House not backing away from gun control...


PDA






Lunie
May 14, 2013, 08:05 PM
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/299221-house-gop-lawmaker-we-are-not-backing-away-on-gun-bill

If this isn't a lesson on why the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is NOT a strictly partisan issue, it should be.

"House Republicans are not ruling out passing gun legislation this year, according to a key GOP lawmaker.
The collapse of gun control in the Senate last month led many on and off Capitol Hill to believe the issue would not be revived in this Congress.
But House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) told The Hill on Friday that he’s had “a lot of discussions” with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on guns. Goodlatte suggested the Speaker is more involved in the behind-the-scenes wrangling of how to move a gun bill than the Ohio Republican has let on in public.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/299221-house-gop-lawmaker-we-are-not-backing-away-on-gun-bill#ixzz2TJaSAs5R
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook"

As always, we must remain vigilant and understand that there is no one entity that is the protector of our rights, except ourselves.

If you enjoyed reading about "House not backing away from gun control..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
danez71
May 14, 2013, 08:57 PM
Amen

Ill vote for who ever is the most pro Constitution regardless of their party affiliation.

MagnunJoe
May 15, 2013, 12:19 AM
92% of gun grabbing politicians are democrats. I know that hurts some of u here, too bad. Look it up, it is what it is. Don't try to stir the pot the other way by pointing out the other 8%.

19-3Ben
May 15, 2013, 12:24 AM
Ill vote for who ever is the most pro Constitution regardless of their party affiliation.

That's nice in theory, but in practice but the problem really comes when we have no real vote. Here in CT our Gov., Dannel Malloy recently signed the new legislation that basically castrated gun owners. he's a Dem.
In the next election, the most likely R candidate to run against Malloy, is a guy name McKinney, who is the current state senator that championed the bill and put it out in the first place! And he's the Republican. So who do I vote for?

(I hope there's a libertarian who will decide to run.)

David G.
May 15, 2013, 12:26 AM
I'll stir the pot as much as I can to get a Republican or Democrat or whatever(!) out of politics if it means me keeping my rights!

Alizard
May 15, 2013, 02:23 AM
"House Republicans are not ruling out passing gun legislation this year, according to a key GOP lawmaker."

There may be a few RINOs willing to cave on gun control, but most won't. It would be political suicide. Gun control is the only sharply differentiating issue the GOP has right now that's a strong winner among their base.

The other thing that some people forget..... is that laws that could come under the heading of "gun control bill" may not be always evil. The GOP could get behind increased funding for law enforcement, increased funding for mental health issues and treatment, or other EFFECTIVE issues that could actually reduce gun crime if implemented. I suspect that will eventually happen because the dems need something they can point to as a "gun law" and the GOP will sell them something that isn't restrictive of legal gun owner's rights.

19-3Ben
May 15, 2013, 02:47 AM
Alizard- I don't know that your optimism is warranted, but I certainly hope you're correct.

Davek1977
May 15, 2013, 03:09 AM
It may not be a "strictly partisan" issue, but the fact of the matter is gun control is largely a Democrat ideal, and most gun control bills are pushed by Democrats, and if passed, are passed by Democratic majorities. In my state, I've never , ever, not even once, been tasked with picking a pro-gun Dem over an Anti gun republican, at any level of government. While there will always be exceptions to the rule, one must keep in mind that that is ALL we're really dealing with...exceptions.

xxjumbojimboxx
May 15, 2013, 03:21 AM
This whole thing is just so frustrating. What do these poeple think they're going to accomplish? What kind of results do they plan on acheiving? Other then thoroughly upsetting a large portion of our nation's (or state's) citizens. Leaving poeple hopeless and indefensible against the actions of criminals. All of their points lack empirical data to support the nonsence they spew on the day to day. If this much effort was put forth to do something constuctive we could have really accomplished something as an american poeple. All the money that go into lobbying for and against. FRUSTRATING.

I'm glad I live in TX now. I feel bad for my family members back in MA, who really are just hunters (some LE)... Firearms are an economy booster. Most of the money hunters put forth for tags goes for wildlife maintnence and whatnot. The taxes on these things stimulate our economy. Legal guns account for less than 1 percent of gun crime. FRUSTRATING. Is the demo's action really based solely on fear? I mean, are they THAT afraid of guns? If that's the case we should ban EVERYTHING like cars, poptarts, refrigerators. You know...EVERYTHING... FRUSTRATING.

I hate to play the role of paranoid here. But the more I think about it, the more commonplace support I see for 2A. Most of the posts I see on facebook (including that of my friends, family, and classmates, In RI, NH, CT, NY, and MA are pro 2A... It makes me feel like this is all politician agenda. Because it doesnt seem to me that the poeple are supporting it. I mean dont get my wrong, I've seen some.

I guess I'm not doing anything here rambling.... Ive written called an emailed state officials across the US. Ive signed petitions, What else can I do? Keep calling, sending, writing... That's a given. Guess we have to sit and wait. I'll finish with this. A united states without guns is not a united states I want to live in.

The more I think about it, The more patriotic I become.
Come what may, We'll sure be ready in TX

Ryanxia
May 15, 2013, 08:52 AM
Now is the time to introduce more new shooters, women and kids especially. We need to do our part to bring guns and shooting/shooting sports back into commonplace everyday society (as it already is for most of us but not so for many others).

zxcvbob
May 15, 2013, 09:05 AM
It may not be a "strictly partisan" issue, but the fact of the matter is gun control is largely a Democrat ideal, and most gun control bills are pushed by Democrats, and if passed, are passed by Democratic majorities. In my state, I've never , ever, not even once, been tasked with picking a pro-gun Dem over an Anti gun republican, at any level of government. While there will always be exceptions to the rule, one must keep in mind that that is ALL we're really dealing with...exceptions.

In my observation, disarmament might be a Democrat ideal but many Republicans in Congress secretly hope they succeed. Just like many Democrats secretly hope the Republicans gut the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments. Neither party really likes liberty, they just have different priorities for destroying it.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 15, 2013, 09:14 AM
Lunie, that is an odd takeaway you got from that article.

In the article, Goodlatte says that he does not agree with the Senate solution and that Manchin-Toomey isn't going to pass his committee. However, he also noted that NICS has to be reauthorized this year and that this will probably serve as a vehicle for improvements to NICS (something like the Grassley-Cruz Amendment would be my guess).

It gives House Republicans an excellent chance to beat up on Democrats on guns again. They propose a strongly pro-gun bill that improves NICS and put it to a vote on the House floor. Now Democrats are faced with a choice of voting against improving NICS or voting for the pro-gun portions. If they vote against, they show that for all the "if it saves one life talk" they are OK with blocking even minor improvement for political reasons. If they vote for, it goes to the Senate, who now has to take another contentious vote and kill any chance of NICS being improved (or possibly even be reauthorized) in the Senate.

Politically, the decision to push gun control was like the Dems giving the Reps a club and begging to be beat with it - and now the Reps are obliging. At this point, the only thing that can save the Dems from a lot of humiliation is the NRA demanding that the Second Amendment not be abused to score cheap political points. However, the Dems aren't exactly cozying up to the one group that can spare them.

Midwest
May 15, 2013, 09:46 AM
NICS has to be reauthorized this year and that this will probably serve as a vehicle for improvements to NICS (something like the Grassley-Cruz Amendment would be my guess).

It gives House Republicans an excellent chance to beat up on Democrats on guns again. They propose a strongly pro-gun bill that improves NICS and put it to a vote on the House floor. Now Democrats are faced with a choice of voting against improving NICS or voting for the pro-gun portions. If they vote against, they show that for all the "if it saves one life talk" they are OK with blocking even minor improvement for political reasons. If they vote for, it goes to the Senate, who now has to take another contentious vote and kill any chance of NICS being improved (or possibly even be reauthorized) in the Senate.


My opinion the best way to improve NICS, is to take away the State POC (Point of Contact) provision. Change it so everyone, in every state goes through the same Fed NICS like it is done in a lot of the states. Eliminate the State NICS, the state should not have had that power in the first place as it is being abused.

(Ideally I'm for eliminating NICS and the 1968 GCA, but that doesn't really have a chance of passing)

This nonsense of people in NJ having to wait two weeks for the State NICS to clear AFTER they already passed through a number of hoops, paperwork, permissions and permits has to end. And there is NO reason why our fellow gun owners in Maryland have to wait 60 days for the State NICS to clear.

The State POC (Point of Contact) NICS system is broke, it is corrupt (in my opinion) and it infringes on second amendment rights, it is being abused as a way to generate revenue ($15 in NJ) and needs to be done away with and handed over to the straight Federal NICS.

As far as the House not backing away from gun control...Perhaps they feel with the passage of draconian laws in NY State, CT, MD, CA, CO that they have a chance to go further now. It is going to backfire on them, if it hasn't already. There is the recall of the Colorado politicians that got good media coverage and probably has some politicians rethinking their stances.

But if anything, get rid of the State POC NICS, it is being abused.

mdauben
May 15, 2013, 11:11 AM
But if anything, get rid of the State POC NICS, it is being abused.
But would mandating the use of Federal NICS really eliminate State NICS? Now, they could fix it so that a State system could not replace the Federal one, but that would not stop the states from still mandating an additional State NICS check. We already have state requirements above and beyond the Federal requirements (FOID cards, permits, waiting periods, etc.) so why not a second, redundant State NICS check? :mad:

Bartholomew Roberts
May 15, 2013, 11:32 AM
One problem is that if you get rid of the State POC, you are now at the mercy of NICS and any games played with it. For example, suppose the antis choose to vote down reauthorization of the funding rather than accept any pro-RKBA language, what happens to NICS? Giving the states an option to go around NICS at least preserves some alternatives - though right now it seems to be used mainly by states that are more hostile to gun rights.

Old Fuff
May 15, 2013, 11:39 AM
So far, all of the states that passed additional gun restriction laws had governments that were totally controled (legislature and governor) by Democrats. Nothing of consequence has happened at either the federal or state level where the control was split between both Republicans and Democrats, with the Republicans acting as a block to what the Democrats proposed.

Next year all of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives will be up for reelection unless they plan to retire. Most of them would like to avoid hot-button issues that might cause an upset. When it comes to gun control legislation the Republicans will be very careful, as doing so is clearly in they're own best interest.

No difference between the two party's position on guns? Go to each of the respective websites and look at the firearms plank in each of the party platforms. Of course not all of the members of each party agree with what the platform says, but the majority do.

And it's the majority that counts.

razorback2003
May 15, 2013, 11:41 AM
Most gun control has been pushed by Democrats. In fact, just about every gun control law federally has been signed by a Democratic president and pushed by democratic house and senate. Of course you get some republicans from the northeast, like Chris Christie and Mitt Romney, that push gun control, but those are few and far between.

Think about this.

1. NFA was signed by FDR a Democrat.
2. Gun Control 68 LBJ.
3. Brady Law and 'Assault Weapon Ban'. Clinton

Hughes was slipped in by a Democrat in an otherwise good bill signed by Reagan. The Congress that passed Hughes was majority Dem.

Pretty much the vast majority of these stupid recent gun control laws in NY, Maryland, Colorado have been pushed by Democrats and signed by Democratic Governors.

That is enough evidence gun rights wise to generally not vote for democrats.

Lunie
May 15, 2013, 11:51 AM
Lunie, that is an odd takeaway you got from that article.

In the article, Goodlatte says that he does not agree with the Senate solution and that Manchin-Toomey isn't going to pass his committee. However, he also noted that NICS has to be reauthorized this year and that this will probably serve as a vehicle for improvements to NICS (something like the Grassley-Cruz Amendment would be my guess).

It gives House Republicans an excellent chance to beat up on Democrats on guns again. They propose a strongly pro-gun bill that improves NICS and put it to a vote on the House floor. Now Democrats are faced with a choice of voting against improving NICS or voting for the pro-gun portions. If they vote against, they show that for all the "if it saves one life talk" they are OK with blocking even minor improvement for political reasons. If they vote for, it goes to the Senate, who now has to take another contentious vote and kill any chance of NICS being improved (or possibly even be reauthorized) in the Senate.

Politically, the decision to push gun control was like the Dems giving the Reps a club and begging to be beat with it - and now the Reps are obliging. At this point, the only thing that can save the Dems from a lot of humiliation is the NRA demanding that the Second Amendment not be abused to score cheap political points. However, the Dems aren't exactly cozying up to the one group that can spare them.

My take-away is that it isn't sufficient for us to blindly assume that the Republican controlled house is safe, and that we can turn our back. The article mentions the Manchin-Toomey companion bill in the House has 160 total sponsors, and that according to Pelosi, there are others in both parties who support the bill but are afraid to cosponsor it.

My point is that not everyone in either party is "for", or "against" us. That there are those who dare not sponsor such a bill, but would if they thought they could get away with it.

Your scenario would still put both Republicans and Democrats in a position of voting for a gun control measure. If voter knowledge doesn't go much deeper than that, then who is really benefiting from such a deal? There are likely far fewer anti-gun zealots who would be offended than pro-gun supporters who would be disgusted.

The end result is that we probably lose ground that will be extremely hard to regain, and we what do we gain for our exchange...??? Well, we don't know yet. We will have to judge such legislation as it comes.

Lastly, we need to remind and encourage our Representatives that we do, and they should, strongly support the RTKBA.

Double Vision
May 15, 2013, 12:07 PM
Keep writing your representatives on preserving our 2nd Amendment rights.
The NRA ILA makes it easy.
http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx

Akita1
May 15, 2013, 12:21 PM
Not sure they (Congress) will have the time or energy for this; they have to get through Libya, AP taps & the IRS matters first and those 3 will take a while. There's even less juice for this now than before, IMHO. Not saying we should lay down, just an opinion on where this goes (unless, of course, there is another mass shooting).

Lunie
May 15, 2013, 01:38 PM
Most gun control has been pushed by Democrats. In fact, just about every gun control law federally has been signed by a Democratic president and pushed by democratic house and senate. Of course you get some republicans from the northeast, like Chris Christie and Mitt Romney, that push gun control, but those are few and far between.

Think about this.

1. NFA was signed by FDR a Democrat.
2. Gun Control 68 LBJ.
3. Brady Law and 'Assault Weapon Ban'. Clinton

Hughes was slipped in by a Democrat in an otherwise good bill signed by Reagan. The Congress that passed Hughes was majority Dem.

Pretty much the vast majority of these stupid recent gun control laws in NY, Maryland, Colorado have been pushed by Democrats and signed by Democratic Governors.

That is enough evidence gun rights wise to generally not vote for democrats.

About FOPA and the Hughes Amendment...

Passed by the Democratic House.
Passed by the Republican Senate.
Signed by the Republican President.

The Brady Bill in 1994:

Passed by the Republican House.
Passed by the Democratic Senate.
Signed by the Democratic President.

And what do we have today?
Republican House.
Democratic Senate.
Democratic President.

I'm not saying either party is our savior or our mortal enemy. In fact, I'm saying that we should remember that they ALL need to be watched carefully.

Fundamental, Constitutionally enumerated Rights should not be a partisan issue. Sure, it needs to be something that Republicans are encouraged to steadfastly support. But it is also something that Democrats should be encouraged to steadfastly support. We don't get there by tearing at a partisan divide.

cwo2lt
May 15, 2013, 02:08 PM
About FOPA and the Hughes Amendment...



The Brady Bill in 1994:

Passed by the Republican House.



That is not correct. BB was signed into law in 93 with Tom Foley as Speaker of the House. He was a "D". The BB was one of the reasons the "D's" lost the house in 94.

Lunie
May 15, 2013, 02:32 PM
That is not correct. BB was signed into law in 93 with Tom Foley as Speaker of the House. He was a "D". The BB was one of the reasons the "D's" lost the house in 94.
My apologies, you are correct. In my rush to look up a few things, apparently I got that part jumbled.

jerkface11
May 15, 2013, 02:33 PM
You can say it isn't a partisan issue all you want. However only one party has gun control as part of its platform.

Greenmachin3
May 15, 2013, 02:35 PM
What's really silly is that democrat ideologies and republican ideologies fail logic tests for almost every single position the parties have for any given issue. For almost every single position they have, they have a conflicting position on a fundamentally identical issue, that from a logic standpoint, ought to nullify their credibility and ought to dismantle the ideology in the eyes of any sane person. Both parties are perfectly the wrong mix of different ideas. Both ideologies are cognitive dissonance in the utmost extremes. It blows my mind that the current system is still argued over and hailed as being essentially good.

With that out of the way, I find that most Republicans, and I do mean most, are RINOs. On fundamentally conservative issues they pick whichever of the conflicting stances that the party holds on that issue to further the agenda of their monetary backers. There is too much money from special interest groups and party donations affecting these people who ought to represent their voters and not the money.

The most upsetting thing is that both parties are willing to turn their backs on the constitution, and in this case, the second amendement, for the sake of expediency, perceived popularity, and for the sake of agendas that the vast majority of the population would never support.

cwo2lt
May 15, 2013, 02:39 PM
I used to vote for the person and it was strictly based on their position on gun control. Congress has now become so partisan, where a member will lose their committee assignments if they don't vote the party line on these issues, I will no longer vote for anyone belonging to the party that seems to be most likely to ban guns.

I also find that for the most part a supporter of the 2A will vote the way I prefer on most other issues as well.

Ignition Override
May 15, 2013, 04:08 PM
My wife suggests that Univ. Background Checks or another compromise should be passed by the GOP, in order to curry enough favor with various voters in order to have a better chance at winning back a Senate majority in the '14 elections.

She is pro-gun in general and has only watched tv commentary (and heard mine), although she has no interest in shooting.

I simply told her that caving in on a UBC would be appeasement, and 'we' could expect nothing in return from the anti-gun factions.
She feels that some fairly minor compromise would be a good public relations move for the GOP, and would be better than having the GOP as the Senate minority.

From my perspective, this would be a risk with no measurable return at the ballot boxes.
Once you give ground to an enemy, I'm unable to see the benefit when such a compromise might not be correctable later.

Diamondback6
May 15, 2013, 04:42 PM
Don't forget, on part-line issues Boehner has demonstrated he is willing to court Democrat votes to make it happen over the objections of most of his own caucus. The so-called "Hastert Rule" about not advancing legislation not supported by the majority of the majority party is officially dead...

This isn't a D vs. R political comment, it's a "what's been happening under the Crapital dome the past five months reality" comment about a turncoat leader with an agenda who places that agenda more important than the causes and people he's nominally supposed to support.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 15, 2013, 06:58 PM
The article mentions the Manchin-Toomey companion bill in the House has 160 total sponsors, and that according to Pelosi, there are others in both parties who support the bill but are afraid to cosponsor it.

3 of the 160 are Republicans. Pretending that the two parties are equivalent based on those proportions is ridiculous.

Look, I want the Democrats to support the Second Amendment. I welcome Democrats like Heidi Heitkamp who actually support the Second Amendment and don't just make mealy mouthed platitudes about it. I respect Max Baucus for not kneeling to party pressure and voting against gun control even though he decided to retire. I would very much like to see more Democrats like that because the Second Amendment must have bipartisan support if we are to be successful.

Having said that, I'm not foolish enough to confuse my wishes with reality. The Democrats are pro gun-control as part of their platform. If something happens to Harry Reid, then Chuck Schumer is likely the new Senate Majority Leader. Are there Republicans who support gun control? Yes; they are a minority and none serve on committees that hear gun laws. Are there Democrats who support the Second Amendment? Yes, they are a minority and none of them are in leadership.

berettaprofessor
May 16, 2013, 04:02 AM
Not sure they (Congress) will have the time or energy for this; they have to get through Libya, AP taps & the IRS matters first and those 3 will take a while

All those are just reasons why they need "gun control" as a distraction to the real problems. Politicians have learned to use magician's tricks to distract the public with emotional issues while they mismanage the important ones. Not that "gun control" isn't important, but it sure draws attention from impeachable acts.

Pilot
May 16, 2013, 06:24 AM
All those are just reasons why they need "gun control" as a distraction to the real problems. Politicians have learned to use magician's tricks to distract the public with emotional issues while they mismanage the important ones. Not that "gun control" isn't important, but it sure draws attention from impeachable acts.
Spot on. Watch the Matador, not the cape. Look at voting records, and actions, not what they say.

Zeke/PA
May 16, 2013, 08:29 AM
The sad part is that all these proposed "measures" will do absolutely NOTHING to combat Crime or prevent mass shootings.
HIPPA rules prevent backround Mental Problem checks in spite of the fact that a Mental Health question is a part of Federal Form 4473.
Our "Lawmakers" just cannot absorb the fact that until Gun Crime, using existing legislation is punished quickly and severly, they are peeing into the wind.

Queen_of_Thunder
May 16, 2013, 08:54 AM
Anybody know the House bill number

alsaqr
May 16, 2013, 09:04 AM
Anybody know the House bill number

i can find one US House bill on universal background checks. That bill is H. R. 1565, sponsored by Republican Peter King of NY. It now has 162 co-sponsors.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.1565:

zxcvbob
May 16, 2013, 09:43 AM
The sad part is that all these proposed "measures" will do absolutely NOTHING to combat Crime or prevent mass shootings.
HIPPA rules prevent backround Mental Problem checks in spite of the fact that a Mental Health question is a part of Federal Form 4473.
Our "Lawmakers" just cannot absorb the fact that until Gun Crime, using existing legislation is punished quickly and severly, they are peeing into the wind.

What makes you think they are intended to stop mass shootings? (or violent crime, or whatever)

You've fallen into the "gun crime" trap.

Bruno2
May 16, 2013, 09:51 AM
They want the registration. If the AWB was more important than UBC to them they would still be beating the AWB drum. However, the AWB was just a red herring or distraction to get us focused on something besides UBC. Since that didn't work they are now scrambling to try to push it back through before the fallout from the next election is public. Once they see whats going to happen to the antis up for re election in 2014 gun control will be a dead issue again.This is why we keep hearing that they will pass it before the end of the year.

jerkface11
May 16, 2013, 10:13 AM
At this rate they'll be too tied up with impeachment proceedings to pass a gun control bill.

arizona_cards_11
May 16, 2013, 10:40 AM
I would almost always vote for the Constitutionalist or Libertarian candidate.

berettaprofessor
May 16, 2013, 10:56 AM
Think so Jerkface? The following link just proves my earlier comment; they'll use "gun control" to distract the public to their benefit:

Holder promises gun control: http://www.redstate.com/dloesch/2013/05/15/embattled-eric-holder-promises-gun-control/

Zeke/PA
May 16, 2013, 11:45 AM
What makes you think they are intended to stop mass shootings? (or violent crime, or whatever)

You've fallen into the "gun crime" trap.
It's ALL in what the politicians want John Q. Public to believe.
The politicos hate us Gun Owners because of the impact we can have at the polling place many times disrupting Self-Serving adgendas so they use a Sandy Hook type incident as a "soapbox".
The Liberal News Media certainly fosters the whims of our "Leaders"!

If you enjoyed reading about "House not backing away from gun control..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!