search
top

Could Impact Gun Rights

Reid is considering the “nuclear option” to ending the filibuster. At this point, it may only end up applying to nominees, but that’s not clear. It’s worth noting that the filibuster is the only thing keeping gun control from passing the Senate. Of course, it’s also the only thing keeping national reciprocity from passing as well. We could end up with a Manchin-Toomey like deal with national reciprocity tacked on to it. How bad do the likes of Bloomberg want Manchin-Toomey? Probably not at the cost of letting us tote firearms in Manhattan.

8 Responses to “Could Impact Gun Rights”

  1. Jack says:

    Or to Chicago. Since now National Reciprocity would apply to all 50 states.

    Thought they probably think they can have their gun control and not deal with national reciprocity. Or maybe Bloomberg thinks he could just ignore the part of a federal law he doesn’t like.

    There is a lot of that going around these days.

  2. AntiCitizenOne says:

    I’d tack on a repeal of the Hughes Amendment and nullification of all AWBs, “may-issue licensing,” and gunfree zones on that monstrosity of a background check bill for good measure.

  3. Clay says:

    Brian Schweitzer just said he’s not running for senate in Montana so now the democrats have one more seat that will likely go republican. That puts the democrats ever closer to losing the majority, and so Reid might back down or possibly be sabotaged by members of his own party who don’t like the option of being left in the minority with no filibuster power.

  4. Patrick H says:

    Apparently they don’t see the possible use by Republicans either. What if the GOP gains control over the Senate (like is very possible now) in 2014? We might not even have to get Schumer-Manchin-Toomey to get National CCW!

    • Patrick says:

      There is that. The Senate is still considered mostly safe for the Dems, but that nagging voice in the back of their heads wonders all the same.

      “Could we see 1996 all over again?”

  5. Patrick says:

    When it comes to the filibuster, there are a lot of reasons Dems don’t want it to go (for legislation):

    – Gun Control: Despite recent moves, they are still concerned. Getting something out of the Senate with a filibuster lets them do some things, but nothing Schumer and Feinstein really want. Go simple majority and a lot of Dem Senators are suddenly on the line for votes they don’t want to make.

    – Farm Bill: This legislation is (and has been) an example of massive comprise among urbanites, rural communities, “Big Ag” and the Social Welfare State. I got a friend who is really close to this downtown and works the bill hourly (all hours, every day, never a break). Basically there is something everyone loves and hates about the farm bill(s). This is by design, and the entire bill is pretty much something written to survive senate filibuster (the ultimate compromise machine). This year things got a little hunky in the House, but it’ll work out. If they simple majority on this bill (especially for amendments) and things would go absolutely insane: Big Ag would get massive payoffs at the expense of small farmers (who they want to extinguish once and for all) and liberals would end up with welfare expansion so large that pretty much Warren Buffet would qualify for food stamps. Most don’t know that 70% or more of the farm bill is welfare, and that is why Big Ag interests get what they want every year – they forged the ultimate back-scratching tools for subsidies and pork (literally?) with liberal city lawmakers. They each get their cut of your dollars.

    The filibuster saves the majority party as much as it hurts them. Reid is trying to pick/choose his fights and get as many judges in as possible. If the R’s gave Obama every cabinet nominee he wants, Reid will still be harping over the real thing he wants: judges.

    As for Executive nominees, the Senate should quickly concur short of serious crimes by a nominee – it’s the President’s administration and he gets to run it the way he likes. If the shoe were reversed, then many would gripe that Dems are keeping the President from running the country. And we’d be right.

    Enough. Sorry for the long response. All this should be summed up with, “Dems want the filibuster as much as anyone else because it saves them from themselves.”

    • ParatrooperJJ says:

      Well let’s see – the CFPB and NLRB nominees were recess appointed illegally and the Labor nominee has not yet replied to a congressional subpoena. Exactly why are those four entitled to a vote?

  6. Matt says:

    I like how that article noted that in 2005 it was the minority Democrats who were using the filibuster to stall Bush nominees. Maybe now the Democrats think they’ll be in power perpetually, since America has “changed”?

top