Critical: Feinstein/AWB on Senate Calendar!

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Where does one look to get a detailed floor schedule?

The only way to get a detailed schedule of what will happen in the Senate in a given day is to listen to CSPAN all day or go to the Senate site and read the Congressional Record to see what has been discussed the previous day - even then they often change things at short notice. Originally S.2062 was scheduled for a cloture vote on Friday; but it changed to Thursday with little warning.

 

[Ironbarr]

I've been checking CSPAN2 off and on today and last week. I don't hear anything about her tagging on an amendment to anything - yet.

Anyone have different info?

-Andy

 

[71Commander]

She was on today talking about the marriage amendmant. I didn't catch it all, but it seemed like a good chance. Attach her bill to this and in order for the Republicians to ban gay marriages, you would ban assault weapons. It was a win, win for her.

I dunno know

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The gay marriage amendment is going nowhere as it is. It will get there just as fast with or without Feinstein's amendment.

By the time they get done debating that amendment, it will be extremely difficult to pass any renewal as there will be little time left on the calendar to enact such legislation.

I wouldn't be too concerned until they start considering the appropriations bills; but with exactly 9 days left on the Senate calendar before summer recess and no appropriations bills in sight, I think we can wave goodbye to the ban until 2005.

 

[71Commander]

The gay marriage amendment is going nowhere as it is.

I agree. But it will be addressed in the near future and she will sell out her supporters in order to get the AWB on the docket.

She has no chance of stopping a federal amendment on gay marriages. It would pass 2/3rds easily. She will give the Republicians this amendment in order for hers to pass as an attachment. I don't see any thing else on the horizon.

They're some sneakey critters though. They (both sides) could come to an agreement and have it passed and signed before the blink of an eye.

 

[Ironbarr]

Like the LEO national carry bill, huh?

 

[Schuey2002]

I wouldn't be too concerned until they start considering the appropriations bills; but with exactly 9 days left on the Senate calendar before summer recess and no appropriations bills in sight, I think we can wave goodbye to the ban until 2005.

Now THAT's what I wanted to hear..

 

[71Commander]

Like the LEO national carry bill, huh?

Excellent example.

 

[alan]

Re national concealed carry for retired and active LE, proposals which sadly were passed in both houses and have since been sent to "shrub", who will likely sign the fool thing, I'm curious as to the following. How many who posted seemingly critical references to the concept, bothered to contact their elected things, prior to enactment?

By the way, in or at/on other discussions, I've seen/heard/read comment to the effect that the enactment would be a good thing, for it could then lead to national carry for "civilian" licensees.

Taking what I consider to be a realistic look at the antics of police bureaucrats, police organizations and their leaders, as opposed to The Street Cop, who never gets featured in media stories, I tend to sort of double over in/with bitter laughter, every time I hear this song and dance.

Of course, I could be completely wrong re this, I've been wrong before. It's just that I do not think that this situation will be one of those instances. I simply think that this will be another of those deals where, as a result of special privilege granted to the few, the rights of the many will suffer.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Like the LEO national carry bill, huh?

If you don't understand why the LEO carry bill is a much different political animal than the semiauto ban, then I don't have the time to explain it. Suffice it to say that LEO carry passed the Senate with unanimous support - something the ban will never have.

She has no chance of stopping a federal amendment on gay marriages.

On the contrary, there are no votes to pass a federal amendment on gay marriages in the Senate. The amendment is going to die regardless of whether Feinstein can attach a bill or not; but the Dems have already agreed to a straight up/down vote on that proposal so I wouldn't be overly concerned.

Now I am not saying to quit now and go home. We still need to be vigilant and will need to continue watching even after the ban does sunset; but right now it looks very, very good.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I wouldn't expect any substantial action on anything from the congress right now. There will be blustering rhetoric from both sides as they try to shore up their bases going into the election. The Dems will spout off about how the Republicans unleashed a new wave of assault weapons on the public to motivate their dogmatic core to vote for a lackluster candidate and the Republicans will try to work the Christian extreme right wing of its ranks into a perverted frenzy about what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms to try to distract the ultra conservative Republicans and make them forget about Bush's liberal spending habits and creation of a huge, expensive new entitlement program, its liberal policies towards immigration, and its misguided and incompetent efforts at nation building.

I'm not saying we should let our guard down, but right now both parties need distractions to whip their core constituencies into mindless frenzies--distractions like evil black rifles and homosexuals getting married--more then they need real accomplishments.

I think a more real danger right now is the possibility of having all our guns confiscated in the event of a terrorist attack that leads to the suspension of elections and the declaration of martial law.

 

[Ironbarr]

L Boy...

You're scaring me... I thought this was just another, but an important "another", effort of CCW (Congress Critter Watch) - martial law indeed.

Screw the "terrorists" - Vote!

-Andy

 

[halvey]

Republicans will try to work the Christian extreme right wing of its ranks into a perverted frenzy about what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms

Really? I didn't know people got married in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

 

[71Commander]

If you don't understand why the LEO carry bill is a much different political animal than the semiauto ban, then I don't have the time to explain it. Suffice it to say that LEO carry passed the Senate with unanimous support - something the ban will never have.

I could be wrong, but I think it was being used as an example of how fast a bill could be voted on in both chambers and become law. I think the subject matter was irrelevant.

 

[Ironbarr]

TennTucker...

Thank you.

-Andy

 

[alan]

I noticed that someone mentioned "gay marriage". Seems to be a m ite off topic to me, but let that slide.

On "gay marriage" itself, my take is as follows, for whatevber it might be worth.

If "gays" want to live together, fine with me, provided they do not bother me, or endanger my safety by so doing. Should they opt to "marry", that too is O.K. with me. After all, why should only heterosexuals be miserable?

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

The anti gay marriage amendment was brought up as a possible vehicle for attaching a renewal of the AWB. My point was that both are largely symbolic to the general public (unless you are gay or a gun afficianado), and making each an issue is designed more to appease the extremist element of the respective major parties (Radical Dem=hate scary black rifle; radical Repub=hate scary married homo). Eliminating battle rifles won't reduce crime because most criminals don't elect to purchase expensive military weapons to commit crimes. Eliminating married gays won't reduce heterosexual marriage because if you are so insecure about your sexuality that you join the other team when they legalize gay marriage you are probably a butt cowboy already. If you dig women you'll still dig women if gay marriage is legalized.

Neither issue will effect anyone but gun fans and homosexuals, both relatively small percentages of the population. But they will be effective stirring up the political extremists, which, given the tepid support for both candidates within their respective parties, will be badly needed come November. Understanding how this works will help to make us more effective at ensuring the AWB is not renewed.

I apologize if my tactless language has offended any gay members. For the record, I think anything consenting adults choose to do is fine, as long as it doesn't hurt any innocent person. The two things I find perverted are people who do things to unwilling people or animals (rapists, child molesters, bestophiles), and people who take an interest in the sex lives of other consenting adults (the guy peeking through the bedroom curtains is a much bigger perv than the people in the bedroom, regardless of what they are doing). The way I see it, there are two people whose sex lives concern me. One is me myself and the other is my wife.

 

[Diggler]

Hey, if they want to jump in and experience the income tax marriage penalty, go for it...

 

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think it's technically feasible to attach the AWB renewal to the FMA, unless they're planning on trying to get 38 states to ratify renewing the ban. One's a law, the other a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Ewok]

My point was that both are largely symbolic to the general public (unless you are gay or a gun afficianado)

Or both.

 

[Schuey2002]

On the contrary, there are no votes to pass a federal amendment on gay marriages in the Senate. The amendment is going to die regardless of whether Feinstein can attach a bill or not;

From Reuters:

President Bush's bid to amend the Constitution to ban same sex-marriage headed toward defeat on Tuesday, with Democratic foe John Kerry accusing him of divisive election-year politics.

Proponents scrambled to win the support of half of the 100-member Senate, but both sides said the measure seemed certain to be blocked on a procedural vote on Wednesday.

If its mostly Republicans backers are unable to get 60 votes to end debate and move to a vote on passage, the proposal will likely be dead for the year. But proponents vowed to try again next year.

"You've got to put senators out there and get a vote total, and then people will say, 'Hey, we disagree,"' explained Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican and a leading backer of the measure. "People will react."

Polls show most Americans oppose same-sex marriage, but split on whether a constitutional ban is needed. Surveys also find voters believe a host of other issues are more important -- such as health care, education and national security.

Republicans forced consideration of the proposed amendment two weeks before Kerry, a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, will receive his party's presidential nomination at the Democratic national convention in Boston.

Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, oppose same sex-marriage, but argue amending the Constitution is not the answer.

Like many Democrats, they say it should be left up to the states to define marriage. They also accuse Republicans of pushing the measure merely to rally their social-conservative base.

Republicans contend gay marriage devalues traditional marriage, which they say is a pillar of civilization, and should be outlawed for the sake of children. ..

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Feinstein and Schumer spoke on the Senate floor concerning the semi-auto ban today. Not much to say really...Chuckles lied outright and claimed that the Street Sweeper shotgun (regulated as a destructive device by the ATF) would be back on the streets if the 1994 ban expired.

Mostly they just tried to bring pressure on the President to contact Hastert and allow a vote on the ban renewal. I think it was primarily posturing as they could force the bill out of committee if they had the votes to pass it.

 

[Ironbarr]

Thank you, BR... I hadn't kept up much today.

Shuey, et al -- There's another aspect I heard today that makes sense. If left to the states - with several states opting for the same-sex marriage (SSM) thing and others vehemently anti - SCOTUS would eventually rule it the the law of the land. The amendment would make it harder for SCOTUS to play games.

 

[Domino]

Republicans will try to work the Christian extreme right wing of its ranks into a perverted frenzy about what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms

It's not about what they do in their own bedrooms, it's about a minority attempting to force thier lifestyle into acceptance. I could give a crap less about what gays do but nothing justifies their attempt to errode the family unit by making themselves legitimate and legal couples in matrimony for their own selfish reasons (note... I am not religous in the slightest). There is only one real reason to get married, that is to have children and a family. Gays wishing to get married are only doing this to have thier own silly desires of a ceromony and wedding bells. I will say again that I have no interest in what anyone does in the privacy of their own home but does anyone here actually want to have to explain to their son or daughter that gay marriage is the same as the marriage between you and your partner, because we all know it is not. Imagine you have a gay couple next door and your child is brought up to believe by society and the media that it's OK and acceptable. I apologize for getting off topic.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

This is getting way off topic, but according to your logic there is no point for me to be married since after 16 years we have no children and we can never have any children. Sorry, but that's developmentally disabled thinking. I suspect that there are enough people that the human race can withstand my wife and I being married simply because we love each other.