Got the following today. Readers might be interested.

Status
Not open for further replies.

alan

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,601
Location
sowest pa.
Senate Considers Rules Changes That Would Expedite Semiauto Ban Renewal, 50 Caliber Ban

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, March 15, 2005


Last year, the renewal of the semi-auto ban had 52 votes in the
United States Senate -- a clear majority. President George Bush had agreed to sign it into law. And sponsors had the ability to tack it onto a huge must-pass money bill in the House.

True, anti-gun zealots were a little skittish about proposing gun
control on the eve of a presidential election.

It also helped that GOA's grassroots were incredibly vocal during
last year's fight over the semi-auto ban. Several times, GOA
activists helped "educate" their Senators -- and most especially,
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

But while grassroots gun owners fought and won several legislative battles, GOA also resorted to "inside baseball" tactics to help kill the gun ban. On one occasion, GOA encouraged a friendly Senator to threaten a filibuster -- a threat which ultimately kept the semi-auto ban out of the DoD authorization bill.

In similar fashion, a filibuster by former New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) slowed down post-Columbine legislation and gave GOA time to kill it.

Had it not been for that filibuster, we would have been saddled with legislation which would:

* Effectively eliminate gun shows;

* Impose a semi-automatic import ban;

* Require that you keep trigger locks on your guns at all times
and,

* Implement a lifetime gun ban for playground fights and other
juvenile indiscretions.

The bottom line? It is fair to say that time and again, a generation of senators has filibustered gun control legislation -- or, more
importantly, prevented gun control from being considered by
threatening to filibuster it. Without the threat of a filibuster, we
would almost certainly have national gun registration... at the very least.

Now, in order to force confirmation of seven judges, the Senate is
considering abolishing the filibuster outright.

No one is underestimating the importance of the federal courts and of pro-gun federal judges. And GOA has provided the Senate Leadership with procedural tools that would force the confirmation of Bush-nominated judges.

But the abolition of the right to filibuster, and the comprehensive
gun registration and control which is sure to follow, is not a fair
price for achieving the goal of a pro-gun Supreme Court -- a goal
which might not happen anyway, considering how awful many past Republican picks have been (e.g., Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, etc.). Yet Senate Republicans seem prepared to throw out the baby with the bath water.

It is imperative that gun owners tell their Senators that they do NOT support the abolishment of the filibuster... for any reason!

One more thing: Don't let your senator try to tell you that it is
possible to eliminate the filibuster of nominations, but not the
filibuster of gun control. It can't be done. The two filibusters
are inseparable.

To see GOA's in depth analysis of the filibuster -- and current
legislative efforts to kill it -- go to
http://www.gunowners.org/a031505a.htm on the GOA website.

ACTION: Please use the pre-written message below to contact your two senators. Tell them to preserve the right to filibuster gun control and gun registration. Tell them to oppose the so-called procedural "nuclear option," which would abolish the right to filibuster gun control.

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators a
pre-written e-mail message.

----- Pre-written message -----

Dear Senator:

The semi-automatic ban was killed by the threat of a Senate
filibuster.

Legislation to effectively ban gun shows was killed, in part, because it was stalled by a Senate filibuster.

The same is true for an anti-gun "lock-up-your-safety" proposal, a
semiautomatic import ban and a bill to allow racketeering suits
against gun dealers and manufacturers.

Now, some senators are proposing to do away with the filibuster
through the so-called "nuclear option."

Make no mistake about it: It is IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate the
filibuster of nominations, without effectively killing the filibuster
of gun control legislation as well.

Gun Owners of America has provided an in-depth Fact Sheet -- at
http://www.gunowners.org/a031505a.htm -- which examines the benefits of the filibuster and shows the pitfalls endemic to following the so-called "nuclear option."

Please vote to preserve the filibuster of gun control and
registration. And please oppose the "nuclear option."

Sincerely,

****************************

Note: Attempts to do future damage to your rights in exchange for short-term advances are also prevalent in the states. In particular, a genuine movement seems to be underway whereby pro-gun bills are being saddled with state-level Lautenberg misdemeanor gun bans. Some ask, why is this a problem? Such a provision simply mirrors current federal law, right? Well, GOA would point out that two years ago, a state-level semi-auto ban would also have simply mirrored federal law.

Thanks to your activism and the power of the filibuster, the federal semi-auto ban no longer exists. And GOA has NEVER conceded that the federal Lautenberg ban is here to stay, either. So to those grassroots leaders who are working bills at the state level, we urge you to insist that your bills stay "clean" and tell your friends in the legislature that a state-level Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban is not acceptable under any circumstances.

Posters Note:

I write my own letters, though the above could certainly prove useful. Whichever route you might choose, choosing to Let The Other Guy Do It, is the worst possible choice.
 
Hmmm,
I think I'll start a lawsuit against Diane Feinstein. I've written so many letters in the last three years to fight against gun control efforts she supports, I think she owes me compensation for the carpal tunnel it's giving me.... :neener:
 
Are you sure about that?

As I understand it the proposed senate rules change involves ONLY filabusters over judicial nominations and leaves all other filabusters intact. I think they're crying wolf a little too soon.


I.C.
 
As I understand it the proposed senate rules change involves ONLY filabusters over judicial nominations and leaves all other filabusters intact. I think they're crying wolf a little too soon.

That's the way I understood it too
 
Deja vu all over again with the misplaced alarm. This has been happening a lot with NRA-ILA stuff especially. I realize they want to motivate people, but they should at least be honest. *

*same goes for candidate rankings, thats something I truly hate about the NRA, no transparency in the ranking system. They often just give an "A" to whoever they want to win and an "F" to the other guy with no explanation.
 
GOA is not NRA

Power Struggle. GOA is almost rabid in their mental process. NRA is willing to compromise too much. Need a middle ground between the two.
 
What fillibuster? As far as I know, there has not been a single fillibuster during the Bush administration. What there have been are threats of a fillibuster. Whenever the Dems threaten, the Repubs back down. :banghead: If the Repubs would make the Dems staff a 24/7 live fillibuster aired on C-SPAN just once, it would annoy the public enough that the pols might be deterred from doing it (or threatening it) except in extreme situation (as it was intended). :fire:
 
This may not be a popular position, but I oppose the removal of the filibuster for any reason--judicial nominations or otherwise. While I think the Democrats' behavior over nominations has been childish, the filibuster is in place to help prevent tyranny by majority. The current majority-party geniuses are attempting to force their position without realizing that they may not always be in the majority.

Edited to add: What Henry Bowman said, too! :)
 
you guys should actually read the GOA doc. This may be presumptuous, but I'm guessing those of you who understood differently, did so because of Rush Limbaugh.

Rush is a shameless shill for Bush and he is wrong more often than not. The GOA doc explained in detail why Rush's rants are full of crap. It even called out Rush's argument specifically (that the nuclear options affect only judicial nominees and not legislation) and debunked it thoroughly.


Essentially, the filibuster isn't really any different than having a 60% majority instead of a 50% majority or a "super majority".

If you have 60%, then filibuster isn't an option. So filibustering only works when you have between 51 and 59 votes.

In other words, it just slows down legislation and prevents a very slim majority from doing something that's highly offensive to the very slim minority.

That makes sense to me.
 
I'm for keeping the filibuster, too. But make them actually do it! Staff it with Senators who will gab 24/7 until the other party says uncle (or the gabbers run out of steam or the will to keep going). When the filibuster dies, then there is an up or down vote. If the filibuster continues and the will of the people is behind the gabber, the bill is pulled from the floor.
 
Now, in order to force confirmation of seven judges, the Senate is
considering abolishing the filibuster outright.

No, they are not!!!

The proposed rule is only for the Judicial nomination process. This is just Democratic FUD, the hysterical shrieks of a shrinking minority who are desperate to retain some grasp on power. They know that, if the Bush administration can get "their" nominees in to the Federal court system and the Supreme Court, that decades of liberal judicial activism will be in danger of overturn.
 
It is certainly possible that I've missed something, somewhere along the way, but respecting this "nuclear option", and the GOA message that I posted, I'm totally unaware of any stipulation whatever that would limit it to judicial nominations.

In the event that anyone knows better, please correct me, with specifics. Meantime, it seems to me that the national legislature, as currently constituted, House and Senate that is, aren't all that trustworthy when it comes to the rights of the individual. If you doubt this, have a look at legislation proposed and enacted since our second Day Of Infamy, 11 September 2001. The image one gets is less than encouraging, at least I find it so. Of course, I could be wrong.

After a review of legislative proposals, and what has become of them, take a look at the antics of the bureaucracy, TSA in particular, with respect to the following question. How long is the pooch screw that they have made of "arming airline pilots" actually REARMING would be a more correct term, going to carry on?

Having done that, try the following. Given all the data available to "government" prior to 9/11, why in blazes were airline pilots unarmed in the first place? It used to be that they were armed. Why the change, and who is/are the idiots responsible therefore. Additionally, how high have they been PROMOTED in reward for their truly sterling service to the people of this country in particular, and to air transportation in general?

Finally, what in blazes was going on with the INS, that these Muslims clowns got into this country in the first place??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top