NY Daily News: Shoot down national reciprocity amendment as dangerous

[cyberdogg]

Utter rubbish.

Shoot it down: Senate must kill amendment that would dangerously gut gun laws

[Jeff]

Just like making guns legal in Washington DC was going to increase violence. And the castle doctrine in FL was going to endanger people.

That bill isn't going to pass anyway. Schumer was already talking about a fillibuster to stop it.

[JStarX7]

Ugh. I hate when writers turn it into an "us against them" thing. Washington warned us, but did we listen? Oh nooooo. Turns out old George wasn't a dumbass after all. Who knew? : (Not Bush. He WAS a dumbass...)

[cyberdogg]

That bill isn't going to pass anyway. Schumer was already talking about a fillibuster to stop it.

Yeah, it might not pass because of Democratic senate majority.

I wrote the email letters to Utah senators in support of the amendment, with suggestion that the amendment be modified and clarified to respect state non-resident licensing programs among other problems.

IMO, I don't think it should be up to federal government to pass and enforce the law. Look at BATFE's arrogant circumvention of 9th and 10th Amendments when they talked tough to Tennessee and Montana that federal law supersedes state law on state-border firearm freedom.

At least federal law provides coverage to qualified active & retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed, even in DC, SF, LA, NYC and Chicago, under LEOSA since 2004.

I think the amendment may be slightly flawed because of concern about state licensing issuance policy in some restrictive states that still bar upstanding ordinary citizens from receiving carry permits, including downstate NY and NYC, Maryland, Hawaii, some CA counties, some MA counties and most notoriously New Jersey, yet citizens from other shall and "reasonable" may issue states can hold licenses that put the "slave-subjects" in the severely restrictive states at a disadvantage.

[11B1P]

Ugh. I hate when writers turn it into an "us against them" thing. Washington warned us, but did we listen? Oh nooooo. Turns out old George wasn't a dumbass after all. Who knew? : (Not Bush. He WAS a dumbass...)

Don't worry GW, I have your back....

.....GW BUSH! let the AWB expire.

say it with me now, I know you can.........BUSH!, let the AWB die...

Thats the first thing you should think when you hear his name. Not some drivel the media spoon fed you for years. His military GT score was above average and he was smart enough to fly a fighter jet. These things are facts. Case closed.

I didn't agree with a few things he did, but Bush as not dumb. He was on the wrong side of immigration and I think he should have dropped a few airburst neutron bombs on iran before he left..... When it comes to gun ownership and crushing a few sand pits, he was an Einstein.

[Tim1]

That bill isn't going to pass anyway. Schumer was already talking about a fillibuster to stop it.

Do they even have the votes to sustain a filibuster? Mr. Kennedy isn't in the chamber, so you can subtract one vote for the antis. Off the top of my head, you've got Tester, Webb, Baucus and Begich as staunchly pro-gun Democrats. There's also the Majority Leader, Reid, who is pro-gun and probably not inclined to have his conference supporting a filibuster on the political loser that is gun control.

Recall that the Ensign amendment passed with 62 votes, two more than you need to invoke cloture. Do you really see any of the Democrats that voted for that changing their mind now and supporting a filibuster? Maybe they have other reservations about reciprocity and would vote against the bill itself, but to support a filibuster?

I'm sure the legislation is DOA in the House, as Pelosi and her minions will ensure that it never gets a vote, but are you that pessimistic regarding it's chances in the Senate?

[Tim1]

.....GW BUSH! let the AWB expire.

Didn't GWB call for a renewal of the ban? Mind you, he didn't expend any political capital trying to get it renewed, but I could swear that he did come out in favor of renewal at one point.

[11B1P]

Didn't GWB call for a renewal of the ban? Mind you, he didn't expend any political capital trying to get it renewed, but I could swear that he did come out in favor of renewal at one point.

CNN would STILL be showing that.....I never read/heard that he did. I just cared about the end result. It didn't get signed under his watch. And all it would have took was a little scratch from his pen.

[Tim1]

CNN would STILL be showing that.....I never read/heard that he did. I just cared about the end result. It didn't get signed under his watch. And all it would have took was a little scratch from his pen.

It didn't get signed under his watch because it never passed Congress. Here it is:

Q: You said if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you’d sign the legislation, but you did nothing to encourage Congress to extend it.

BUSH: I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban and was told the bill was never going to move. I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks. The best way to protect our citizens from guns is to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns.

Assault weapon OK; waiting period not OK
Bush expressed support for some gun control measures, including the ban on assault weapons and laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. But he said he did not believe the waiting period for the purchase of handguns that is part of the Brady Act does much good, saying he prefers instant background checks.
Source: Dan Balz, The Washington Post Apr 25, 1999

Ban automatic weapons & high-capacity ammunition clips

* Supports stronger enforcement of existing gun laws, would provide more funding for aggressive gun law enforcement programs such as Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia
* Supports requiring instant background checks at gun shows by allowing gun show promoters to access the instant check system on behalf of vendors
* Supports law-abiding American’s constitutional right to own guns to protect their families and home
* Supports the current ban on automatic weapons
* Supports banning the importation of foreign made, “high-capacity” ammunition clips
* Supports voluntary safety locks
* Opposes government mandated registration of all guns owned by law abiding citizens

Source: GeorgeWBush.com: ‘Issues: Policy Points Overview’ Apr 2, 2000

Here's another site with old interviews with Fleischer and McClellan

And in May, 2003 the White House Press Secretary at the time, Ari Fleischer, said Bush still considered extending the ban to be "a reasonable step."

Q Let me ask you something about the assault weapons ban. I realize the President was for the reauthorization back in 2000. Why does he support that?

Fleischer (May 8, 2003): Well, the President thought, and said so at the time in 2000, that the assault weapon ban was a reasonable step. The assault weapon ban was crafted with the thought that it would deter crime. There are still studies underway of its crime deterring abilities, but the President thought that was reasonable, and that's why he supported it. And that's why he supports the reauthorization of the current ban. . . . Often the President will agree, of course, with the National Rifle Association. On this issue he does not. . . . In this instance, you know what he said, as you pointed out, in 2000. He continues to believe it today.

Kerry is currently faulting Bush for not pushing Congress to extend the ban. So are gun-control advocates such as Sarah Brady, wife of former President Reagan's press secretary, Jim Brady. She said on CBS's "The Early Show" that letting the ban lapse was "purely political."

Sarah Brady: The real onus fell on President George W. Bush. . . . He has exerted absolutely no leadership. We have a president and leadership in the House and Senate that simply do not want to face this.

That's an opinion, of course. And indeed, we could find no instance of Bush himself even mentioning the assault weapons ban in his official appearances as President. Furthermore, when pressed repeatedly by a reporter Sept. 13, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan would not cite the name of a single member of Congress that Bush had called to ask that the ban be extended.

Q Isn't it kind of disingenuous for the President to say that I'm for the assault weapons ban, but then not spend a nickel of his political capital to fight for it?
McClellan: I disagree. His position has always been well-known, and it's been clear going back to his first campaign for President.
Q That he was for the ban?
McClellan: For a reauthorization of the current ban.
Q . . . so if he's for the ban, and he doesn't do a thing --
McClellan: Well, keep in mind that the Congress is the one that sets the legislative timetable, and Congress has made clear that it's not going to be coming up. . .
Q He was happy to let the authorization lapse, wasn't he?
McClellan: Oh, you know that's a ridiculous assertion.
Q Name one thing, one step that the President took to have the assault weapons ban reauthorized?
McClellan: That's why I said, Ron, his position has been very well-known. We've restated that position. It remains unchanged. But he does not set the legislative timetable. Members of Congress set the legislative timetable. And Congress has stated -- congressional leaders have stated that it's not going to come up for a vote.
Q Is there one congressman, one congressional leader who he has called in Congress, and said, please put it on the timetable? . . .
McClellan: Let's debate the real issue here . . .
Q Name one person who he called to lobby on behalf of legislation.
McClellan: -- his position has been made well-known.
Q So there's nothing more he could have done to get the ban extended?
McClellan: Well, I think members of Congress have stated -- congressional leaders have stated that it's not going to be coming up for a vote. . . .
Q Can you name one person who he's called on the Hill on behalf of this legislation?
McClellan: Look, members of Congress know his position very well, Ron.
Q So has he made a call to any of them?
McClellan: His position is very well-known, Ron, and members have known his position. And it's been discussed with members, too.

But it is also a fact that Bush was publicly committed to sign an extension if Congress passed it, and it was Congress that failed to do so.

Bush didn't exactly push to get the ban renewed -- but he was always on record as supporting it and said he would have signed it if had reached his desk. Therefore, IMHO, he deserves little credit for the expiration of the ban. Thank your Congress-critters in Capital Hill for that one.

[JStarX7]

.....GW BUSH! let the AWB expire.

say it with me now, I know you can.........BUSH!, let the AWB die...

Doing nothing. Not exactly worthy of praise, in my book.

[Jeff]

Do they even have the votes to sustain a filibuster? 

I thought they had a fillibuster proof majority? I get confused between state and fed. government sometimes.

Even if it passes the senate it will not make it past assembly and probably not even past committee.

this blog has some quotes from him about it. http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt...mendment_.html

[JStarX7]

I thought they had a fillibuster proof majority? I get confused between state and fed. government sometimes.

Even if it passes the senate it will not make it past assembly and probably not even past committee.

this blog has some quotes from him about it. http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt...mendment_.html

Senate democrats are worried that Dem. senators from Republican heavy states will side against them to keep their voters happy. (Gee, isn't that how it is SUPPOSED to work? : )

[11B1P]

Bush didn't exactly push to get the ban renewed -- but he was always on record as supporting it and said he would have signed it if had reached his desk. Therefore, IMHO, he deserves little credit for the expiration of the ban. Thank your Congress-critters in Capital Hill for that one.

If he wanted to make it a priority, it would have been. I didn't and still don't really pay that much attention to the verbal bullshheet these professional liars spew. I Watch the world series, I could care less about all the games leading up.

Clinton made it happen, Bush let it die.

In the end it was BUSH who let it die. Why? Who did he want to win over? How many votes did he think he would get by completely ignoring it, and letting it fade away? All that is above my pay grade, and wastes energy thinking about. I vote republican across the board, I do my part.

Again I say, Clinton made it happen, Bush made it unhappen.

[11B1P]

Doing nothing. Not exactly worthy of praise, in my book.

My point was he let the AWB die, your point was that he was stupid.

Did he have a 180 IQ, nope he didn't. Was he smart enough to fly a fighter jet? Yes.

That makes him smart enough in my book. Makes him smarter than the barney franks, and the nancy pelosis and the lawyer for accorn any day.

[Tim1]

I thought they had a fillibuster proof majority? I get confused between state and fed. government sometimes.

Even if it passes the senate it will not make it past assembly and probably not even past committee.

this blog has some quotes from him about it. http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt...mendment_.html

The filibuster proof majority is an invention of the news media talking heads. It means nothing. Even in this day and age, United States Senators do not vote the party line 100% of the time. There are several issues (gun rights being one of them) where the major parties will split their votes. As I said, remember the Ensign amendment to the DC Voting Rights Act? That passed with 62 votes. 22 of those votes were from Democrats. The Democrats in Washington are not united on the issue of gun control. Some (Chuckie Schumer) are anti-gun, some are quietly pro-gun (Reid) and some are (Baucus and Tester, both D-MT) are as loud and outspoken as any pro-gun Republican.

I don't know why you mentioned the Assembly, since this is a Federal issue, but yeah, the legislation is dead-on-arrival in the House. There's actually enough support in the House to pass it but Pelosi is sure to see that it never comes to a vote. Despite that, it's still worth passing in the Senate. It puts political pressure on the moderate House Democrats to try and force a vote, thus giving Pelosi one more thing to worry about and less political capital to spend on other issues. This is how politics works. It isn't pretty and it doesn't always make sense but for better or worse this is how our system was designed.

Anyway, Schumer can bluster as much as he wants. I've been following politics for a long time and I don't think he has the votes to pull off a filibuster. I would suspect that his ranting and raving is primarily aimed at the NYC liberal audience. He's up for re-election next year and needs an excuse to get his name in the media. The legislation won't pass -- but it won't be because of a filibuster. Schumer is smart enough to know that.

[Tim1]

Again I say, Clinton made it happen, Bush made it unhappen.

I'm sorry but that's a rather simplistic view of it and you are giving GWB a pass when he claimed to have supported it for all those years. He played a smart political game with the issue and in the end we got the outcome we desired but don't expect me to respect the man for playing a political game instead of standing up for our issue and bringing it into the public debate.

The sad truth is that we've passed more pro-gun legislation in the first few months of Obama than we did under eight years of GWB. Carry in national parks? Check. Carry your lawfully owned firearm in your checked baggage on Amtrak? Check. Where was GWB for these issues? Why wasn't the bully pulpit being sued to advocate for gun rights? Why did he withdraw from Kyoto but not the OAS weapons treaty? Hmm?

The sad truth is that GWB didn't expend a single ounce of his political capital on gun rights. Instead he chose to expend it on expansions of Governmental power (No Child Left Behind) and massive deficit spending. From where I sit he doesn't deserve the respect and praise you are giving him. To each their own though.

[JStarX7]

The sad truth is that we've passed more pro-gun legislation in the first few months of Obama than we did under eight years of GWB.

I have a theory about that. Gun control is the "keep the opposite party voters happy" issue for everybody. Obama hasn't done anything yet because it's the one thing conservative voters can't ding him on yet. GW did nothing so that liberal voters wouldn't ding him.

They all learned from Clinton, who DID something and pissed everyone off. (And then they all tried to knock him out of office for a BJ. Like 99% of politicians aren't guilty of that or worse...)

[11B1P]

I'm sorry but that's a rather simplistic view of it and you are giving GWB a pass when he claimed to have supported it for all those years. He played a smart political game with the issue and in the end we got the outcome we desired but don't expect me to respect the man for playing a political game instead of standing up for our issue and bringing it into the public debate.

The sad truth is that we've passed more pro-gun legislation in the first few months of Obama than we did under eight years of GWB. Carry in national parks? Check. Carry your lawfully owned firearm in your checked baggage on Amtrak? Check. Where was GWB for these issues? Why wasn't the bully pulpit being sued to advocate for gun rights? Why did he withdraw from Kyoto but not the OAS weapons treaty? Hmm?

The sad truth is that GWB didn't expend a single ounce of his political capital on gun rights. Instead he chose to expend it on expansions of Governmental power (No Child Left Behind) and massive deficit spending. From where I sit he doesn't deserve the respect and praise you are giving him. To each their own though.

I give Bush respect because he was directly responsible for our military killing vast numbers of muslim terrorists. Thats the MAIN reason I think he was a great president. I had friends die by the hands of the enemy going back to Beirut. I was about time we acted, and we acted in force under GW.

Do I think everything he did was great, nope, I sure don't. Do I think letting the AWB expire was a great thing. Yes I do.

He COULD have made it a priority and pushed to get it signed...but he didn't. That was a conscious act on his part.

Did he dance a broadway tune about the AWB, no...he just ignored it.

That worked. It died. He was president.

Simplistic? Its just the way it ended up. You can debate and burn calories about this and that, up and down, left and right. The end is exactly the same.

One more thing, GW signed HR 218. That was a big thing, still is. This had to be passed before they would let civilians carry cross border. It would not have been passed/signed if not for his support.

[Tim1]

Obama hasn't done anything yet because it's the one thing conservative voters can't ding him on yet.

Obama hasn't done anything because the votes just aren't there. You have roughly 20 pro-gun Democrats in the US Senate and another 60 or so in the House. Combine them with the GOP and new gun control just isn't going to get through the Congress. Nancy Pelosi of all people even admits this. It's only the rapid foaming-at-the-mouth antis like Feinstein and McCarthy that are still pushing the issue.

People look at me like I'm crazy when I say that Albany is a bigger threat to our gun rights than Washington but that's the reality of the situation if you look at the makeup of the Congress vs. the makeup of the NYS Legislature. That's why getting the 2nd amendment incorporated is the most important thing right now and it needs to happen while we still have a friendly SCOTUS on our side.

They all learned from Clinton, who DID something and pissed everyone off.

I think that's the driving factor behind the pro-gun votes of a lot of the Democrats. There are definitely some true believers in the Democratic caucus (Tester, Webb, Baucus, Begich) and they tend to be outspoken and loud. The others I think fall somewhere between the anti and pro crowd but vote pro-gun because they remember the lesson from 1994. It's easy to be in favor of gun control when you are a US Senator from New York or New Jersey. Not so much when you hail from Arkansas or Nevada.....

[Tim1]

I give Bush respect because he was directly responsible for our military killing vast numbers of muslim terrorists. Thats the MAIN reason I think he was a great president. I had friends die by the hands of the enemy going back to Beirut. I was about time we acted, and we acted in force under GW.

Now you are changing the topic. We started out by having a discussion about his record on gun rights. Now you are bringing something entirely unrelated into the conversation. Did I offer an opinion either way on his war record?

Do I think everything he did was great, nope, I sure don't. Do I think letting the AWB expire was a great thing. Yes I do.

It was a great thing. All I'm saying is that the way he went about doing it required no great act of political courage and no expenditure of political capital. I'm glad that he didn't actively push to get it renewed. But don't pretend that was some grand gesture on his part. It was a calculated political move. Aside from that, can you name a single thing he did to advance the cause of gun rights for the average American citizen?

It ought to tell you something that we've had more votes in the US Congress on gun rights under a Democratic administration and Congress than we ever did under GWB and the Republicans. GWB just didn't make it a priority. Full Republican control of Washington and all we get out of it was the expiration of a ban that wouldn't have been renewed even if the Democrats were in charge (based on voting trends in the current Congress)? What's wrong with that picture?

One more thing, GW signed HR 218. That was a big thing, still is. This had to be passed before they would let civilians carry cross border. It would not have been passed/signed if not for his support.

HR218 was a great piece of legislation, but what exactly does it do for me as a law-abiding citizen who isn't a current or retired LEO?

[11B1P]

Now you are changing the topic. We started out by having a discussion about his record on gun rights. Now you are bringing something entirely unrelated into the conversation. Did I offer an opinion either way on his war record?

It was a great thing. All I'm saying is that the way he went about doing it required no great act of political courage and no expenditure of political capital. I'm glad that he didn't actively push to get it renewed. But don't pretend that was some grand gesture on his part. It was a calculated political move. Aside from that, can you name a single thing he did to advance the cause of gun rights for the average American citizen?

It ought to tell you something that we've had more votes in the US Congress on gun rights under a Democratic administration and Congress than we ever did under GWB and the Republicans. GWB just didn't make it a priority. Full Republican control of Washington and all we get out of it was the expiration of a ban that wouldn't have been renewed even if the Democrats were in charge (based on voting trends in the current Congress)? What's wrong with that picture?

HR218 was a great piece of legislation, but what exactly does it do for me as a law-abiding citizen who isn't a current or retired LEO?

The subject is the same. I was explaining why I gave GW respect. Its not just the AWB thing. I wasn't asking, or expecting your opinion on the War. I was just fleshing out why I'm deep in GWs camp.

I think we agree, to some degree. You say it was a calculated political move. I agree. At some point he saw that letting it die would be good for someone, him, the country? Not sure. The end result was that our side won.

I like when my side wins. I give him credit for letting it go our way.

Civilians want the cross border carry. It would never happen before the cops/retired cops get it. Bush made the first part happen. Thats what Bush did.

Slowly I turn...step by step....

[Tim1]

The subject is the same. I was explaining why I gave GW respect. Its not just the AWB thing. I wasn't asking, or expecting your opinion on the War. I was just fleshing out why I'm deep in GWs camp.

Like I said, to each their own. From where I sit he further expanded the Federal Government, ran up the national credit card and did the bare minimum with regards to gun rights. I won't get drawn into a debate about his handling of the war "on the ground" because only the military historians are going to be able to sort that one out.

It is worth noting though that this is the only time in American history that we've attempted to fight a war on the cheap. Unless you are a member of the military or have a relative/friend wearing the uniform you wouldn't even know that we are at war. The civilian population wasn't asked to make any sacrifices. Our fearless leaders in Washington couldn't even be bothered to pay for the war with real money, lest we have to raise taxes and/or cut back on pork-barrel spending. If you listen quietly you can hear the laughter coming from Beijing right about now.

Regardless of the eventual outcome of the war, the fact that we tried to fight it on the cheap in this manner is a national disgrace. I'm glad you can still defend your man and there are times when I wish he was still around but I just can't bring myself to share your opinion of him.

There, I'm going to get off my soapbox now. I hope I haven't alienated too many people

[11B1P]

Most people are stupid, or slightly above stupid. Look at the politicians and how they operate. Professional liars. They know they can lie and get away with it. No accountability. A gaggle of liars spewing at a herd of grass eaters. Its a joke. You can only hope for the best. Be happy GW let it die. Its better than nothing.