Toomey Folds - Joins Schumer, Manchin and Kirk on UBC Compromise

Deal Reached in Senate on Universal Background Checks

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/harry-reid-joe-manchin-pat-toomey-89806.html

UBC bill has been amended/watered down to the point where the moderate Republicans are likely to accept it. Commentators expect it to pass.

Nope. I don't see where you got that from.

Sen. Joe Manchin says he is on the verge of a bipartisan deal...
“Tomorrow we hope to be at the point where we can finalize everything.”

Click to expand...

For months commentators have been expecting the AWB to be reinstated. I expect a filibuster and they don't have the votes to override it. Nor will it pass the House. I would still expect the SCOTUS to throw it out because Congress lacks the power to regulate private instate actions.

From the article:

“We’re going to vote Thursday,” Reid confirmed on Tuesday afternoon. “I’m going to file cloture on the bill tonight. It would be a real slap in the face to the American people not to do something on background checks, on school safety, on illegal trafficking, which everybody thinks is a good idea.”

Click to expand...

Is it illegal trafficking, or trafficking that he wishes to be illegal? Just like the "illegal" in Mayors Against Illegal Guns... The guns they're against aren't inherently illegal but they'd sure like them to be.

Matt

Now how do they do this without gun registration?

Being "on the verge" of a deal isn't the same as having a "deal reached". Doctors have been on the verge of finding a cure for cancer for 50 years, yet such a cure does not actually exist.

And, Mitch McConnell just stated yesterday that he would join a filibuster if Reid moves a gun control bill to the floor this week.

I just e-mailed Rob Portman for the 2nd time this week.

Go e-mail your senators..... The Anti's are running add campaigns to drum up support, lets meet it head on.

joeschmoe said:

I would still expect the SCOTUS to throw it out because Congress lacks the power to regulate private instate actions.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately that's highly unlikely. I'd be surprised if it even made it to SCOTUS. Any such ruling would likely necessitate overturning Gonzales v. Raich, and as much as I'd like that I don't foresee that happening.

This has to be defeated legislatively.

hirundo82 said:

Unfortunately that's highly unlikely. I'd be surprised if it even made it to SCOTUS. Any such ruling would likely necessitate overturning Gonzales v. Raich, and as much as I'd like that I don't foresee that happening.

This has to be defeated legislatively.

Click to expand...

They certainly would not have to overturn Gonzales v Raich. Read US v Lopez and US v Morrisson.

The Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local, and there is no better example of the police power, which the Founders undeniably left reposed in the States and denied the central government, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims. Congress therefore may not regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on the conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce.
UNITED STATES v. MORRISON et al.

Click to expand...

See my thread on this subject here;

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=703189

Bartholomew,

This doesn't sound like a done deal to me...

Following a briefing with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Manchin told reporters the two sides were very close to an agreement.

Click to expand...

And, for the record, while I do still have hope, I'm not relying on it to prevent bad things from happening. And, I did contact both of my Senators again tonight, thank you. One of those Senators happens to be Democrat Mark Begich, one of the "swing votes" up for grabs right now.

Here's what I wrote this time:

S. 649 is a blatant attack on the natural rights of all law abiding citizens of this great country. A vote for cloture on S.649 would be a clear violation of the oath you took to support and defend the Constitution.

Do not be fooled into thinking that "something must be done" in the wake of Sandy Hook. Your fellow Legislators must not be allowed to trample and batter the Constitution so that they may appear sympathetic to the victims of tragedy. For, it would be a much bigger tragedy indeed if liberties are lost because of the actions of one criminal in Connecticut.

Vote NO on cloture for S. 649.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute here~ all a filibuster will accomplish is to prevent the *debate* over the contents of the original bill, in the open and on the record, with each side bringing experts to testify and justify their position??? All they would actually debate would be the *ammendments*???

How does this benefit us exactly? Frankly this seems no better than what happened to us in Albany....

I appreciate your quick reply. Just to clarify, does that mean they will indeed debate the original parts as well?

Thanks!

I understand

the term "filibuster", but what is a successful filibuster?

For it to stop a bill from moving forward, does it have to go on for a certain period of time or what?

Thanks

Johnny Dollar said:

This is not going to make it into law. I'll still take that to Vegas.

Click to expand...

At this point, it may get out of the Senate, maybe without a registration requirement, but with enough exemptions, it will probably have a registration requirement.

When it gets to the House, it will look to be DOA but I expect Obama to offer a deal on the budget or immigration in exchange for UBC. He will get it, but the House will drop the registration requirement. Then it goes to a joint committee and we'll see what happens there.

I expect to see UBC w/o registration signed later this year. It is a small step, but for the Progressives, that is progress. The next step will be to "fix" the registration "loophole". They may wait until after 2014 for that or leave it for Hillary in 2017.

Let's not forget that this is just the Senate. A bill that passes the Senate -- if any -- still has to make it through the House of Reps, which has a solid Republican majority currently.

"Turncoat Toomey" joins up with Schumer, et al ? ? ? ?

Well...I am shocked & outraged not really...I figured he would fold, and I'm not a PA resident.

Hacker15E said:

Let's not forget that this is just the Senate. A bill that passes the Senate -- if any -- still has to make it through the House of Reps, which has a solid Republican majority currently.

Click to expand...

If republicans fold in the senate they will fold in the house. These republicans can cause us to lose everything.

Apparently Toomey has recently had some brain damage and thinks he represents NJ and not PA. I'm planning on calling ALL of his offices this morning.


Washington, D.C.

502 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Phone: (202) 224-4254

Fax: (202) 228-0284

Map: Get Directions



Philadelphia

8 Penn Center

1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.

Suite 1702

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Phone: (215) 241-1090

Fax: (215) 241-1095



Harrisburg

United States Federal Building

228 Walnut St.

Suite 1104

Harrisburg, PA 17101

Phone: (717) 782-3951

Fax: (717) 782-4920



Johnstown

Richland Square III, Suite 302

1397 Eisenhower Blvd

Johnstown, PA 15904

Phone: (814) 266-5970

Fax: (814) 266-5973



Pittsburgh

100 W. Station Square Dr.

Suite 225

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Phone: (412) 803-3501

Fax: (412) 803-3504



Erie

United States Federal Building

17 South Park Row

Suite B-120

Erie, PA 16501

Phone: (814) 453-3010

Fax: (814) 455-9925



Scranton

538 Spruce Street

Suite 302

Scranton, PA 18503

Phone: (570) 941-3540

Fax: (570) 941-3544



Allentown/Lehigh Valley

1150 S. Cedar Crest Blvd Suite 101

Allentown, PA 18103

Phone: (610) 434-1444

Toll-free phone (for callers in PA): 1-855-552-1831



http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=contact

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

Devil is ALWAYS in the details.

NBC News reports this to be a "compromise" where background checks are not "universal" for a number of person-to-person private transfer types...whatever that means.

Ohio Gun Guy said:

I just e-mailed Rob Portman for the 2nd time this week.

Go e-mail your senators..... The Anti's are running add campaigns to drum up support, lets meet it head on.

Click to expand...

Did you read the statement he issued last week?

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8854

Here is a list to call TODAY.

John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) Susan Collins (Maine), Pat Toomey (R-Pa)

Mansion Manchin happens to be 1 of my senators, unfortunately I call his office 3x a week for all the good it won't do. He sold us out.