Senate Deal on Background Check Law

[ToddG]

Roll Call: Manchin, Toomey Prepare to Unveil Gun Deal (http://www.rollcall.com/news/manchin_toomey_prepare_to_unveil_gun_deal-223858-1.html?ET=rollcall:e15455:30614a:&st=email&pos=eam)


The plan is expected to stop short of language currently in the bill that would require background checks on nearly all gun sales, including between private parties. Instead, Toomey aides said, the proposal would require background checks for private sales at gun shows and on the Internet, two areas that are currently exempt.

[Tamara]

The media, being totally uninformed on how things work, is not helping me here, and the senators are only marginally better.

I'm waiting to see the actual legislation to determine my level of freakout.

[Pennzoil]

From an AZCDL email I recieved this morning. I already emailed my senators.

On March 21st, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced Senate Bill 649 (S. 649) under the deliberately misleading title of the “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013,” and is attempting to bring it to the Senate floor for a vote as quickly as possible. By all accounts, he has also promised Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) a vote on her proposed ban on semi-automatic firearms and standard capacity magazines as an amendment to S. 649.

The true subject of S. 649 is the requirement to report all firearms transfers to the federal government via “universal background checks.” In reality S. 649 is proposing the universal registration of all firearms and their owners. As history has repeatedly shown us, and is currently being demonstrated in New York, registration is the prelude to confiscation.

While the proposed legislation contains limited exceptions for transfers, such as between family members, a little digging shows that you would be committing a federal felony if you:
•Leave town for more than 7 days, and leave someone else at home with your firearms;
•Lend a firearm to a friend to take shooting or to go hunting;
•Loan a firearm to a family member if they live at a different residence;
•Hand a firearm to someone at a gun club which is not a shooting range;
•Teach someone to shoot on your own land, if you hand them the firearm; or
•Fail to report a firearm as lost or stolen within 24 hours.

S. 649 is unacceptable in any form and compromise is not an option. This bill must be stopped!

The passage of S. 649 will only be possible if enough Republicans sell out and vote in favor of a proposed “Motion to Proceed”, ending a filibuster that 14 Senators have already committed to.

While AzCDL’s focus is primarily on Arizona legislation, we have joined with over 38 state and national organization to form a coalition to defeat the Obama Administration’s “gun control” proposals. As with local legislation, how effective we are depends on your involvement.

[Robinson]

Roll Call: Manchin, Toomey Prepare to Unveil Gun Deal (http://www.rollcall.com/news/manchin_toomey_prepare_to_unveil_gun_deal-223858-1.html?ET=rollcall:e15455:30614a:&st=email&pos=eam)

Waitaminute... does that actually say internet gun sales are exempt from background checks? Really doesn't tell the whole story, does it?

[TCinVA]

It's a sign of how ridiculous our society has become when we see something in print that's not even close to being correct and we're unsure if the fault lies with the idiot reporters who don't know what they're reporting on or the idiot politicians who don't understand what they're legislating.

[ToddG]

It's a sign of how ridiculous our society has become when we see something in print that's not even close to being correct and we're unsure if the fault lies with the idiot reporters who don't know what they're reporting on or the idiot politicians who don't understand what they're legislating.

In this case, I'm fairly certain it's both. The Brady Bunch et al have been fear mongering in the hallways about the danger of those unrestricted internet gun sales. :rolleyes:

But frankly, if they're going to pass new gun control laws, I'd prefer them to focus on outlawing things that are already illegal. "In a bold move in the War on Drugs, Congress today voted to make selling heroin illegal..."

[TCinVA]

In this case, I'm fairly certain it's both. The Brady Bunch et al have been fear mongering in the hallways about the danger of those unrestricted internet gun sales. :rolleyes:

But frankly, if they're going to pass new gun control laws, I'd prefer them to focus on outlawing things that are already illegal. "In a bold move in the War on Drugs, Congress today voted to make selling heroin illegal..."

Agreed. I'm all in favor of our enemies being complete idiots.

I probably shouldn't be flabbergasted by the prospect of those who claim to be our betters having insufficient intellectual curiosity to try and order one of them there death machines off the interwebs just to see if they could do it before deciding to write laws that ban it, but the part of my brain dedicated to reason just keeps screaming about how utterly moronic it is.

Then the part of my brain that's dedicated to trepidation about the future reminds the rest of my brain that these people are making laws governing healthcare, economics, education, and everything else that's actually important in life. Hence my chimpanzees in a nuclear plant analogy.

[fuse]

Any word on whether this has the votes in the house?

[ford.304]

In this case, I'm fairly certain it's both. The Brady Bunch et al have been fear mongering in the hallways about the danger of those unrestricted internet gun sales. :rolleyes:


Anyone else think the standard for new expansive gun rights bills should be "whatever the Brady Bunch says current law is"? I'd love to go buy a fully automatic weapon off the internet tomorrow with no background check.

[Kyle Reese]

Anyone else think the standard for new expansive gun rights bills should be "whatever the Brady Bunch says current law is"? I'd love to go buy a fully automatic weapon off the internet tomorrow with no background check.

You mean a Bushwacker AK-15 with a 17 clip? Nobody needs one of those to hunt with. They're too powerful, too inaccurate and belong on the battlefield, not the streets of America.

1388

[SteveK]

Suffice it to say that we West Virginians have cast our last votes for Senator Manchin. Talk about a sell out. He's obviously forgotten all those campaign ads in which he'd pose with guns and proclaim his undying support for our rights.

[BWT]

Suffice it to say that we West Virginians have cast our last votes for Senator Manchin. Talk about a sell out. He's obviously forgotten all those campaign ads in which he'd pose with guns and proclaim his undying support for our rights.

That's honestly why I can't vote for a conservative Democrat. Party lines, I don't care how "rogue" or "maverick" they are, when the President of the United States and the rest of their party votes one way, I don't want to throw the dice on how much campaign support and contributions mean to them versus their personal convictions. Being a Senator is their job, how many employees tell their Boss Heck No! On a regular basis?

ETA: Versus someone having to tell their party Heck No! And support a law their whole party is against?

I mean Olympia Snow, IMHO should be removed from the GOP for the stunt she pulled with Obamacare, and she regrets it. But that's another story for another day.

I expect Politicians to be elected by popular vote, so by nature they have to be self-serving. I'd vote Republican.

[secondstoryguy]

I just read over the proposed bill. It appears they are earmaking money for a more advanced NICS check system and making pretty much every transfer of firearms required to go through said system. Sounds like universal registration under a different name. Another problem I have with it is the fact that its a solution looking for a problem, as the proposed law would not have prevented any of the recent mass murder's from obtaining a firearm.

[RoyGBiv]

I just read over the proposed bill.
Link?

[BaiHu]

More interesting things to note:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s649/text


SEC. 123. LOST AND STOLEN REPORTING.
(a) In General- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end--

‘(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person who lawfully possesses or owns a firearm that has been shipped or transported in, or has been possessed in or affecting, interstate or foreign commerce, to fail to report the theft or loss of the firearm, within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to the appropriate local authorities.’.

(b) Penalty- Section 924(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:

‘(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), (q), or (aa) of section 922;’.

and if I'm following this correctly:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/924

perhaps this means:


(a)
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, subsection (b), (c), (f), or (p) of this section, or in section 929, whoever—
(A) knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter or in applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability under the provisions of this chapter;
(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), or (q) ofsection 922;
(C) knowingly imports or brings into the United States or any possession thereof any firearm or ammunition in violation of section 922 (l); or
(D) willfully violates any other provision of this chapter,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Am I reading this right?

[Tamara]

No, S.649 as it stood is what was going to get filibustered. We need the text of the revised compromise version announced this morning.

G_______t, this rumormongering on gun fora is exactly what I was ranting about in the Colt thread.

Does anyone have a link to today's proposed revisions, not what was sent in a mass email yesterday from ShallNotBeInfringedEleventy.com?

[BaiHu]

No, S.649 as it stood is what was going to get filibustered. We need the text of the revised compromise version announced this morning.

G_______t, this rumormongering on gun fora is exactly what I was ranting about in the Colt thread.

Does anyone have a link to today's proposed revisions, not what was sent in a mass email yesterday from ShallNotBeInfringedEleventy.com?

I fall back on TC's quote:


It's a sign of how ridiculous our society has become when we see something in print that's not even close to being correct and we're unsure if the fault lies with the idiot reporters who don't know what they're reporting on or the idiot politicians who don't understand what they're legislating.

And, we the people, get to try and figure it all out :p

[David Armstrong]

No, S.649 as it stood is what was going to get filibustered. We need the text of the revised compromise version announced this morning.

G_______t, this rumormongering on gun fora is exactly what I was ranting about in the Colt thread.

Does anyone have a link to today's proposed revisions, not what was sent in a mass email yesterday from ShallNotBeInfringedEleventy.com?
Now Tamara, you know that when it comes to gun legislation the facts just can't compete with a good rumour.

[Tamara]

In this case, I'm fairly certain it's both. The Brady Bunch et al have been fear mongering in the hallways about the danger of those unrestricted internet gun sales. :rolleyes:

But frankly, if they're going to pass new gun control laws, I'd prefer them to focus on outlawing things that are already illegal. "In a bold move in the War on Drugs, Congress today voted to make selling heroin illegal..."

It looks like the compromise bill would require background checks at gun shows, except for private sales (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/10/guns-background-checks-senate-manchin-toomey/2070099/).

The NRA spokesperson who delivered that news poker-faced needs a raise.

[MEH]

From WASHPO:

"A precise list of which transactions would be covered by the background-check deal was not immediately available. One person familiar with the discussions said the proposed legislation would likely require background checks on all advertised transactions, including those posted on Internet sale sites. It was unlikely, the person said, that sales conducted through an individual, private e-mail exchange would be governed by the new deal. But, he added, it is impossible to say with certainty until legislative language is announced. "


Just how in the world is this going to be regulated?

[ToddG]

Just how in the world is this going to be regulated?

http://images.hitfix.com/photos/2756675/James-Roday-on-Psych_event_main.jpg

Though I hear he's already been booked for the rest of 2013 by Gov Cuomo to divine which New Yorkers are putting more than seven rounds into their 10rd magazines. Naughty naughty!

[Kyle Reese]

Just how in the world is this going to be regulated?

1389

[JConn]

1389

Pure awesome.

[MEH]

http://images.hitfix.com/photos/2756675/James-Roday-on-Psych_event_main.jpg


Awesome! Family just got done watching every Psych episode on Netflix. (We're now on Dr. Who so save up those witty Whoism's)

[BaiHu]

Just how in the world is this going to be regulated?

The same way healthcare will be regulated: ad hoc, off the cuff, randomly, erratically and with no issues whatsoever :rolleyes:

Oh, did I mention the lives saved, efficiencies discovered and money saved?



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[RoyGBiv]

‘(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person who lawfully possesses or owns a firearm that has been shipped or transported in, or has been possessed in or affecting, interstate or foreign commerce, to fail to report the theft or loss of the firearm, within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to the appropriate local authorities.’.

THE Attorney General...????
What's the email address for that?
Do they give read receipts? AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Dear AG Holder,
Some f***stick stole my gun.
Was it one of your guys looking for another piece to send to Mexico?

Consider yourself "notified".

Respectfully,
RGB

ETA: Here's the face I was making when I typed that.
http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/timothy-olyphant-justified-s3.jpg

[BaiHu]

THE Attorney General...????
What's the email address for that?
Do they give read receipts? AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Dear AG Holder,
Some f***stick stole my gun.
Was it one of your guys looking for another piece to send to Mexico?

Consider yourself "notified".

Respectfully,
RGB

Lmao! Doesn't everyone have Holder's number?

1800fstnfrs

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Drang]

It's a sign of how ridiculous our society has become when we see something in print that's not even close to being correct and we're unsure if the fault lies with the idiot reporters who don't know what they're reporting on or the idiot politicians who don't understand what they're legislating.

New quote of the day.

[Palmguy]

http://images.hitfix.com/photos/2756675/James-Roday-on-Psych_event_main.jpg

Though I hear he's already been booked for the rest of 2013 by Gov Cuomo to divine which New Yorkers are putting more than seven rounds into their 10rd magazines. Naughty naughty!




THE Attorney General...????
What's the email address for that?
Do they give read receipts? AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Dear AG Holder,
Some f***stick stole my gun.
Was it one of your guys looking for another piece to send to Mexico?

Consider yourself "notified".

Respectfully,
RGB

ETA: Here's the face I was making when I typed that.
http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/timothy-olyphant-justified-s3.jpg

Well played, gentlemen. Well played.

[Corvus]

I think they know it is unlikely to make it through the house and when /if it fails in the house they will try to use that to regain the house in the 2014 elections.

[hufnagel]

THE Attorney General...????
What's the email address for that?
Do they give read receipts? AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Dear AG Holder,
Some f***stick stole my gun.
Was it one of your guys looking for another piece to send to Mexico?

Consider yourself "notified".

Respectfully,
RGB

ETA: Here's the face I was making when I typed that.
http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/timothy-olyphant-justified-s3.jpg

thanks.
I was eating when I read that. now I need to make a new sandwich since I just spit mine across the room from laughing.

[Drang]

The weekly Standard has posted what they have been told is the text of the compromise bill.

The section of Firearms Transfers is... interesting...
As I noted on my blog:

Section 122, FIREARMS TRANSFERS
It affirms your right to "transfer" a gun to a relative (t) (2) (C):

...the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law

Otherwise, private transfers are legal if

"(B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-
"(i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and
"(ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State;
Section (B)(i) inspires me with no confidence whatsoever.

[wrt81]

The text has been released:

http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968

Analysis of it:

http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/04/11/we-have-language-on-the-toomey-manchin-amendment/

[John Ralston]

So, if we place an add to sell it will have to go through an FFL...at a cost (that's also known as a TAX) for exercising our Constitutional Right. Then you have to find an FFL that will actually do the transfer. Then if you live in WA, the DOR will collect sales tax on the purchase, even though it is a private sale and the sales tax has already been paid by the previous owner.

This is how the beginning of the end starts...

[ToddG]

So, if we place an add to sell it will have to go through an FFL...

As I read it (and admittedly I read it quickly), no.

Obviously if you sell it to someone in another state you need to go through an FFL. That's no change.

If you see it person to person within a state, so long as your state has a law echoing the federal prohibitions (felon, etc.) then it will also be ok. I'm sure there will be some issues here since USDOJ will have to certify the state law and the current AG will probably put up as many roadblocks as possible but eventually states will make whatever necessary minor changes are necessary to quote federal law.

I'm not suggesting it's awesome, but it's not the end of the world, either.

Pam: "Oh my God... for TEOTWAWKI!"
Malory: "The bear from Star Wars?"

[LHS]

As I read it (and admittedly I read it quickly), no.

Obviously if you sell it to someone in another state you need to go through an FFL. That's no change.

If you see it person to person within a state, so long as your state has a law echoing the federal prohibitions (felon, etc.) then it will also be ok. I'm sure there will be some issues here since USDOJ will have to certify the state law and the current AG will probably put up as many roadblocks as possible but eventually states will make whatever necessary minor changes are necessary to quote federal law.

I'm not suggesting it's awesome, but it's not the end of the world, either.

Pam: "Oh my God... for TEOTWAWKI!"
Malory: "The bear from Star Wars?"

I read it slightly differently. It seemed the exception was for states that have their own background check mechanisms in place, and if so, you could use those instead of NICS. Then again, you're the guy with the JD.

[joshs]

I read it slightly differently. It seemed the exception was for states that have their own background check mechanisms in place, and if so, you could use those instead of NICS.

I believe this is correct. Otherwise, private transfers in those states would have to go through both the state and (proposed) federal process.

ETA: I think the misconception is due to poor drafting. The provision says "in compliance with this section," which would be all of section 922. I think that will be changed to "subsection" during codification if the bill is enacted.

[ToddG]

I believe this is correct. Otherwise, private transfers in those states would have to go through both the state and (proposed) federal process.

http://global3.memecdn.com/dammit-im-mad_o_1090934.jpg

[John Ralston]

Except that it states that if you place an ad on the internet or in a publication with the intent to transfer it has to go through an FFL, even for a private sale.

[LHS]

It does seem to say that person-to-person sales are fine without a check if the buyer has a CCW that meets ATF's requirements for skipping the check at an FFL (like, say, AZ), and that there are no requirements to retain proof of sale or the check. If so, it'll be nearly impossible to actually prosecute someone for a F2F transfer outside of a sting operation.

[joshs]

Except that it states that if you place an ad on the internet or in a publication with the intent to transfer it has to go through an FFL, even for a private sale.

Only if the transfer were to occur pursuant to that ad. If you sold it to someone who didn't know the ad existed, then the transfer certainly couldn't be considered to have been made pursuant to the ad. How they plan on proving whether a person saw an ad before a private sale occurs is an interesting question.

[joshs]

It does seem to say that person-to-person sales are fine without a check if the buyer has a CCW that meets ATF's requirements for skipping the check at an FFL (like, say, AZ), and that there are no requirements to retain proof of sale or the check. If so, it'll be nearly impossible to actually prosecute someone for a F2F transfer outside of a sting operation.

The permit exception only applies to transfers where an FFL first takes the firearm into his inventory, so there still be a record in the FFL's "bound book."

[Tamara]

Guys! Guys! I just watched that "I'm Just A Bill" video from Schoolhouse Rock, and it says that bills have to pass the Senate and the House before they "♪♫ get in a line with the other bills the president is waitin' to sign...♪♫"

;)

[RoyGBiv]

But everyone knows Kevin Bacon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Kevin_Bacon), right?
So there's still a way to avoid the FLL with 6 or fewer transfers. (where's the sarcastic eye roll smilie?)

[ToddG]

Guys! Guys! I just watched that "I'm Just A Bill" video from Schoolhouse Rock,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0

[ToddG]

This one is better (though utterly off topic).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0efqnvYz4YI

[BaiHu]

Awesome!

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[John Ralston]

Guys! Guys! I just watched that "I'm Just A Bill" video from Schoolhouse Rock, and it says that bills have to pass the Senate and the House before they "♪♫ get in a line with the other bills the president is waitin' to sign...♪♫"

;)

True, but...I can't believe that some of the Republicans voted to let it go to debate, knowing what is in it (although it is more likely that they have no clue what is in it).

[Tamara]

True, but...I can't believe that some of the Republicans voted to let it go to debate, knowing what is in it (although it is more likely that they have no clue what is in it).

If it doesn't go to debate, you can't get a gold star from the NRA for voting against it; that's what had all the DNC... sorry, NBC commentators all upset, calling it cynical politics.

Some version of this thing is going to get out of the Senate one way or another; the real fight's in the House. I just hope the Senate can drag this thing out long enough for the dogs of the media to find another car to chase. Maybe another over-the-hill pop star could choke on their last cookie or something.

[peterb]

True, but...I can't believe that some of the Republicans voted to let it go to debate, knowing what is in it (although it is more likely that they have no clue what is in it).

I'd rather have all bills go to the floor for debate than have the games that both sides play to determine what reaches the floor. It's annoying no matter who's in charge.

[Shellback]

Gun Owners of America has compiled a short list of some of the problems. GOA - Ten Really Important Problems with the Toomey-Schumer Sell-out (http://gunowners.org/congress04112013.htm)

[John Ralston]

I'd rather have all bills go to the floor for debate than have the games that both sides play to determine what reaches the floor. It's annoying no matter who's in charge.

This is true, and I tend to agree with you, but this was sent out of committee when it was basically a blank sheet of paper. There should be some procedural rules where this isn't allowed to happen. The bill that reaches the floor should be what was voted on in committee, not an "we'll fill the pages later and oh...that will probably be offered up as an amendment."

[John Ralston]

Dt...

[G60]

Some version of this thing is going to get out of the Senate one way or another; the real fight's in the House.

The whole Second Amendment Foundation thing is going to create a very interesting dynamic. I don't know what the strategy is though, and I know the NRA and SAF aren't exactly on the best terms with each other, so exactly what's going on behind the scenes is a mystery to me. Are NRA and SAF working together to send a watered down bill to the house where maybe NRA isn't as certain anymore they've got the votes to block a bill?

I agree that this was going to get out of the senate no matter what, and I think it's a positive thing if it gets out as watered down or with as many pro-gun amendments as possible.
On the other hand, I understand that passing nothing would be the death knell to Bloomberg and gun control in general.

[Lot2Learn]

After reading Caleb's post on gun nuts, I made sure to email my senators. This fight is probably never going to be over, I am prepared for that. I would expect fellow gun owners to feel the same way. I realize that we may need to pick and choose our battles. I for one, do not want to think that I didn't do everything I could. Please stay in contact with your elected officials on all levels.



http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/04/16/how-alan-gottlieb-sold-out-your-gun-rights/

[G60]

Every theory, or supposed "debunking" in that link is wrong.

CCRKBA scuttled the bill, just like a similar amendment did to the WA state universal background check bill.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/gun-control-bill-in-peril-90117.html

[Hatchetman]

Scholar David Kopel is not a fan of Manchin-Toomey:

http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/15/the-pro-gun-provisions-of-manchin-toomey-are-actually-a-bonanza-of-gun-control/

[jetfire]

I am made deeply uncomfortable by the fact that I agree with GOA on a political issue.

[ToddG]

Senate Rejects Gun Control Bill 54-46 (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background-checks-on-gun-purchases)


The Senate’s failure to expand background checks means the three pillars of Obama’s gun-control agenda have stalled. The chamber is expected to reject proposals to ban military-style semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background-checks-on-gun-purchases#ixzz2QkyQ5Nge
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

[Tamara]

Obama to speak from Rose Garden at 5:30.

I would give my right arm for press credentials and the first question, just so I could ask: "Mr. President! Mr. President! Who's the sad clown? Awww, who's the sad clown?"

[orionz06]

It fails yet I will still need to have a background check performed when I purchase the first G34 I see at a gun show...

[hufnagel]

Obama to speak from Rose Garden at 5:30.

I would give my right arm for press credentials and the first question, just so I could ask: "Mr. President! Mr. President! Who's the sad clown? Awww, who's the sad clown?"

tell me where to send it and i'll donate $1000 for you to get those credentials, and to fund whatever legal defense you need afterwards, just to have to say and do that. :D

[SecondsCount]

Obama to speak from Rose Garden at 5:30.

I would give my right arm for press credentials and the first question, just so I could ask: "Mr. President! Mr. President! Who's the sad clown? Awww, who's the sad clown?"

Excellent!

[hufnagel]

man he threw a bitch fit right there in the beginning.
embarassment to the office of the president.

[BaiHu]

Obama to speak from Rose Garden at 5:30.

I would give my right arm for press credentials and the first question, just so I could ask: "Mr. President! Mr. President! Who's the sad clown? Awww, who's the sad clown?" *BOOP*

I added a little flourish, LOL! You're the reason why 'bitch' isn't always a bad word. You go, girl!

Had to add the Hypocrite in Charges video link where he chastises democracy for working the way it was supposed to and lies about the 90% agree with his notion of reality and lies about the people involved in this decision by lying himself:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-on-failed-gun-legislation-pretty-shameful-day/2013/04/17/19764b72-a7a4-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_video.html

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 2

[fixer]

Any guesses when the stupid panic buying is going to slow or stop? I'd love to get a box of 9mm for less than 5x what I paid 6 mos ago.

[JConn]

Any guesses when the stupid panic buying is going to slow or stop? I'd love to get a box of 9mm for less than 5x what I paid 6 mos ago.

A few months if there isn't another shooting that gets national attention. They are going to try and turn every shooting into a national issue though. There has been more talk of shootings on the news lately than I've ever heard. Hopefully there aren't any more nut jobs out there to screw with stuff for at least a while.

[Sparks2112]

Any guesses when the stupid panic buying is going to slow or stop? I'd love to get a box of 9mm for less than 5x what I paid 6 mos ago.

Manufacturers raised their price across the board April 1st....

[SecondsCount]

Any guesses when the stupid panic buying is going to slow or stop? I'd love to get a box of 9mm for less than 5x what I paid 6 mos ago.

I think the panic buying has already stopped. It is the regular shooters that are trying to replenish their supply that are buying up anything that is available.

[Drang]

Wow, President Sad Panda is a whiny little delusional bitch, isn't he? "A minority blocked...?"

Wow.

[JConn]

Wow, President Sad Panda is a whiny little delusional bitch, isn't he? "A minority blocked...?"

Wow.

Yep a 60 vote minority. Math is hard.

[JV_]

Yep a 60 vote minority. Math is hard.

Using their own rules, as long as one democrat voted with the republicans - it was bipartisan.

[RoyGBiv]

4 (5 if you include Reids' procedural switch) D's against.... 4 R's voted in favor.


Four Republicans voted for the amendment, but five Democrats voted against it. One of those Democrats was Reid -- who only switched his vote to oppose it because doing so allows Democrats to call up the measure again. Other Democrats who voted against the measure for non-procedural reasons were Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana.
...............
Only four Republican senators committed to voting for the amendment ahead of time. The last was Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who announced his support Wednesday afternoon. The other three were Toomey, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.

[RoyGBiv]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-on-failed-gun-legislation-pretty-shameful-day/2013/04/17/19764b72-a7a4-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_video.html
Not sure why I could not make that ^^^ video play...
This one was ok for me..
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/obama-says-gun-control-defeat-marks-shameful-day-for-washington/

[Tamara]

Wow, President Sad Panda is a whiny little delusional bitch, isn't he? "A minority blocked...?"

Wow.

Yeah, that was where I threw my hands up and walked out of the room, too. This must be one of those 54% minorities...

[ToddG]

54 voted in favor, 46 voted against. The threshold needed to move forward was 60.

So yes, a minority voted against it.

[Tamara]

Well, derp.

That's what I get for running my mouth like an NBC newscaster before reading everything when I get back from the grocery store.

Hey, I've got a suspect in custody for the Boston thing, too. You think CNN will hire me?

[RoyGBiv]

Yes John, you DO stink.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSydFzWwAGyZ0n4u1OO-72Dn8lXoxlDrXeVeIIEKgTCSTIhmumhRw

[G60]

Gottlieb played the Senate like a fiddle.

[LHS]

Gottlieb played the Senate like a fiddle.

How so? He was for the bill before he went against it.

[DanH]

How so? He was for the bill before he went against it.

now THAT is Senatorial all right

[hufnagel]

if Gottlieb was playing poker with the big red button that's fine, but damnit man I'm already on heartburn meds! cut that sh!t out!

[Tamara]

Gottlieb played the Senate like a fiddle.

Yeah,he totally planned for it to work out like this. Hey, did you know there's no entry for "gullible" in the dictionary?:p

Gottlieb maneuvered himself into a position where he had an excellent advertising claim for his effectiveness however the Senate voted. Ironically, the only person I've heard talking about Gottlieb's pivotal role is Gottlieb. Senators, POTUS, and Bloomberg are all talking about the NRA.

[Kyle Reese]

Yes John, you DO stink.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSydFzWwAGyZ0n4u1OO-72Dn8lXoxlDrXeVeIIEKgTCSTIhmumhRw

He needs to retire, just like the rest of the RINO pretenders who voted against us yesterday.

[Sinker]

I would love to have a book or documentary on what sort of House of Cards type machinations went on during the run up to that vote. Of course, it would be pretty difficult to get something like that with an objective pov.

[JConn]

54 voted in favor, 46 voted against. The threshold needed to move forward was 60.

So yes, a minority voted against it.

Sorry I was reading awb numbers

[SteveK]

QUestion...if the so-called 90% supported Manchin bill, how come 55% voted against it?

[TCinVA]

Yeah,he totally planned for it to work out like this. Hey, did you know there's no entry for "gullible" in the dictionary?:p

Gottlieb maneuvered himself into a position where he had an excellent advertising claim for his effectiveness however the Senate voted. Ironically, the only person I've heard talking about Gottlieb's pivotal role is Gottlieb. Senators, POTUS, and Bloomberg are all talking about the NRA.

Some might call this a "clue".

[NickA]

It sure seems that SAF (or CCRKBA) is trying to muscle in on NRA's "turf" of influencing legislative action, in addition to their great work in the courts. God forbid they just cooperate, let NRA fight Congress and SAF take up the court fights (I know that's probably overly simplified and idealistic, but hey, it's my fantasy :o)

[hufnagel]

QUestion...if the so-called 90% supported Manchin bill, how come 55% voted against it?

same 90% that support "stronger background checks" ?

[RoyGBiv]

A bit of "behind the scenes" from Ted Cruz

Skip ahead to about 1:45 to avoid the introductory fluff., or don't ;)
Don't miss the part that starts at 5:10


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geHPipl6mt8