Feinstein is going to attach a rider to the Lawsuit Protection Bill. AWB 2 in march.
- Thread starter Knife_Sniper
- Start date
- Status
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
And if I recall correctly, a Mr Lautenberg did much the same... and his was RETROACTIVE... ex posto facto be damned.
And President Bush WILL sign it, have no doubt about that.
Mr Kerry, here's the key to the executive toilet
And President Bush WILL sign it, have no doubt about that.
Mr Kerry, here's the key to the executive toilet
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
If the Senate amends the AWB to S.659, the House can strip the ban out of the bill. Unfortunately, this is pretty close to a death warrant for S.659 if the House is forced to do this. The House enjoys some advantages in the conference committees; but probably not enough to both pass S.659 and strip out the ban.
The NRA has already made it known publicly that they will allow S.659 to die before they will accept any renewal of the ban, so the House will have powerful incentive to kill S.659 before passing it with Feinstein's amendment.
The key here is the Senate floor though - there are currently 55 co-sponsors for S.659. That is enough to stop ANY amendment from being attached. The problem is that some of those co-sponsors are fair-weather supporters (like Sen. Tom Daschle) who need to be seen as pro-duck hunting before their reelection. If only 6 of those supporters defect, Feinstein may be able to attach her amendment.
We need to make sure that our Senators understand that we want S.659 to pass without any anti-gun amendments. This is a battle we can win; and it would be a huge setback for the antis to get beat in both the House (where they expected it) and the Senate (where they believe they can win).
If you live in Sen. Daschle or Sen. Feingold's district be SURE to hit them on this issue. Sen. Feingold and Sen Daschle are two Dems who both need to seem neutral on guns to keep re-election alive and both have made public statements meant to appeal to gun owners.
To add to Tamara's comments, the 1986 FOPA also had been successfully killed in committee by the Democratic House for each of the previous seven years. So by 1986, it was considered to be a sure thing to die in committee again and the Dems made a big mistake.
In the House, if you have a majority of Representatives, you can vote to force a bill out of committee. Normally, the committee draws up a heavily amended version of the legislation they wish to kill in order to report that version out if things get tough; but the Dems were overconfident and failed to draw up any amendments to FOPA. As a result, they were taken by surprise when the bill had enough votes to get forced out of committee.
At the last second (last 4 minutes of debate actually), they amended FOPA with the Machinegun Ban on a protested voice vote (no vote is officially recorded, everybody yells "Aye" or "Nay" and the committee chairman decided that the amendment had passed). Requests to have a roll call (recorded) vote were denied and the Dems got away with it because they controlled the House and the Rules committee. The ban was amended to FOPA on the basis of this vote - a vote that even Capitol Hill's Roll Call noted was a bit "unusual".
At this point, the NRA could have had the bill killed off in either the Senate or by Presidential veto; but they decided that the good outweighed the bad (I agree) and that they were unlikely to get the chance to get the bill to the floor again since it would be hard to surprise the Dems twice.
Wildalaska
member
Also an excellent way to get this Board shut down or investuigated, a statement like that clearly is on the line of being a criminal threat IMHO.
Jerkoff that she is, she does not deserve to have any harm come to her, nor indeed does any American who is not sentenced to puinishmment by a Court with appropriate jurisdiction.
WildbesidesitaintthehighroadAlaska
"Even if one or both of your Senators are known to be anti-gun, it doesn't hurt to remind them of how unpopular this issue is."
I agree with you in principle, but some senators simply don't care about the populariity of an issue; they have their own agendas, and that is that. I can tell you from experience that writing to the Boxstein twins is a waste of time and postage. Their replies, always politely telling me to go **** myself, just increase my blood pressure.
A letter to the editor of the local newspaper, now that's a different story...
Tim
I agree with you in principle, but some senators simply don't care about the populariity of an issue; they have their own agendas, and that is that. I can tell you from experience that writing to the Boxstein twins is a waste of time and postage. Their replies, always politely telling me to go **** myself, just increase my blood pressure.
A letter to the editor of the local newspaper, now that's a different story...
Tim
Omega_7
Member
Bruce said:
Lets attach an anvil to Mizz Feinstein and pass her out of a plane door half way to Hawaii. That would make an excellent rider.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bruce, do you really want to pollute the environment with HER? I say "space" her while we still have the shuttle...
Lets attach an anvil to Mizz Feinstein and pass her out of a plane door half way to Hawaii. That would make an excellent rider.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bruce, do you really want to pollute the environment with HER? I say "space" her while we still have the shuttle...
Omega_7
Member
Both of my senators are leftest female snake
Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray (If any elected anti female is as ugly as Fiendstein, this is the one, but I would say Sarah Brady takes the "wicked witch of the East" prize)
Here's the e-mail we just sent. Look, they are not listening but we can hassle them.. it's a military tactic folks.. clog their e-mail addys with pro letters.. put them on notice.. even my Rottweilers warn before they bite...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1994 Clinton gun ban:
We are writing you to state our total opposition to any unconstitutional laws which infringe on the 2nd amendment rights of American citizens. We particularly do not want to see the 1994 Clinton gun ban renewed. The passage of this law specifically cost the Democrats many seats in the house and this was even publically acknowleged by Bill Clinton. Renewal will result in the same outcome, possibly even costing many US Senators their nice cushy jobs as well. We will support financially and personally any opposition candidate who runs against those in office who desire a dis-armed America. Our right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is ultimately backed up by our personal arms, for personal defense and defense of our liberties. This is a growing grass roots movement and we will eventually win.
We are fully aware of the sneaky last minute move by Senator Feinstein. This will not stand!
Signed,
XXXXX
Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray (If any elected anti female is as ugly as Fiendstein, this is the one, but I would say Sarah Brady takes the "wicked witch of the East" prize)
Here's the e-mail we just sent. Look, they are not listening but we can hassle them.. it's a military tactic folks.. clog their e-mail addys with pro letters.. put them on notice.. even my Rottweilers warn before they bite...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1994 Clinton gun ban:
We are writing you to state our total opposition to any unconstitutional laws which infringe on the 2nd amendment rights of American citizens. We particularly do not want to see the 1994 Clinton gun ban renewed. The passage of this law specifically cost the Democrats many seats in the house and this was even publically acknowleged by Bill Clinton. Renewal will result in the same outcome, possibly even costing many US Senators their nice cushy jobs as well. We will support financially and personally any opposition candidate who runs against those in office who desire a dis-armed America. Our right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is ultimately backed up by our personal arms, for personal defense and defense of our liberties. This is a growing grass roots movement and we will eventually win.
We are fully aware of the sneaky last minute move by Senator Feinstein. This will not stand!
Signed,
XXXXX
Ya know what would be nice? A political system where things were straightforward and simple. Where a right is a right, a bill is a bill, and... oh, why yes, I am quite the dreamer. 
Then again, I guess that would mean less opportunity to push personal political agendas contrary to the well being and rights of the people, so I'm not holding my breath.
Oh well. It's a corrupt game, and we'll have to use corrupt tactics if we want to win in this system. To that end, we need to push stealthy little riders of our own. As for this one, I guess I need to write another letter. For all the good it does...
Then again, I guess that would mean less opportunity to push personal political agendas contrary to the well being and rights of the people, so I'm not holding my breath.Oh well. It's a corrupt game, and we'll have to use corrupt tactics if we want to win in this system. To that end, we need to push stealthy little riders of our own. As for this one, I guess I need to write another letter. For all the good it does...
Omega_7
Member
Travis, is that you in the picture?
If so, I want to apply to be on your team. You look like a straight shooter
If so, I want to apply to be on your team. You look like a straight shooter
Sam Adams
Member
I am not terribly worried about AWB2 being attached as a rider to S. 659. Too many people are aware of it, and it won't slip through like the MG ban in '86. Also, the House has to agree with it, and that's not going to happen. As mentioned before, the NRA has decided that if something like this happens, it will allow S. 659 to go down in flames rather than have the AWB renewed. BTW, it is my opinion that if the AWB is renewed, the NRA will lose 1 million members (and I, a member since 1989, will be one of them). This has them scared to death, and should also scare the Republicans - because most of those people and their families vote Republican, and will be odds-on favorites to stay away from the voting booths in November.
However, I think that 2 can play the rider game - if DiFi can attach AWB2 as a rider, some pro-gun Senate Republicans can attach a rider to eliminate the '86 MG ban, to allow "kitchen table dealers," to have national CCW and/or to repeal the '68 GCA. I particularly like the last 2 - either can be used as a bargaining chip to get DiFi to withdraw her rider, and then S.659 can get a vote on its own merits.
However, I think that 2 can play the rider game - if DiFi can attach AWB2 as a rider, some pro-gun Senate Republicans can attach a rider to eliminate the '86 MG ban, to allow "kitchen table dealers," to have national CCW and/or to repeal the '68 GCA. I particularly like the last 2 - either can be used as a bargaining chip to get DiFi to withdraw her rider, and then S.659 can get a vote on its own merits.
Sam Adams,
I like the idea of attaching such riders, but it is just an idle fantasy. How many pro-gun riders have been attempted, much less gone through? When was the last time someone tacked on a pro-freedom rider to the latest bipartisan "Safer Neighborhoods and Happier Children Through Increased Government Involvement" bill, eh? No, whenever we want something done, we have to do it the hard way and give the antis every opportunity to fight it every step of the way.
I like the idea of us doing unto them what they do unto us, but it just ain't happening.
I like the idea of attaching such riders, but it is just an idle fantasy. How many pro-gun riders have been attempted, much less gone through? When was the last time someone tacked on a pro-freedom rider to the latest bipartisan "Safer Neighborhoods and Happier Children Through Increased Government Involvement" bill, eh? No, whenever we want something done, we have to do it the hard way and give the antis every opportunity to fight it every step of the way.
I like the idea of us doing unto them what they do unto us, but it just ain't happening.
Omega_7
Member
Sam Adams
Since the Republicans control both houses... they have zero excuse for not attaching said measures. They have squandered a perfect opportunity to regain lost faith.. the only reason I can think of, (if one were to assume they were sincerely pro 2nd, I do not) is that the anti-2nd prez has signified that he will veto said roll-backs
Since the Republicans control both houses... they have zero excuse for not attaching said measures. They have squandered a perfect opportunity to regain lost faith.. the only reason I can think of, (if one were to assume they were sincerely pro 2nd, I do not) is that the anti-2nd prez has signified that he will veto said roll-backs
Brett Bellmore
Member
"However, I think that 2 can play the rider game - if DiFi can attach AWB2 as a rider, some pro-gun Senate Republicans can attach a rider to eliminate the '86 MG ban, to allow "kitchen table dealers," to have national CCW and/or to repeal the '68 GCA. I particularly like the last 2 - either can be used as a bargaining chip to get DiFi to withdraw her rider, and then S.659 can get a vote on its own merits"
Wouldn't work. The problem with the AWB2 rider, is that a majority of Senators would like to vote for renewing the ban, and only refrain out of fear of us. If given an semi-plausible cover story, like voting for it because it was part of a pro-gun measure, they'd do it.
So it's a workable strategy for DiFi; Either she gets the ban extended, or she kills the reform, she wins either way.
But most members of the Senate, or even the House, would NOT vote for the riders you propose. They'd just be poison pill amendments, the reform doesn't pass, and DiFi is happy. They're not a "threat", because she wins if they're attached to the bill.
Wouldn't work. The problem with the AWB2 rider, is that a majority of Senators would like to vote for renewing the ban, and only refrain out of fear of us. If given an semi-plausible cover story, like voting for it because it was part of a pro-gun measure, they'd do it.
So it's a workable strategy for DiFi; Either she gets the ban extended, or she kills the reform, she wins either way.
But most members of the Senate, or even the House, would NOT vote for the riders you propose. They'd just be poison pill amendments, the reform doesn't pass, and DiFi is happy. They're not a "threat", because she wins if they're attached to the bill.
fix
Member
So put him on the hotseat and force him to show himself.
Sam Adams wrote:
"BTW, it is my opinion that if the AWB is renewed, the NRA will lose 1 million members (and I, a member since 1989, will be one of them)."
I know that many here and elsewhere disagree with the fights the NRA chooses and how it chooses to fight them, but I am *begging* you, regardless of how the AWB issue turns out, *please* don't quit the NRA.
Activists on both sides agree that the NRA is the single most affective gun rights organization in the country. An exodus of members from it would be seen as a major victory for the gun-grabbers and would be heavily exploited in the press. Let us stick to our guns in every sense.
Tim
"BTW, it is my opinion that if the AWB is renewed, the NRA will lose 1 million members (and I, a member since 1989, will be one of them)."
I know that many here and elsewhere disagree with the fights the NRA chooses and how it chooses to fight them, but I am *begging* you, regardless of how the AWB issue turns out, *please* don't quit the NRA.
Activists on both sides agree that the NRA is the single most affective gun rights organization in the country. An exodus of members from it would be seen as a major victory for the gun-grabbers and would be heavily exploited in the press. Let us stick to our guns in every sense.
Tim
Sam Adams
Member
TimRB
Just like the politicians, the NRA leadership depends on money to operate. If they falter on this, they need to know that they'll lose a lot of support. If a law which doesn't even come close to accomplishing the UNconstitutional purpose for which it was passed in the first place, and which had so little support with a Dem Congress and President that it wasn't made permanent in '94, can't be killed with a Rep. Congress and Pres, then what good is the NRA as an "effective" gun rights organization?
OTOH, if they fight like Hell - and I mean kicking and scratching, heavy advertising, public threats of political death to various Congresscritters, very private threats of "inconvenient" facts that will be exposed - then I will remain a member. BUT, they damned well better be able to prove it. Something that would do the trick is to allow S.659 to be killed if this DiFi rider is attached - but, of course, I hope that it isn't, and that we get lawsuit protection and a sunset of the AWB.
Just like the politicians, the NRA leadership depends on money to operate. If they falter on this, they need to know that they'll lose a lot of support. If a law which doesn't even come close to accomplishing the UNconstitutional purpose for which it was passed in the first place, and which had so little support with a Dem Congress and President that it wasn't made permanent in '94, can't be killed with a Rep. Congress and Pres, then what good is the NRA as an "effective" gun rights organization?
OTOH, if they fight like Hell - and I mean kicking and scratching, heavy advertising, public threats of political death to various Congresscritters, very private threats of "inconvenient" facts that will be exposed - then I will remain a member. BUT, they damned well better be able to prove it. Something that would do the trick is to allow S.659 to be killed if this DiFi rider is attached - but, of course, I hope that it isn't, and that we get lawsuit protection and a sunset of the AWB.
Sam Adams
Member
Cordex, Omega_7, Brent Baltimore
I know that we've not had any pro-gun riders like the antis have had, and that the likelihood of getting one is small, but we'll NEVER get them if we don't pressure our 'critters to put them in.
As for Bush being the reason that they won't put them in, I don't buy it. The 'critters will do what is needed to get reelected, period. Enough pressure on a very pro-gun Senator (I assume that there are a few) may get him to propose such a thing and to call in favors to get it passed.
I don't think that DiFi wins every way by proposing such a thing. First, she may not succeed - there's no guarantee that the committee in question will even attach it to the bill for a vote by the full Senate, or that the Senate itself will pass it (Dems in Flyover Country, like Daschle, still have to run for reelection, and will have a hard time explaining THAT vote will claiming to be in favor of gun rights - which we know they're not, but that's a different issue). Anyway, even if it does get out of the Senate, it likely won't get past the conference committee - but if it does, we're screwed.
Another way to mess with DiFi is to have a collegue tell her that if she doesn't withdraw this thing, some favorite legislative goal of hers will go down in flames. I, personally, would favor some project or change in the law that would benefit her husband's business - this way it would be personal. Of course, this requires Senate Republicans to have 2 balls between the lot of them, so I'm not holding my breath.
Still, we can all try - put pressure on your 'critters!
I know that we've not had any pro-gun riders like the antis have had, and that the likelihood of getting one is small, but we'll NEVER get them if we don't pressure our 'critters to put them in.
As for Bush being the reason that they won't put them in, I don't buy it. The 'critters will do what is needed to get reelected, period. Enough pressure on a very pro-gun Senator (I assume that there are a few) may get him to propose such a thing and to call in favors to get it passed.
I don't think that DiFi wins every way by proposing such a thing. First, she may not succeed - there's no guarantee that the committee in question will even attach it to the bill for a vote by the full Senate, or that the Senate itself will pass it (Dems in Flyover Country, like Daschle, still have to run for reelection, and will have a hard time explaining THAT vote will claiming to be in favor of gun rights - which we know they're not, but that's a different issue). Anyway, even if it does get out of the Senate, it likely won't get past the conference committee - but if it does, we're screwed.
Another way to mess with DiFi is to have a collegue tell her that if she doesn't withdraw this thing, some favorite legislative goal of hers will go down in flames. I, personally, would favor some project or change in the law that would benefit her husband's business - this way it would be personal. Of course, this requires Senate Republicans to have 2 balls between the lot of them, so I'm not holding my breath.
Still, we can all try - put pressure on your 'critters!
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
A "rider" means attaching the legislation that you want passed to a bill that is sure to pass in hopes of getting your legislation done along with it. Some riders are "poison pills" meant to kill the bill that is about to pass by making it undesirable to the people who support it - the 1986 machinegun ban was inserted into the Firearm Owners Protection Act as a poison pill.
It is easier to attach and amendment in the Senate rather than the House. The House has stricter rules on such amendments, the committee is involved more in whether they are attached and the amendment has to be related to the bill at hand. In the Senate, pretty much any amendment can be attached to any bill from the floor of the Senate with a majority vote.
Here is an excellent resource discussing the rules of both the Senate and the House:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.toc.html
cordex:
Just within the last month, Congress passed an appropriations bill with an amendment by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R) of Kansas. This amendment made Ashcroft's practice of destroying the records of legitimate, approved NICS purchases immediately (as opposed to the Clinton's 90-day or so policy) the law of the land instead of bureaucratic rule subject to change.
By the way, the Tiahrt amendment also brought back "kitchen-table" FFLs and limited the abuse of ATF trace data in its original format; but those provisions were stripped out in House-Senate conference committee by a fellow Republican Represenative from Virginia - Frank Wolf.
Daedalus
Member
Has been sent to both of my senators. Unfortunately they are both Democrats.
Sam Adams
Member
Well, we'll just have to try again...perhaps after Nightfall & his fellow Virginians throw Wolf out on his RINO arse.
Strings
Member
Monkeyleg might chime in here...
I have to agree that I might very well be one of the million that leave if the AWB passes. Dick and I have talked about it several times: it sems that the people who are out there and fighting for our rights (at the grass-roots level) are the EBR and CCW people, and we're essentially carrying the load of the "just hunters". If the AWB gets renewed, there are a LOT of us that would simply withdraw, as we're bloody well tired of doing the work and getting screwed by the hunters. Point of fact, a couple of the volunteers I've talked to would be tempted to give money to groups like PETA, and let the hunters rot on their own...
Yes, the NRA does good things. But how much farther are we supposed to carry the hunters withou t some return from them?
I have to agree that I might very well be one of the million that leave if the AWB passes. Dick and I have talked about it several times: it sems that the people who are out there and fighting for our rights (at the grass-roots level) are the EBR and CCW people, and we're essentially carrying the load of the "just hunters". If the AWB gets renewed, there are a LOT of us that would simply withdraw, as we're bloody well tired of doing the work and getting screwed by the hunters. Point of fact, a couple of the volunteers I've talked to would be tempted to give money to groups like PETA, and let the hunters rot on their own...
Yes, the NRA does good things. But how much farther are we supposed to carry the hunters withou t some return from them?
- Status
Similar threads
