TexasCHLforum.com

The anti-gun side is presently losing on several fronts: grass roots public opinion, academic historical and crime research (e.g. meaning of 2A and effect of gun control laws) SCOTUS, national legislative, and most state legislative fronts. Their only allies are the MSM, the President, some lower federal courts, a few state legislatures, and big city mayors (e.g. Nanny Bloomers).

Among their allies even some of the press are starting to at least stay away from the issue, the President is scared to take it on publicly (hence "under the radar" stunts like Gunwalker), there is at least a decent chance some of the lower federal courts can be beaten into submission to the Constitution by future SCOTUS decisions, and even the Illinois legislature has some significant pro-gun folks (just not enough yet). Their only effective allies are Bloomers and his MAIG, which bear close watching.


Hence the astro-turf outfits like Brady, NGVAC, and so forth are in a major panic because they are losing both politically and financially, and none of the actual facts support their position so their only possible response is to shriek absurd lies at the top of their lungs.

They would receive a huge victory, however, if Obama is permitted a second term and Republicans cannot capture the Senate. This would give Obama the chance to appoint two or three new SCOTUS justices, as well as continue to appoint lower federal judges and continue to abuse executive power thru the DOJ and other agencies.

It doesn't matter which Republican gets the nomination, any of them will be better than a second Obama term. Vole accordingly.

More panic from the other side. Are they really short, or just trying to whip up the base?

via Say Uncle

http://www.gunpoliticsny.com/?p=5105" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“… Miller sees a real possibility that the Democratic-controlled Senate will approve the bill, possibly as an attachment to a piece of essential legislation, such as authorization for Defense Department appropriations. “My understanding is that our side is two votes short of enough votes to keep that from happening,”

I am guessing many people do not read an entire thread before launching posts. Or automatically discount any evidence that counters their belief.

But moving to new information:

Apparently the Brady folks are publicly claiming they don't have the votes to stop HR 822 in the Senate. http://www.gunpoliticsny.com/?p=5035" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Might be a "cry wolf" tactic to gen up some attention, but interesting anyway. As noted previously, a previous version of National Reciprocity did well in the Senate, and was stopped by a filibuster, not because a majority of senators were opposed to it. Further evidence that it might do very well in the Senate is that Schumer is already sweating ... err... bullets, and Lautenberg and McCarthy are already calling Obama to veto it -- which indicates that they think it could very well pass the Senate.

The Federal government already has its grubby fingers into firearms regulation -- and Heller reaffirms that, by the way -- you don't have to worry about "giving them the power" to regulate national CHL, because the Constitution gives them that power already, via the Commerce Clause as currently intepreted, and it seems also the Privileges and Immunity Clause, which is perhaps the main constitutional hook for it.

Heller was not supposed to make the 2A uber-powerful over the states -- all it was really focused on was whether it was Constitutional for the federal government to deny people the ability to have a handgun in the home for self-defense. The answer was no. A happy effect of the reasoning process is that ALL the Justices said the 2A is an individual, not a collective right. An unhappy effect is that ALL the Justices agreed that the 2A could be regulated by law. The point of dispute among them is about how much regulation is allowable.

The last time National Reciprocity was up for a "proxy" vote in the Senate, a substantial majority of the Senate supported it. I say "proxy" vote because what was really voted on was an attempt to override Sen Schumer's filibuster of the bill. It failed 58-39, meaning 58 senators voted to bring it to the floor for a full Senate vote, but 60 votes were needed to over-ride Schumer's filibustering. (Apparently two RINOs from Ohio bailed at the last moment, sustaining the filibuster).

Apparently most senators support it, and whether Harry Reid, who is indeed slime, but pro-gun slime, will let the House version come up again will depend on a new set of circumstances, the most important of which will be "Will this help Harry Reid?"

Should it get thru the Senate and go to Obama, will he veto it? I don't think that is a foregone conclusion, just like Harry, the O will do whatever is best for him at the moment, and he decide that irritating his base is less important than giving the NRA another stick to beat him with. Take note that he just now signed into law a bill that among other things:

- Makes permanent (as permanent as any law can be) the statutory ban on creating a national registry of firearms or firearms owners (previously this had to be voted on every year by Congress)
- Permanently bans the use of FFL records to create a national registry or database of firearms (another one that had to be voted on every year previously)
- Permanently bans the retention of NICS data for more than 24 hours
- Prevents the DOJ from banning the importation of shotguns because the DOJ decides they don't have a "sporting" purpose
- Prevents the use of funds for any "Gunwalker" type operations
- Prevents the BATFE from pulling a FFL for "low business activity" (not selling "enough" guns to be legit in BATFE eyes)

Several other pro-2A provisions were included in the bill, and the O signed then all into law. Of course they were bundled with other stuff that he wanted more than he wanted a fight with the NRA, but that's how legislation works.

I actually think the big hurdle is getting around Schumer's big mouth with 60 votes, not Obama's veto. Schumer's other pet anti-gun bill got rained on in Committee by Dave Kopel, and I doubt it will go anywhere, so his big chance to show his anti-gun creds will be trying to tie up 822 in the Senate. (And note that Schumer's pet anti-gun bill wants to set up national registration schemes and such -- he didn't need 822 to do that, and it would probably be Constitutional to boot).

So note that while NAGR was bleating about "trojan horse amendments" and national databases and other such stuff via a bill that may or may not make it, the NRA was quietly doing serious work to get actual laws passed against all that kind of stuff.

It had good support in the Senate last time it was introduced there, but Schumer filibustered it. Whether Obama let's it become law or not will depend entirely on the political circumstances at the moment -- he clearly manipulates everything he can to save himself. His base can uproar all they want, who will they vote for instead? the Republican nominee? Ralph Nader? (Run Ralph, run!) If it comes to him before the Demo primaries, and Hillary threatens to run, that might push him to sign it, but otherwise, it will be a wind-check decision.

Bullwhip wrote:It passed. What do we do when Sheila Jackson Lee is in the majority?

Make sure she's never in the majority again. Elections have consequences.

Borrowing from Sebastian's blog again:

Republicans voting Nay:
Amash (R-MI) (NRA notes that he said he would vote for it when he was running for election in 2010).
Dold (R-IL)
Grimm (R-NY)
King (R-NY)
Lungren (R-CA)
Turner (R-NY)
Woodall (R-GA)



Didn't vote:
Bachmann (R, MN)
Gardner (R, CO)
Giffords (D, AZ)
Kaptur (D, OH)
Paul (R, TX)
Schmidt (R, OH)
Shimkus (R, IL)

Henry Cuellar, who is a Texas Dem (and currently my rep), voted Yea. Don't know the other Dems well enough to know who is from TX or wherever.

Full accounting here: http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Democrats' names are in italics.

Whoops - if you go to the link for the clerk of the house, you have to scroll down to "5:49:58 P.M. H.R. 822" and find "Roll no. 852" which will be a blue link. Click on it and it will display the vote on HR 822.

OK, edit #2: Better link to recorded vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll852.xml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

i8godzilla wrote: .... I am against Federal Legislation in this arena. ...

Too bad. Federal legislation in this area is vast and like it or not constitutional per many previous SCOTUS decisions. Anything you are afraid of the Feds taking back with "interest" they can already do without paying any "principal." Refusing to use federal legislation to enhance the 2A simply establishes the principle that federal legislation can only be used to diminish the 2A, never to expand it.

If the courts and the congress ever reverse course on the scope of the Commerce Clauses, I will be happy to flush "national reciprocity" down the toilet along with the GCA of 68, the NFA, the ATF, and all the rest of it. But until then we should not cede the battlefield.

This particular bill is not likely to get past Obama, unfortunately, but it is useful in staking out positions for 2012.

I did not have the fortitude to watch the debate directly, I read Sebastian's blogging of it instead http://www.pagunblog.com/2011/11/16/hr8 ... -blogging/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Texas's Jackson-Lee (Deranged, 18th Dist) apparently was at her raving "best" during debate.

Here is how the amendments went: http://www.pagunblog.com/2011/11/16/vot ... mendments/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Passed the House with one amendment, to do a study ($$ down the rathole ).

http://www.pagunblog.com/2011/11/16/fin ... -on-hr822/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yea: 272, Nay: 154

44 Democrats Voted in Favor
7 Republicans Voted Against