate.gov/public/), all Republicans] that "thought about supporting a compromise on gun control" now say that they will vote against the (Schumer-)Toomey-Manchin bill.

I couldn't find the story on CNN.com, so I don't have a link to reference. But if true, it's another sign that the pressure is working. Keep it up!

If you enjoyed reading about "4 more Senators now oppose Toomey-Manchin amendment" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
BigBore44
April 16, 2013, 06:14 AM
We need a link to verify.

But if it's true, it's McDonalds. "I'm Lovin It!"

ngnrd
April 16, 2013, 06:48 AM
Finally found the story... They certainly didn't make it easy for me.:rolleyes:

---> LINK (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/15/gop-senators-oppose-background-check-compromise/?iref=allsearch) <---

OilyPablo
April 16, 2013, 07:27 AM
So where is McCain?

baz
April 16, 2013, 08:26 AM
Of the 16 Republicans who crossed the aisle last week and voted with Democrats to begin a debate on gun control, 10 of them have now formally said they will vote against Manchin-Toomey: Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), John Hoeven (N.D.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), and Roger Wicker (Miss.).

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/reid-short-of-votes-on-gun-control-90082_Page2.html#ixzz2Qd1JWsQs
As for McCain, he's voting for it.

Ryanxia
April 16, 2013, 08:30 AM
Keep up the pressure, call your reps in their DC offices, tell them you expect them to OPPOSE this Bill and others like it.

Queen_of_Thunder
April 16, 2013, 08:36 AM
Tell them instead of passing another law that does nothing how about they just enforce the laws already on the books. Its a win win for everyone.

AirForceShooter
April 16, 2013, 08:40 AM
I'm trying to figure out how ANY dem Senator would vote for it.

National Carry OMG

AFS

hunttheevil
April 16, 2013, 09:00 AM
Let's hope there are no mysterious votes at 3am! We all know how that works out!

AlexanderA
April 16, 2013, 09:31 AM
The latest Huffington Post whip count shows 52 senators in favor of the Manchin-Toomey plan, 39 opposed, and 9 yet to announce their position.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/15/gun-control-vote_n_3085610.html?

Under Senate rules, it will take 60 votes to add this to the underlying bill.

There are feverish negotiations underway to add an exemption for people at least 100 miles away from the nearest FFL, in hopes of getting Lisa Murkowski to switch and support the plan. As a result, the vote on the amendment will probably be put off until later this week or early next week.

Another factor is whether the more-palatable Coburn plan (free Internet portal, buyer pre-qualification) is voted on before or after the Manchin-Toomey plan. If it's scheduled after the Manchin-Toomey vote, more senators will be tempted to vote "no" on Manchin-Toomey when there's the prospect of covering themselves by voting "yes" on Coburn.

If the Manchin-Toomey plan fails, then the usual-suspect antigun senators will be faced with the prospect of voting "yes" on Coburn, or getting nothing at all.

Ryanxia
April 16, 2013, 10:16 AM
I'm asking my Senators to OPPOSE this Bill regardless of the amendments to it, Lanza STOLE the guns he used, this would not have prevented Sandy Hook and is just another infringement. Stand strong.

MErl
April 16, 2013, 10:28 AM
I'm asking my Senators to OPPOSE this Bill regardless of the amendments to it, Lanza STOLE the guns he used, this would not have prevented Sandy Hook and is just another infringement. Stand strong.


push too hard on the theft side and there will be a safe storage requirement popping up. be careful.

(yes I know it still wouldn't have stopped him. He lived in the house and likely knew any safe combination)

AlexanderA
April 16, 2013, 12:02 PM
Suppose we get the Coburn plan plus nationwide reciprocity plus repeal of the Hughes Amendment. Would you still be opposed to the underlying bill? (My own opinion is that we have to be flexible if we want to make progress on the pro-gun agenda.)

David E
April 16, 2013, 12:18 PM
I guess I missed all the pro-gun counter offers to all the anti-gun proposals in the effort to reach a "compromise."

Has Chuck U Schumer said, "give us the UBC and we will open up the registry for full auto."

HankR
April 16, 2013, 12:20 PM
The HuffPo link above also lists the fence sitters. These are the ones that need the phonecalls and emails, ASAP.

This is a bad bill, and needs to be stopped.

Aikibiker
April 16, 2013, 12:45 PM
Suppose we get the Coburn plan plus nationwide reciprocity plus repeal of the Hughes Amendment. Would you still be opposed to the underlying bill? (My own opinion is that we have to be flexible if we want to make progress on the pro-gun agenda.)

Add in some poison pill amendments need to added. Repeal of 922o would be my preference.

Ryanxia
April 16, 2013, 12:48 PM
National reciprocity I do not think would be a good thing. While it might be convenient, I don't want the federal government deciding on my renewals and it being a federal matter. Keep the power in the states, even if it is only good in your state.

Also the 'cover you when traveling' is already a law that is just not enforced.

alsaqr
April 16, 2013, 01:02 PM
The Manchin-Toomey background check deal may be in trouble:

By Monday evening, nine Republican senators from that group said they would oppose the Manchin-Toomey plan and one was leaning against it. Combined with the 31 senators who voted against debating the overall gun bill last week, that would bring potential opponents of expanding background checks to 41 just enough votes to block the Senate from considering the compromise.

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-background-check-deal-jeopardy-senate-213247266--politics.html

MagnumDweeb
April 16, 2013, 01:04 PM
I'm surprised how many Dems from otherwise gun friendly states voted "yes" on this.

Maine
Virginia
Vermont
New Hampshire
Nevada
Montana
Virginia
West Virginia
South Dakota

Yeesh I hope the Republicans take those seats next election. Had they voted otherwise it'd be 48 versus 43 with the 48 likely on our side.

I honestly thought Missouri, Oregon, and Ohio were gun friendly but I don't know.

mrvco
April 16, 2013, 01:23 PM
I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but we already have "gun control".

If they'd just remove the restriction on intrastate "On-line Sales"... I like the idea of allowing interstate FFL dealer sales and CCW Permits obviating the requirement for a background check with each firearms purchase from an FFL Dealer.

Dframe
April 16, 2013, 02:13 PM
PRESSURE needs to be brought to bear. This horrible bill needs to be STOPPED!
This is the first step in banning ALL private sales, and forcing EVERY transfer to go through an FFL so there is a FEDERAL RECORD of the gun and it's owner. Pre-cursor to registration and confiscation. Guns are already being confiscated in certain jurisdictions around the country. IMAGINE what some future leftwing congress could do with a list of every gun and owner.

ngnrd
April 16, 2013, 02:29 PM
I like the idea of allowing interstate FFL dealer sales and CCW Permits obviating the requirement for a background check with each firearms purchase from an FFL Dealer.
And what of those of us that live in free states; states who's residents don't have to ask permission from the government to exercise our rights? You know... the states with no CCW permit requirement.

Or what about the folks in the slave states that don't have a CCW, but want to sell their deer/duck gun?

Would you trample on our rights to feel like you get some of yours back?

No. We need to stick together on this. Registration is bad. And UBC's, no matter how palatable they try to make them, just bring us one more step closer to registration.

Don't be fooled. If this passes, the next tragedy will have them screaming to close the "UBC loophole". You know, the one that allows me to sell a firearm to a family member or friend. Then, the next time, they will be calling for universal registration because obviously background checks aren't effective at stopping criminals. You see where this path ends, don't you?

Godsgunman
April 16, 2013, 02:40 PM
No Compromise at all! Unless of course they want to add an amendment to it that says they can have UBCs but there will be no further infringement allowed. No further attack on 2a will be tolerated and whoever were to try would be removed from their political office and tried for treason post haste. UBCs would be limited to a 3 day period max and no person can be denied ability to obtain a firearm without a felony conviction or charges on file. No magazine limits either. That will be our "compromise" or NO DEAL!
Obviously they would never go for that so I stick with what I said before, NO COMPROMISE!

Godsgunman
April 16, 2013, 02:46 PM
Plus all Draconian state laws like those in NY and Cali must be stricken unconstitutional and overturned.

AlexanderA
April 16, 2013, 03:07 PM
I would still be opposed. I don't want to be flexible. I don't believe in any gun control.

That's fine -- if we were starting with a clean slate. The fact is, we already have gun control, and that's unlikely to change. The discussion now is about the parameters of the control. We want to move in the direction of more freedom, while the antis want to move in the direction of less freedom. This is the battlefield on which both sides maneuver. No general ever won a battle without being flexible.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 16, 2013, 03:13 PM
A big deal killer for me is that Schumer-Toomey-Manchin removes the prohibition against ANY part of the federal government establishing a registry and instead limits only DOJ. How do you think that is going to work once it also removes HIPAA protection?

AlexanderA
April 16, 2013, 03:26 PM
The HuffPo just revised its whip count, moving Lisa Murkowski from the "no" group on the Manchin-Toomey amendment to the "maybe" group. The count now stands at 52 "yes," 38 "no," and 10 "maybe." Lautenberg, although a staunch anti-gunner, may be a no-show due to health issues.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/15/gun-control-vote_n_3085610.html

Bartholomew Roberts
April 16, 2013, 03:30 PM
The HuffPo counts McCain as a "maybe" which is ridiculous. McCain is totally behind S.649.

ngnrd
April 16, 2013, 04:24 PM
Ugh. I'm embarrassed to see that both of my senators are listed in the "maybe" category. Not exactly surprised, just embarrassed.

I've got some more writing to do...:banghead:

Bartholomew Roberts
April 16, 2013, 04:39 PM
Call them if you can. The amendment could come up for a vote pretty quick if Reid thinks he has traction.

baz
April 16, 2013, 05:34 PM
Pryor and Begich both voted with the Republicans first time around. I think they will do so again. That would put the NO vote at 40 (per the Huffington "whip count"). Only one more needed to defeat it. I agree that McCain belongs on the YES camp, not "Maybe." But I think at least one more Democrat is possible, as well as Heller (Nev-Republican). It is a nail-biter.

mrvco
April 16, 2013, 06:00 PM
And what of those of us that live in free states; states who's residents don't have to ask permission from the government to exercise our rights? You know... the states with no CCW permit requirement.

Or what about the folks in the slave states that don't have a CCW, but want to sell their deer/duck gun?

Would you trample on our rights to feel like you get some of yours back?

No. We need to stick together on this. Registration is bad. And UBC's, no matter how palatable they try to make them, just bring us one more step closer to registration.

Don't be fooled. If this passes, the next tragedy will have them screaming to close the "UBC loophole". You know, the one that allows me to sell a firearm to a family member or friend. Then, the next time, they will be calling for universal registration because obviously background checks aren't effective at stopping criminals. You see where this path ends, don't you?

Nothing I said conflicts with your concerns.

mrvco
April 16, 2013, 06:11 PM
That's fine -- if we were starting with a clean slate. The fact is, we already have gun control, and that's unlikely to change. The discussion now is about the parameters of the control. We want to move in the direction of more freedom, while the antis want to move in the direction of less freedom. This is the battlefield on which both sides maneuver. No general ever won a battle without being flexible.

Unfortunately any attempt at rational discourse on this topic is followed immediately by the obligatory AJ/GB FUD-rant.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 16, 2013, 06:18 PM
Biden supposedly tweeted that they were 2 votes short of 60 on Toomey-Manchin (assuming Lautenberg will be able to vote).

ngnrd
April 16, 2013, 06:31 PM
Aj/gb fud...??

the iron horse
April 16, 2013, 06:34 PM
I'm glad Lindsey Graham has taken a stand on this issue.

He's been getting a lot of flak in S.C. recently.

razorback2003
April 16, 2013, 06:42 PM
Repeal Hughes machine gun ban (probably unconstitutional), take silencers off NFA, and maybe I would be interested in truly compromising for a system that allows private sellers to access NICS BUT not through an FFL/paperwork.

Ignition Override
April 16, 2013, 06:48 PM
When you call your (TN) Senator's number in DC, how do you determine whether voicing your opinion is even Noted by the staffer who answers?:scrutiny:

Yesterday there was no response or confirmation that my stance against any more gun control was recorded by the young guy who answered Corker's number.
I had the impression that my call did not even count. Maybe it's better to ask a naive, dumb question than not know.

BBQJOE
April 16, 2013, 06:49 PM
Does anyone have a link to this amendment proposal?

I guess I may be being stupid, but I can't find the actual bill.

sota
April 16, 2013, 06:50 PM
ironically you're missing out on the one thing that could easily fracture the firearms community... access to NICS.

if anyone could call (or better yet web site, phone app, etc.) into NICS, look up any potential buyer or seller FOR FREE and have it take less than 5 minutes, I suspect ALOT of people would do it.

if they wanted to establish a moral high ground, that would be the way to start. I guess we're lucky though that Schumer and DiFi are too <censored> to look down that path.

AlexanderA
April 16, 2013, 06:53 PM
Watching the debate on CSPAN-2, I got the impression that the senators speaking were stalling for time. It's obvious that there's a lot of arm-twisting going on behind the scenes. Reid is good at counting votes. You can bet that the instant he has 60 lined up for Manchin-Toomey, he'll call the vote. Lautenberg is expected back on the Senate floor on Wednesday, so that's the earliest date on which a vote can take place. If the required votes (including Lautenberg) aren't there by Wednesday, the vote could be postponed until next week -- or Reid could decide to pull it off the calendar altogether. Keep in mind that Manchin-Toomey is the minimum background-check provision that the antis would accept. If it ends up not making it into the bill, the enthusiasm of the antis would drop like a rock. The gun issue would then be put off until after the 2014 elections.

HankR
April 16, 2013, 07:02 PM
if anyone could call (or better yet web site, phone app, etc.) into NICS, look up any potential buyer or seller FOR FREE and have it take less than 5 minutes, I suspect ALOT of people would do it.

So I could check on anybody I wanted, anytime? The kid with the noisy car that wants to take my daughter out? My kids creepy teacher? The hot babe at the diner? I could check anybody I want?

If not, how are you going to control access?

I do think Senator Coburn has a viable work-around, but frankly I'm not interested in any compromise with these people. They want it all, and they'll compromise for what they can get this time, then wait for (or manufacture) the next tragedy and come to get half of what's left.

No thanks, I'll pass. I'll strongly encourage every senator on I can to pass. I'll do it again tomorrow.

Miner One
April 16, 2013, 07:11 PM
I just received a response from Senator Heller, he just announced he'll oppose Manchin-Toomey this afternoon.

ngnrd
April 16, 2013, 07:32 PM
Does anyone have a link to this amendment proposal?

I guess I may be being stupid, but I can't find the actual bill.

The first post in the thread linked HERE (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=712566&highlight=toomey) has a link.

sota
April 16, 2013, 07:37 PM
So I could check on anybody I wanted, anytime? The kid with the noisy car that wants to take my daughter out? My kids creepy teacher? The hot babe at the diner? I could check anybody I want?

If not, how are you going to control access?


honestly? it's called GOOGLE.

example: I spent about an hour over the weekend "researching" the seller of a firearm I'm hoping to buy. found out the cursory info I wanted to know to at least verify he existed and lives where he says he lives. nevermind for a couple bucks more (< $10) I could have paid a records collection site to spill everything they had on the guy to me.

any system can be ripe for abuse. I'm just saying if they wanted to go for the high road they could make it free to the public.

note I'm not advocating for it, but I'll be honest given the fact I live in a slave state if I had access to it I'd definitely use it since they track when you wipe your butt around here.

ngnrd
April 16, 2013, 07:39 PM
Just shot this off... feel free to use any or all of it.

Upon listening to the arguments presented on the floor of the Senate today regarding pending gun control legislation, I was drawn to comments made the by both Senator Durbin and Senator Cardin, who each made it a point to quote Justice Scalia's words regarding the Supreme Court's recent "Heller" decision. Each Senator specifically referenced Scalia's comments that the Second Amendment right is not absolute, and that "conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" is presumptively lawful. This quote was used by both Senators Durbin and Cardin as justification for supporting legislation requiring Universal Background Checks.

However, it should be noted that Justice Scalia intentionally inserted the word "commercial" before the phrase "sale of arms". In the very same paragraph that Scalia stated that the Second Amendment is not absolute, he stopped short of accepting that conditions and qualifications are presumptively lawful regarding the private sale of arms. This language is not unimportant. If it were, there would be no need to specify "commercial" sales in his comments. Rather, this can only be seen as a specific exclusion, a sharp demarcation of the power of the federal government to regulate private transactions of lawfully possessed goods.

Senator, as a law abiding citizen, I respect the decision of the court, and I urge you to do so as well.

You must protect the rights of your constituents, and the rights of all the citizens of this great nation. You must oppose any legislation that specifically imposes conditions and limitations on private transactions. You must oppose Universal Background Checks.

danez71
April 16, 2013, 08:04 PM
BTW, going by this recent poll (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=711492) almost 83% of participating THR members also don't believe in any gun control.:cool:

Unfortunately, that 83% represented less than 400 votes in a tiny progun bubble called THR.

And that less than 400 votes is a mere drop in the ocean of total gun owners or the voting public.


In other words, its statistically irrelevant in the real voting world outside of THR.

danez71
April 16, 2013, 08:18 PM
I dont understand what you mean but I can say I'm speaking as someone who isnt so delusioned as to think that 83% means squat outside my 15" laptop screen.

AlexanderA
April 16, 2013, 11:57 PM
The Huffington Post "whip count" has just moved Lisa Murkowski from the "maybe" to the "no" column on the Manchin-Toomey amendment. That means that there are now 40 declared "no" votes, and that to pass the 60 vote threshold, the amendment would have to get the votes of every single one of the 8 remaining undecided senators -- a practical impossibility. Without the background check provision, I think it's fair to say that gun control, on the federal level, is dead for 2013.

CapnMac
April 17, 2013, 12:15 AM
Which is good.
M-T functionally banned all F2F sales, as you needed a BC any buyer reached by any advertizing at all (including Manchin's Church bulletin board).
The "national reciprocity" was a fiction, too--really all it gave us was that the 20-21 states with full reciprocity would get federal recognition of that full reciprocity. For all other states, you have to follow FOPA and lock the arm in the trunk with ammo separate (which is not really "carry" at all).

So, ding, dong, I'm glad the witch is dead. This was one more example of wrongheadedness on this. Instead of forcing the majority good to prove we are not prohibited, we should be making ways to reliably identify the tiny minority who are prohibited. We need to return to a presumption of innocence, and a presumption of due process only in extremis.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 17, 2013, 12:48 AM
AJC blog is reporting that Toomey-Manchin is between 5-8 votes short for tomorrow's 4pm Eastern vote.

ngnrd
April 17, 2013, 01:14 AM
The Huffington Post "whip count" has just moved Lisa Murkowski from the "maybe" to the "no" column on the Manchin-Toomey amendment.
I hope it's true. I really, really hope it's true. Now, if Begich would grow a spine, stand up, and act like he believes the commercials he's been running up here, I would be able to sleep better knowing my Senators aren't actually going to sell my rights out from under me. (today)

But he did vote against cloture, so that's worth something.



EDIT: Has anybody seen the Grassley amendment mentioned below?
{from the HuffPost "whip count" link} Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said in a statement that she would not be supporting the Manchin-Toomey deal and instead would back an alternative offered by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). She stated she was concerned about the bipartisan compromise "adding any new steps or layers of bureaucracy for any law-abiding Alaskan who wants to purchase a firearm for sport or protection."

carpboy
April 17, 2013, 01:29 AM
For those of you who live in Alaska or any of the 8 swing states hanging in the balance on this crucial vote here is something I would urge you to forward to your Senators.Last week I sent this to Senator Heller from my home state of Nv(I didn`t bother with Dirty Harry) In 1994 the Second Amendment proponents helped facilitate a 54 seat swing in the House of Representatives.

Every Republican incumbent standing won re-election. Thirty-four incumbent Democrats were defeated in 1994.

Here are the people that we made pay for turning their backs on our families and make no mistake about it.......they went after our families security and in return we went after their families financial security.


Karan English
Dan Hamburg
Richard H. Lehman
Lynn Schenk
George "Buddy" Darden
Clete Donald Johnson, Jr.
Larry LaRocco
Dan Rostenkowski
Jill Long
Frank McCloskey
Neal Edward Smith
Dan Glickman
Thomas Barlow
Peter Hoagland
James Bilbray
Dick Swett
Herb Klein
George J. Hochbrueckner
Martin Lancaster
David Price
David S. Mann
Ted Strickland
Eric Fingerhut
Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky
Jack Brooks
Bill Sarpalius
Karen Shepherd
Leslie L. Byrne
Maria Cantwell
Jolene Unsoeld
Jay Inslee
Speaker Tom Foley
Mike Kreidler
Peter W. Barca



Their names are here as a reminder on just how personal this is.
Sincerly MaxCarp!

carpboy
April 17, 2013, 01:40 AM
To give a little more background,Here is the Original post from Roger Phillips;..... Turning Fear into Anger and Anger into Fear, Lessons From 1994
"The best defense is a good offense."

I am sick and tired of seeing the fear from the Second Amendment proponents. With embarrassment, I have witnessed people that I respect turn into people devoured with fear and worry. I have witnessed so much fear, over the top speculation, hand wringing worry, and straight out tinfoil embracing that I feel that it is time to discuss turning that fear into anger and then channeling that anger to go on the offensive against those that would attack our ability to take care of our families.

We have a very big club in our hands, we do not need to be fearful. We need to make sure that those that oppose our freedom know, without any doubt, if they come after our families security that we will come after their families financial security. In 1994 we swung that big club and we made those that put our families security on the line pay by going right after their families financial security. We fired them, left them jobless, and made them seek another path in life.

In 1994 the Second Amendment proponents helped facilitate a 54 seat swing in the House of Representatives.

Every Republican incumbent standing won re-election. Thirty-four incumbent Democrats were defeated in 1994.

Here are the people that we made pay for turning their backs on our families and make no mistake about it.......they went after our families security and in return we went after their families financial security.


Karan English
Dan Hamburg
Richard H. Lehman
Lynn Schenk
George "Buddy" Darden
Clete Donald Johnson, Jr.
Larry LaRocco
Dan Rostenkowski
Jill Long
Frank McCloskey
Neal Edward Smith
Dan Glickman
Thomas Barlow
Peter Hoagland
James Bilbray
Dick Swett
Herb Klein
George J. Hochbrueckner
Martin Lancaster
David Price
David S. Mann
Ted Strickland
Eric Fingerhut
Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky
Jack Brooks
Bill Sarpalius
Karen Shepherd
Leslie L. Byrne
Maria Cantwell
Jolene Unsoeld
Jay Inslee
Speaker Tom Foley
Mike Kreidler
Peter W. Barca



Their names are here as a reminder on just how personal this is.

Remind your representatives at the Local, State, and Federal levels just how personal you will take this attack on your family and remind them about how personal it will effect them if they are on the wrong side of "right and wrong."

Fear is a killer! Turn your fear into anger and make those that oppose us fear for their families financial security.

carpboy
April 17, 2013, 02:29 AM
Thanks Johnny.If you think any of your reps from Florida need reminding,I urge you to pass this message along to them(I don`t know how Florida leans other than Rubio)Perhaps this message could be tied in with an appeal to House Republicans urging them to sign on to the Stockman-Broun letter.If the Stockman-Broun letter gains critical mass,Republicans in the Senate may be able to resist any Temptation that Dirty Harry may try to entice them with.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 17, 2013, 07:12 AM
EDIT: Has anybody seen the Grassley amendment mentioned below?

Haven't seen the text yet; but based on news reports, it appears to be a block grant of funds for states to improve data submitted to NICS along with a few minor pro-gun things. No additional background checks.

alsaqr
April 17, 2013, 07:17 AM
Every Republican incumbent standing won re-election.

Sadly that included the 38 Republicans who voted for Clinton's "assault weapons" ban.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 17, 2013, 08:51 AM
Senator Manchin now saying Toomey-Manchin does not have the votes.
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/national-international/Senate-Gun-Vote-Background-Check-Amendment--203365291.html?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_MIBrand

mcdonl
April 17, 2013, 09:34 AM
What will remain in once UBC is out?

Are they going to look at the REAL problem now and not just focus on gun control?

alsaqr
April 17, 2013, 10:15 AM
What will remain in once UBC is out?

Methinks UBC was the building block for all the other stuff. If UBC is out the witch will be dead, for now.

Are they going to look at the REAL problem now and not just focus on gun control?

No!!!

ngnrd
April 17, 2013, 11:19 AM
The HuffPost Whip count is showing 52-Y, 41-N, and seven undecided. So, yeah... it looks dead. We'll see what happens when the votes are cast.

baz
April 17, 2013, 11:25 AM
Ayotte makes it 41-Nay (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/kelly-ayotte-will-oppose-senate-gun-background-checks).

morcey2
April 17, 2013, 11:36 AM
Carpboy,
With all due respect to your list, I think Rostenkowski (D)-IL was on his way to a different Big House at that point in his career. :)

Matt

Dframe
April 17, 2013, 12:23 PM
I'm NOT holding my breath until this monstrosity has a stake in it's heart.
Of Course the condescender-in-chief will be furious and will do EVERYTHING he can (legal or otherwise) to do an "End Run" around congress. He AIN'T happy when he don't get his own way!

AlexanderA
April 17, 2013, 01:14 PM
What will remain in once UBC is out?

When the Manchin-Toomey and Grassley amendments are voted down, as expected, we will be left with the underlying bill, which, as you remember, contains the obnoxious "placeholder" Schumer background-check provision. Since that's unacceptable to the majority of the Senate, it will act as a "poison pill" for the whole bill. I expect a desperate move (by the proponents of the bill) either to strip out the Schumer BGC, or to substitute some "acceptable" alternative, such as the Coburn plan. Anyway, the prospects for the whole bill are dim, and diminishing daily (and that's even before it gets to the House). I have mixed feelings about this, because it might have been a vehicle for pro-gun provisions, such as nationwide reciprocity and repeal of the Hughes Amendment.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 17, 2013, 01:36 PM
CCRKBA pulls support for Toomey-Manchin: http://www.examiner.com/article/ccrkba-pulls-support-for-manchin-toomey

Ryanxia
April 17, 2013, 04:09 PM
Remember the votes haven't been cast yet. Keep contacting your reps until this is actually dead.

Ryanxia
April 17, 2013, 04:47 PM
Apparently it was voted on today and got SHOT DOWN! :D

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/17/17795377-in-blow-to-gun-control-backers-background-check-compromise-falls-6-votes-short?lite

zxcvbob
April 17, 2013, 05:01 PM
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_113_1.htm

(roll call results not available yet, but should be soon)

If you enjoyed reading about "4 more Senators now oppose Toomey-Manchin amendment" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!