[Fcalerts-list] S.659/1805 Vote 2/25_ -- White House Wants No Amendments

Status
Not open for further replies.

Harry Tuttle

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
3,093
Feb. 24 Neal Knox Update -- The White House issued a "Statement of
Administration Policy" calling for an unamended industry liability
protection bill -- on which VOTES ARE SCHEDULED BEGINNING AT 10:30 A.M.
WEDNESDAY.

About 7 p.m. this evening Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist scheduled
a vote at 10:30 a.m. on S. 1805, the renumbered S. 659/H.R.1036.
First item up will be a filibuster-ending cloture vote on a motion to
proceed.

ONE MORE TIME: Please call your Senators' D.C. and state offices!

The White House "SAP" is important because it tells Republican
Senators "President Bush doesn't want to see the 'assault weapon'
reenactment on his desk."

That may help keep some Republican Senators on our side on the likely
first amendment after the filibuster is broken: A
Feinstein-Schumer-Warner-DeWine-Chafee amendment to extend the present
"assault weapons" law for another 10 years -- according to Republican
Sen. Warner's press release.

That language would apparently eliminate the "wiggle room" of some
Republicans, such as the other Virginia Senator, George Allen, who
have said they won't support anything beyond present law.

I haven't read the actual language, so I don't know if the new
"bi-partisan bill" will totally ban over-10-round magazine imports,
instead of the present law's prohibition on post-1994 standard
capacity magazines.

The White House Statement of Administration Policy is reprinted below.

------------------

In another major development today, the Supreme Court struck down, by
5-4, the 9th Circuit's approval of BATF's use of a fudged search
warrant information.

You will recall that BATF has often used questionable "facts" to
justify a search -- including in the Waco Branch Davidian raid, which
was not an issue in this case.

------------------

> EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
> OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
> WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
> February 24, 2004
> (Senate)
> STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
> S. 1805 - Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
> (Sen. Craig (R) Idaho)
>
> The Administration strongly supports Senate passage of S. 1805. The
> Administration urges the Senate to pass a clean bill, in order to
> ensure enactment of the legislation this year. Any amendment that
> would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable.
> The manufacturer or seller of a legal, non-defective product should
> not be held liable for the criminal or unlawful misuse of that product
> by others. The possibility of imposing liability on an entire
> industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the
> legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens
> the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, sets
> a poor precedent for other lawful industries, will cause a loss of
> jobs, and burdens interstate and foreign commerce. S. 1805 would help
> curb frivolous litigation against a lawful American industry and the
> thousands of workers it employs and would help prevent abuse of the
> legal system. At the same time, the legislation would carefully
> preserve the right of individuals to have their day in court with
> civil liability actions. These civil actions are enumerated in the
> bill and respect the traditional role of the States in our Federal
> system with regard to such actions.
 
The White House "SAP" is important because it tells Republican Senators "President Bush doesn't want to see the 'assault weapon' reenactment on his desk."

In spite of the overwhelming efforts of some misguided children on this board, most of us already knew this.

I have to say, it's about frickin' time.

This is STRONG, people, and a little politically risky.
 
There's been a lot of recent talk and a push by Dems to include a "rider" on S.659: The AWB renewal.

This is the easiest (and probably the only) way Feinstein et al can get their AWB through.

Dubya just put his shoulder against that particular door.
 
mrapathy, what's to be confused about?

Bush said he was for an extension of the AWB as is, knowing full well that an extension of the AWB as is was something that the Dems would never, ever allow to happen.

Heck. An extension of the AWB as is would mean that it would have the sunset clause still in it.

Bush was playing politics with the issue--giving himself wiggle room. You know, it all depends on what the definition of the word is, is.

He can say that he said in public that he's for an extension of the AWB as it is currently written.

However, the AWB as it is currently written would not be what the Dems would holler and scream for. And he knew it.

Today's statement that the White House wants a clean, no-rider vesion of S.659 shows that Bush does not want, and never intends to see any version of an AWB on his desk.

And he sends that message to any "wiggly" members of his own party in a very clear manner without actually having to say in public "Don't send me no steenking AWB to sign."

hillbilly
 
There is even BETTER news than this folks... once cloture is invoked, no new amendments can be proposed. Not only that but the Senate chair (Bill Frist) can rule any amendments that are proposed as "out of order" and "not germane to the bill" without much chance to object.

This means the antis have exactly one hour tomorrow morning to propose any amendments and even then, they could still get stripped in the Senate if we have the votes to invoke cloture.
 
I would expect no less from GWB. All the rumors and such floating about sell-outs and back stabbing are hype. GWB is going to make the Dems stand up and present a bill on the merits to extend or modify the AWB. The "leader" of the party has spoken regarding the "clean bill." Frist is already maneuvering the rules. :D

Combine this with the marriage amendment and you can see that he realizes where his base is. I hope he has seen the error of his ways.
 
That may help keep some Republican Senators on our side on the likely
first amendment after the filibuster is broken: A
Feinstein-Schumer-Warner-DeWine-Chafee amendment to extend the present
"assault weapons" law for another 10 years -- according to Republican
Sen. Warner's press release.

I assume that this is my Senate Critter from the wonderful state of Ohio...can anyone point me to something that shows that Mike DeWine is a sponsor, supporter, whatever of the amendment to stick it to us on this one? Definately going to have to call his office tomorrow...(mumbling obscenities under my breath)
 
Thanks Bart....not what I really wanted to read, but at least I know where he stands (against us).

Getting the 1994 assault weapons prohibition renewed has been a Democratic priority this year. They picked up support Tuesday from GOP Sens. John Warner of Virginia, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

Not that I think it'll do the least bit of good, but his office will be getting a call tomorrow morning...Voinovich's too...ugh!:banghead: :banghead:
 
"All the rumors and such floating about sell-outs and back stabbing are hype."

Actually, all the words and actions by motivated citizens are likely what will keep Bush in line (if they work.) The fact that they may succeed is not evidence that they were not needed.
 
I agree. I have been stating that the pressure would affect the outcome for months. When we exchange ideas here and challenge each other to contact the congress citters, it works. VOila
 
Actually, all the words and actions by motivated citizens are likely what will keep Bush in line (if they work.) The fact that they may succeed is not evidence that they were not needed.

By all means, keep writing letters, but:

Keep Bush in line? You realize that 60 percent of GUN OWNERS support renewal of the AWB (per Alan Gottleib)? Like it or not, to Joe Public, the AWB is an iffy political issue. So is lawsuit protection specifically for the gun industry.

The White House coming out with a statement like this is nothing short of astounding. Hooray for the good guys.
 
Chafee is MY Senator. Calling, writing, or talking to him in person is a waste of time. He's a scumbag liberal punk Repuglosocialist.

I hope they don't extend the AWB. I won't vote for Bush if he signs it.
 
Well, DeWine was the ONLY RINO to vote against cloture....guess no vote for Mikey next time he's up for re-election..:(
 
None yet and invoking cloture means that it will be tough to do now.

EDITED TO ADD:

Just saw a post on AR15.com where someone had called their legislator - it seems amendments have been proposed but not voted on yet :(
 
That's right. Mikey (DeWine) must go. I will actively campaign against him. He is not a friend of liberty. He is a domestic enemy of the Constitution. :fire: Voinavitch (sp?) isn't much, if any, better.



I wish my wife would let me run for the Senate. :rolleyes:
 
NAYs ---22
Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)
 
I got the impression that Harry was posting the "nays" on the cloture issue.
 
That is just the nays on the motion to invoke cloture. We have four amendments to consider and then the actual bill so it will probably go into tomorrow for the final vote.

Near as we can tell the amendments are:

Feinstein: AWB Renewal
McCain: Gunshow loopholes
Daschle: Tweak to bill that Craig (original author) has supported in speech so far

?Hatch : DC Gun ban repeal

We don't actually know what the third amendment is; but Hatch threatened to attach his DC gun ban repeal to S.1805 if the antis did not produce a clean bill with no amendments
 
Laudenberg is...

"speaking" against (of course) S. 1805 now (ESPAN 2).

Sounds like either he's recovering from a stroke or lunch.

Beating uo on Bushmaster and Bullseye.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top