4 more Senators now oppose Toomey-Manchin amendment

We need a link to verify.

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

So where is McCain?

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/...on-gun-control-90082_Page2.html#ixzz2Qd1JWsQs

Click to expand...

As for McCain, he's voting for it.

Keep up the pressure, call your reps in their DC offices, tell them you expect them to OPPOSE this Bill and others like it.

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.

I'm trying to figure out how ANY dem Senator would vote for it.

National Carry OMG

AFS

Let's hope there are no mysterious votes at 3am! We all know how that works out!

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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)

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.)

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."

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.

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.)

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

Plus all Draconian state laws like those in NY and Cali must be stricken unconstitutional and overturned.

I would still be opposed. I don't want to be flexible. I don't believe in any gun control.

Click to expand...

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.