[VaniB.]

I just heard from a Federal Air Marshal I personally know, that Feinstein has attached the Assault Weapons Ban to the national police carry legislation.

I was affraid of this happening as soon as I even got first wind of this National Carry legislation being worked on. I knew Feinstein wouldn't attach the AWB to a national bicycle helmet law! I knew she needed a vehicle to be able to win favor. Chumming up to our police with a National Carry Bill for the cops is it! The cunning and calculating witch!

Perhaps, this will now give the weak kneed Republicans good enough reason to cave in and sign onto extending the Assault Weapons Ban. There's 22 days to do it too!

WRITE AND CALL YOUR REPUBLICANS NOW!! TELL THEM IF THE BAN IS EXTENDED, THEN YOU'RE STAYING HOME ELECTION DAY AND BUSH IS OUT!

[GigaBuist]

Oddly enough today is her birthday.

Anybody have any concrete proof that it's been attached or any motion on the the floor to have it attached? I certainly don't want to call up my Senators and sound like an idiot ranting about something that isn't happening.

Not that I distrust the original poster -- but it's best to have some concrete proof is all.

[George S.]

If it's an amendment, it will have to be read in on the floor and voted on and most likely the bill will be returned to committee to get reapproved. I think the vote has to be a simple majority to add an amemdment or rider.

But the bill itself still has to go the the House for their passage once the Senate passes it. In the meantime, there will be a bunch of meetings and individual Senators and Representatives discussing (trading votes) what it will take to get the biil to pass in a final form.

You should be able to follow the bill status on the US Senate website. There should be a way to search for the original bill by number or by title. Any amendments that are added will be shown on that page.

[Waitone]

I just scoped out Thomas and could not find any reference to the CCH rider.

Hold off on getting huffy with your congressional people until facts can be established.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wouldn't be terribly suprising.

Look, first, there aren't enough genuinely pro-gun Senators to get a pro-gun bill out of the Senate unencumbered by what we'd regard as poison pill amendments. We saw that with the lawsuit bill. That MIGHT change with the coming election, but I wouldn't bet on it. We didn't do all that well in the primaries, after all. Too many races have no good candidate, for the ballance to swing much.

And, second, the Democrats' best hope of getting that abortion passed, is to tie it to something which could be at least rationalized as pro-gun, so that some of the members of both houses, who are too leary of us to vote for a straight anti-gun bill, will think that "a spoon full of sugar will make the medicine go down". That we'll forgive them if they give us a sucker as they knife us in the back. So every bill which even Brady thinks is pro-gun is going to have that ban tacked onto it.

We've got nowhere near the clout needed to pass a clean pro-gun bill out of the Senate. Aside from the oportunity to expose some anti-gunners, (And that was already accomplished with the tort bill.) there's no point in even trying. It's an unjustified risk.

Be thankful that constitutional atrocity has a sunset provision. We'd NEVER kill it if we had to pass a bill to do so.

[boofus]

If that piece of crap gets tacked onto the National LE CCW bill why don't the Repugs attach an amendment that shuts down social security or bans affirmative racism.

Getting tired of the communist left pulling every dirty trick in the book and the people supposedly representing us letting it slide every time. :cuss: :fire: :banghead:

[lostone1413]

If the bills are like I read here and GWB signs them into law guess I won't be voting

[G1FAL]

EXCELLENT! Maybe this will be enough of a 'poison pill' that it wont get passed. Cops should live under the same laws as everyone else. If Joe Sixpack cant legally carry in Kommiefornia, even though he has a Nevada, or Washington, or Kentucky CCW license, then no cop needs to, either. If they had to live under the same laws as the rest of us, we'd see a lot of stupid legislation, like the AWB, go the way of the dinosaur.

[0007]

Get Ron Paul to attach a repeal of the '34, '68, '86, etc. laws to the same bill. Let's play hardball for a change...

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

I'd not be surprised that it would be attached to a Head Start funding bill, free meds for the elderly, or a bill honoring Reagan with his face on the one dollar bill.

Look for this rider to be put on something that would have wide bipartisan appeal.

Regards,
Rabbit.

[Justin]

Get Ron Paul to attach a repeal of the '34, '68, '86, etc. laws to the same bill. Let's play hardball for a change... Paul is a member of the House, not the Senate. Though I certainly agree with the sentiment! :)

I'd not be surprised that it would be attached to a Head Start funding bill, free meds for the elderly, or a bill honoring Reagan with his face on the one dollar bill. Feinstein is going to keep pursuing this bill, or one that's worse, ad infinitum. She'll continue to throw it against the wall until one of two things happens: it sticks, or she is no longer in office.

[natedog]

:banghead:

How much longer is her term in office? What is the likehood of her being re-elected?

[deej]

How much longer is her term in office? What is the likehood of her being re-elected?


Two more years; probably 100%.

DJ

[madcowburger]

Feinstein is living proof that only the good die young. If only Dorothy were here to throw a bucket of water on her!

DiFi: I'll get you, my pretty, and your ugly little semiautos too!

(Dorothy, Toto, the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion huddle in terror, cornered in one of the turrets of DiFi's castle, with DiFi's goons closing in with MP5s.)

DiFi: (To goons) That's right -- don't hurt them right away; let them *think* about it a while.

(She lights her broom from a blazing torch in a wall bracket, and thrusts it at the Scarecrow.) How'bout a little *fire*, Scarecrow?

Scarecrow: Aaagh! Help! I'm burning! I'm burning!

(Dorothy throws a bucket of water on the burning Scarecrow. Some of the water goes past him and splashes on DiFi. She starts steaming and melting.)

DiFi: Aaagh! I'm melting, I'm melting! Oooohhh! Who would have thought a little girl like you could destroy all my beautiful wickedness? Look out! I'm going! Whoohh... ooohh ... . (Melts down into a steaming, bubbling pool of rancid pus, leaving only her hat and broom.)

I'd sure be doing the Munchkin Dance if something like that happened. :cool:

MCB

[Bubbles]

VaniB - your info backs up the MMM Virginia email alert I received last night.

Senator Hatch could attach his own poison pill to the bill, since I'd rather see nationwide CCW for cops go down rather than have the AWB renewed. An amendment to do away with the 1986 ban on machine guns should do the trick.

[Diggler]

The dang thing is like a virus.

Can't we download a patch from Microsoft that can protect us against another AWB??

:rolleyes:

[Langenator]

Can't we download a patch from Microsoft that can protect us against another AWB??

Open source is the only cure. When every adult has their very own EBR, we'll all be safe. :evil:

[Foreign Devil]

A rider repealing the 1968 GCA would probably be enough of a poison pill

We need a constitutional amendment to outlaw riders

[Bartholomew Roberts]

As of this time, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 (S.253RS) does not have ANY anti-gun riders on it.

The bill has been reported out of committee, so Dianne already missed one chance to add any riders to it. The only other chance would be to add them from the floor of the Senate during debate on the bill and the bill has not yet come up for debate.

Feinstein, Leahy and several other antis are sponsors of the above bill along with several pro-gun Senators. I don't know if Feinstein is desperate enough to kill a bill she sponsored by amending it with the ban; but she might be - particularly since it is a win-win for her.

If the ban gets passed, she wins. If the ban doesn't pass, she gets to go to law enforcement and say "Look how the NRA voted to kill your bill so they could have their evil guns" and try to work that wedge in. We definitely need to contact our Senators and keep on them to do the right thing.

[TallPine]

Well, I wouldn't support this bill under any circumstances, AWB or not.

I can't find the part in the BoR where the 2nd Amendment applies only to LEOs :fire:

[El Tejon]

Tall, I'll have to fax you a copy of the New Constitution. It's DoublePlusGood and for the children.:D

Taking legal advice from coppers. What have I told you guys about that?:D

Sounds like a gun dealer rumor to sell more guns before 9/14.:scrutiny:

[Carlos Cabeza]

That woman is evil incarnate. Every time I see her I think of the aunt that smells like she just fell off the perfume truck, the one that would pinch your face and give you a slimy wet kiss, the one that spits on a knapkin to wipe a smudge off your cheek, the one that keeps her money in the cleave of her bra, c'mon, you know the one I'm talkin' about. :evil:

[Desertdog]

If the bills are like I read here and GWB signs them into law guess I won't be voting

All right people, get mad at what is happening and stay home in November and let John F**king Kerry be elected along with several more Demorats in the Senate and House.
Then come the 2008 General Election and look back and say to yourselves, I thought the gun laws were bad before the 2004 election, but God, look at them now.:fire: :fire:

Vote in November.

[Correia]

If the Republicans were willing to let the lawsuit protection bill die, even with cop CCW attached, because it was infected with the AWB. Why would they let it go now, when they don't get lawsuit protection. It doesn't make a bit of sense, and I don't see it happening. Then it still has to go the congress, where it has about a snow balls chance in heck of going anywhere.

Still keep bugging your Senators though. The clock is ticking. Only a few months left.

[Diggler]

Vote in November.
But you can still bluff like hell.

[GEM]

It's a ploy to kill this bill. It's brilliance is based on GWB's weakness on the AWB. Any proactive gun bill will be sunk by this attachment strategy.

Until the AWB is resolved forget anything else.

Screw GWB and his cowardice on the RKBA. I'm sick of the apologists for this man.

I'm betting on a renewal. George is for it as is the Senate. The house will be pressured by GWB to pass it for the soccer moms.

Hope I'm wrong but I've written my congress folks who usually are progun and their responses are hedging their bets.

[alan]

I have some questions about the alleged attachment of AW Ban renewal to a House Bill, still in The House, but that aside, note the following.

In that H.R. 218, sets up a "specially privileged class" former or retired police/le people, it needs to be opposed on it's face, that is without regard to any amendments that might or might not be attached.

Get on to your Senators and House members.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I'm betting on a renewal. George is for it as is the Senate.

The Senate may be for it now (52-47); but with four of the people who voted against us retiring and several others facing tough battles for reelection in rural states, what the Senate favors could be a lot different by 2005.

[VaniB.]

Desertdog,
I normally use common sence and reason on a problem or situation before I act. For example those who go to the polls, and vote for an obscure 3rd party candidate simply on idealistic principle of "voting with their heart" might as well be taking LSD. They know their candidate can't even become close to winning. To hear these folks here on this site say that they are still planning to vote in this manner even if the AWB expires under GWBush's approval, really irks me to no end! They are no smarter than the Green Party dwarfs.

HOWEVER, on the contrary, deliberatley extending the ban would be such a foul action and so derelect to what I would expect from a full Republican Congress and President, that I just couldn't vote for them. I'd STAY HOME!
You know, sometimes, you just want to take down the enemy, even if you know it means maybe getting hurt too. If Bush proves to be so stupid enough to allow his congress to bring him the AWB to sign, then I will consider him as "enemy". If this scenario comes to be, then I believe we will have seen the President lose so badly to Kerry, that it will be a future warning to any other Republican running for office.

[Nazirite]

If GW sign this bill he will loose in November (At least my vote anyway)

[natedog]

We should attach our own rider that makes this bill for National CCW for us peasants.

[alan]

Speaking of the amendment game, how about some alleged pro gun senator or representative, offere the following. All of the following would, of course, be most desirable.

1. Repeal of The National firearms Act of 1934.
2. Repeal of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (amendments to the 1934 act).
3. Repeal of the 1986 machine gun ban.
4. Repeal of the Brady Law.

In a desire to avoid seeming negative, the following proposed legislation seems worth considering, even given the limits of federal jurisdiction. The several states could be "encouraged" to similarly legislate, as has been done in the past.

Findings/ Statement of Intent:


1. That there is a serious national problem presented by criminal use of arms.
2. That there is an individual right of the law abiding citizenry to keep and bear arms.
3. Given the above, that diminishment of the rights of citizens is a very serious matter, restrictions inherent in "gun control laws" amount to such diminishment.
4. Therefore, be it legislated that the use of arms in the commission of federal crimes be held a capitol offense. Those convicted if such crimes shall actually be excuted. The several states shall be encouraged to make similar enactments.
5. Absent such legislative action, there are no possible grounds for the diminishment of the rights of the law abiding citizenry, such as are inherent in the enactment of gun control laws. Such legislation shall henceforth be barred. Any existing examples of such legislation shall be null and void.

[sm]

Can we attach Diane to the next SpaceShipOne scheduled flight?

Since she likes to attach, infringe, and doesn't seem to realize life exists outside of gummit, and gummit control / funding.

[flatrock]

I'm betting on a renewal. George is for it as is the Senate. The house will be pressured by GWB to pass it for the soccer moms.

I really haven't seen any evidence of GWB pressuring either the house or the senate to renew the AWB. He said that he supported renewing it, but I think he realizes that it's not popular with a lot of people who will base who they vote for on that issue.

I also doublt the house is going to support renewing the ban. The house was pressured into supporting it under Clinton, and a lot of those who supported it lost their seats in the next election, and even Clinton said it was because of the AWB.

Politicians may seem to have selective memories, but things like a considerable number of house members getting voted out of office sticks in their minds.

[GEM]

Some analyses argue that pressure in the house is based on the need for George to keep the soccer moms. If that vote is more important than us gun nuts, enough GOP will be rolled to renew the bill.

Will enough gun nuts like us abandon GWB? I think they would bet that folks hate Kerry enough to put up with George, even if the ban is renewed.

Certainly, some of the gun rags are playing that tune.

[CZ-100]

You people in CA... If you want to help OUR cause.. You need to start the ball rolling in CA to get rid of this WITCH! (Vote HER OUT!!!):fire:

[sumpnz]

All right, here's a probably dumb question, but I'm going to ask it anyway.

DiFi somehow manages to get her AWB renewal attached to some bill and it passes the Senate. Before the House can act on it they go into recess, not returning until after mid-September. By this time the offical sunset date has passed. Can the House then take up the bill, with the AWB renewal still attached, pass it, send to GWB and get it signed? Or does the passing of the sunset date nullify the ammendment and therefore require its removal from the parent bill in question?

If it can stay attached does that make its theoretical passage retroactive to the original sunset date, or would there still be window of opportunity for the maunfacture of evil featured guns and standard capacity mags?

My guess is that the answers are: no, yes, and (if applicable) retroactive.

[Jeff Timm]

Desert Dog opined: "All right people, get mad at what is happening and stay home in November and let John F**king Kerry be elected along with several more Demorats in the Senate and House.
Then come the 2008 General Election and look back and say to yourselves, I thought the gun laws were bad before the 2004 election, but God, look at them now."

Same old excuse. As the Republican Election Consultants say, "The Stupid White N*gg*r Gun Owners will always vote for us, no matter what we do."

I see some action or I vote local and ignore all Republican candidates. Earn my Vote Bush II.

Geoff
Who, figuratively speaking, cut off his genitals and threw them in the gutter, by voting for Bush I based on the above principle, despite his anti-gun laws and declarations, lies ("No New Taxes") and the murders at Ruby Ridge. We got WJC. Then, in their infinite brilliance the Republicans ran Dole, who was older than Reagan.

[VaniB.]

Sumpnz,

Technically, I'm sure if congress desired they could apply some kind of extension to permit time to finish the legislation and allow the AWB to live on. All indications are however, that they (and President Bush) wish Feinstein and the issue would just go away (at least until after the election.) So, I wouldn't worry about all the "what if's". Because in my opinion, if the congress doesn't cave in during the next 19 days, nothing is likely to happen during the final 5 days in September that they would only have left. God forbid, it will take a Columbine by then to stir up something solid.

I'm still betting it's dead, and Dennis Hastert is just saying that he's thinking about it, just so he doesn't look like he has a closed mind to those who hate our 2nd amendment rights. But honestly, I JUST DON'T KNOW FOR SURE! That's why I'm still writing and sending out those letters.

[Deavis]

I think that G1FAL and 007 have the right idea. I just can't understand why pro-gun reps aren't willing to pull out the stops on the anti-gunners. If DiFi is willing to bypass all the normal procedure to introduce a bill, then why don't we start doing the same and force them to either stop or congest everything so that nothing gets done until they start voting like real reps should.

[Desertdog]

You need to start the ball rolling in CA to get rid of this WITCH! (Vote HER OUT!!!)
I voted against her the year she was elected, and in every election since, and will continue to do so.
So, don't blame me.

[alan]

Deavis:

To answer your question, think of the following.

Do "our" congress critters have the balls that the anti gunnners seem to have?

[SaintofKillers]

Feinswine aside,if this national CCW for LEOs only is passed can we bring a lawsuit against the fed based on equal protection under the law? Its ok for x LEOs to protect themselves but not the average Joe Sixpak?

[G1FAL]

I'd like to see an elected vampire who is actually pro-gun attach an amednment, place a rider, whatever they have to do, on this bill that would repeal US Code section whatever, paragraph somethingorother (I dont know the exact numbers, wait for it and you'll see the point), which, if course, just happens to be the National Firearms Act.

Whatcha wanna bet THAT would keep LEO-only nationwide CCW from becoming a reality? (if it could actually be put in the bill.)

[alan]

G1FAL:

Might I repeat my earlier post for your reference?

Speaking of the amendment game, how about some alleged pro gun senator or representative, offer the following. All of the following would, of course, be most desirable.

1. Repeal of The National firearms Act of 1934.
2. Repeal of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (amendments to the 1934 act).
3. Repeal of the 1986 machine gun ban.
4. Repeal of the Brady Law.

In a desire to avoid seeming negative, the following proposed legislation seems worth considering, even given the limits of federal jurisdiction. The several states could be "encouraged" to similarly legislate, as has been done in the past.

Findings/ Statement of Intent:


1. That there is a serious national problem presented by criminal use of arms.
2. That there is an individual right of the law abiding citizenry to keep and bear arms.
3. Given the above, that diminishment of the rights of citizens is a very serious matter, restrictions inherent in "gun control laws" amount to such diminishment.
4. Therefore, be it legislated that the use of arms in the commission of federal crimes be held a capitol offense. Those convicted if such crimes shall actually be excuted. The several states shall be encouraged to make similar enactments.
5. Absent such legislative action, there are no possible grounds for the diminishment of the rights of the law abiding citizenry, such as are inherent in the enactment of gun control laws. Such legislation shall henceforth be barred. Any existing examples of such legislation shall be null and void.

I have suggested the above to my own "elected things".

[Dbl0Kevin]

I think some people are having a hard time understanding what it takes to tack on an amendment or a rider to a piece of legislation. It's not like some pro or anti-gun senator can just say "here stick this on that bill there" and viola it's on the bill. Each amendment has to be brought up during a specific time during the debate of a bill either in commitee or during floor debate and all members present must vote on it. So the amendment still has to get a positive vote to be attached. Do you really think amendments repealing GCA 68, 34 and the machine gun ban will be passed when we're fighting tooth and nail just to get the AWB sunsetted?? :rolleyes:

[alan]

Dbl0Kevin:

In theory at least, the procedural points you mention sound about right, which leaves unanswered, the following question. How does Feinstein for instance, manage to get her amendments adopted?

Re the question you asked, "Do you really think amendments repealing GCA 68, 34 and the machine gun ban will be passed when we're fighting tooth and nail just to get the AWB sunsetted??", possibly not, but they might, if proposed and pushed, act as a sort of ringing alarm clock, as such proposals could have the virtue of proactiveness, as opposed to our playing "catchup", or Peter with his thumb in the dike.

[Dbl0Kevin]

How does Feinstein for instance, manage to get her amendments adopted?

DiFi got the AWB amendment added to the Lawful Commerce in Arms bill by bringing it up for a vote on the floor of the Senate during the debate on the bill. It passed the 52-47 and thus was attached. It ended up killing the bill completely as the pro-gun senators didn't want to vote for a ban and the anti-gun senators didn't want to vote for lawsuit immunity thus a 90-7 rout.

Contrary to the title of this thread there has been no such amendments (yet) to the LEO CCW bill. The bill just passed the full house on a voice vote, which under suspension of the rules they can do when there is an overwhelming majority in favor of a bill with no objection. The bill passed cleanly with NO amendments attached. The senate version of the bill has not even come up for debate yet so there is no possible way for any amendments to be attached to it. Now be that as it may when it DOES come up for debate more likely than not she'll propose the AWB as an amendment and unfortunately it is likely to pass the full senate......again. With those facts I find the chances of an amendment to repeal the GCA of 68, NFA of 34 or the machine ban being added are slim and none....very much leaning on NONE. The only hope is that the Senate leadership limits debate on the bill and doesn't allow for the proposal of ANY amendments. Otherwise we'll be in for a long ride and another fiasco. :banghead:

[Logan5]

I don't think she'll do it, frankly. The bill is partially her baby, and even she has glimmerings of common sense, as when she freaked out over all the foot dragging over the federal flight deck officer program. Attaching an AWB rider would be spun by police everywhere as her playing with officer safety for the sake of a narrow vendetta against the NRA. I get the sense that she likes to keep her contempt for armed citizens separate from her public stance towards current and former police officers. There might even be repercussions for anyone else who tried to attach such a thing, killing her attempt to come out strongly in favor of cops, firefighters, babies and apple pie.


BTW, Alan,
You can't have an automatic category for imposition of the death penalty, or the statute is unconstitutional on it's face.

[alan]

Dbl0Kevin wrote in part:


"The only hope is that the Senate leadership limits debate on the bill and doesn't allow for the proposal of ANY amendments. Otherwise we'll be in for a long ride and another fiasco."

So far as I know, there is no "senate version" yet, however looking at the senate leadership, which you mentioned, that "long ride and another fiasco" might well be something of an understatement, for senate leadership seems to have the inate ability to rest defeat from the jaws of victory.

Old saying that I once heard, that sreems appropriate with respect to "senate leadership". You have a Roumanian for a friend, do't wory about enemies"

[Dbl0Kevin]

So far as I know, there is no "senate version" yet

S.253
Title: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns.
Sponsor: Sen Campbell, Ben Nighthorse [CO] (introduced 1/30/2003) Cosponsors (70)

STATUS: (color indicates Senate actions)
1/30/2003:
Introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1816-1817)
1/30/2003:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1817-1818)
3/6/2003:
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
3/6/2003:
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Hatch without amendment. Without written report.
3/6/2003:
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 29.
3/11/2003:
Star Print ordered on on the reported bill.
3/26/2003:
By Senator Hatch from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 108-29. Additional and Minority views filed.

[alan]

Logan5 wrote:

BTW, Alan,
You can't have an automatic category for imposition of the death penalty, or the statute is unconstitutional on it's face.

In New York State, there used to be a charge known as felony murder. Same may still exist, I cannot say. Anyhow, where a killing took place during the commission of a crime (a felony offense), say you shot and killed someone during the course of a robbery, you were in effect charged with premeditated murder. That crime was a capitol offense, and so far as I know, there were no constitutional problems there.

Dbl0Kevin:

I stand corrected. When I checked thomas.loc.gov a while ago, I found no reference to a senate bill equivalent to H.R. 218. Possibly I didn't ask the right question.

[Logan5]

Hmm... Alan, what I was trying to say (although totally irrelevant and veering wildly off topic) is that you can't write a statute that says "the punishment for X crime shall be death" or something to that effect. In various circumstances you can ask for the DP, but only a jury can determine whether they feel imposing the death penalty is warranted.

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled Feinstein shennanigans?

[Publicola]

I think everything I wanted to sya has just about been covered. Except:

An AWB renewal stands a good chance in the House. i'll repeat myself till the numbers change but according to GOA's ratings (which I find to be a bit more accurate than the NRA's) there are almost enough D & F rated reps to pass any anti-gun bill. There's around 50 C rated reps for them to woo the 10 or so votes they'd need for a simple majority. If it comes to a floor vote in the House, it's law.

DeLay is the House Majority Leader. He's against the AWB renewal but it doesn't mean a damn thing other than republicans are supposed to take his advice seriously.

Hastert is the one who controls what gets voted on in the House & what doesn't. Hastert has been saying fora year that he's not opposed to the AWB having a vote. He isn't openly supporting it but he's leaving his options open.

The bottom line is that Hastert could very well let an AWB renewal get a floor vote. If he does then we'll be taking real good care of our prebans for another ten years. It's that simple. It's not concrete but the House is no more our friend than the Senate.

& speaking of the Senate...Difi did NOT do anything unusal in getting her AWB renewal on the agenda. I don't like defending her at all but the idea she had to sneak it in or use some tricky means is false & detracts from the danger we're in.

The Senate voted to tack the AWB renewal on the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. That was a majority in favor of adding it on. They have the votes to pass it & the idea that she has to resort to trickery is far fetched. Why sneak around with something that you have the votes to pass?

The only thing that can save us is a filibuster. The pro-gunners in the Senate don't have the votes to tack on anything pro-gun that would kill the AWB in a floor vote. They can only filibuster & that's only if they can get 40 Senators to agree to filibuster.

The Senate & the House have rules they follow to get things done. It seems strange to those not familiar with it but it's not magic. Only a majority vote in a committee or on the floor can attach an amendment to another bill. We do not have the votes for that. We may (repeat MAY) have enough to filibuster once Difi springs it on us & this is th eonly bit of "trickery" she may resort to. If she slips it in the agenda for a certain day then one objection will cause a days delay in getting it voted on (barring any other unforseen circumstances, such as an agreement reached by a majority of senators). I can see her trying to push it when there's not anyone to object to it, but this would be more a failure on our part than a victory on hers sine a quorum is still needed to conduct business.

So watcht eh Senate but don't go looking for magic. The only sorcery involved with either house is in how they arrive at their conclusions.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

An AWB renewal stands a good chance in the House. i'll repeat myself till the numbers change but according to GOA's ratings (which I find to be a bit more accurate than the NRA's) there are almost enough D & F rated reps to pass any anti-gun bill. There's around 50 C rated reps for them to woo the 10 or so votes they'd need for a simple majority. If it comes to a floor vote in the House, it's law.

This is the only place I disagree with you, Publicola. I don't think the votes are there to support a renewal in the House. Carolyn McCarthy just said in The Hill that they wouldn't bother with a discharge petition. If the vote was as close as you suggest, then it would be an easy thing to get enough signatures to force the bill out of committee via a discharge petition.

Another thing to consider is that while the overall House numbers are important, the House Judiciary committee numbers are also worth looking at since rules on amendments in the House are much different than the Senate. In the House Judiciary committee, we have a solid advantage (a clear majority of GOA A and B rated reps) This means that any semi-auto ban renewal that was reported out of the House committee could be marked up in a fashion that even Rep. McCarthy would find tough to swallow.