Chris from Alaska has an analysis. I really question whether they actually wanted something to pass. There was certainly a path forward for some kind of bill, even if the pot had to be sweetened over what Manchin-Toomey tried to do. It’s been quite telling that each time this issue has gotten hot, they’ve had a pure background check bill they’ve been capable of advancing, but it’s always rejected because the bill lacks sufficient provision to assure that all guns are “papered.”
7 thoughts on “Senate Rules and the Gun Control Vote”
Comments are closed.
Im no expert, but my take was that Toomey was a way to send a message.. be afraid of our media empire, or your voters.
The beauty of black[powder firearms is that they are not papered at all!
Every man should have at least 1 gun that has no “papers” in my opinion.
I do not underrate the “we have to at least ‘Look’ like we are doing something” mentality in Washington………..
I have several rifles that are unpapered, which I acquired in private sales.
I have got to look into private sales more often, most of mine are documented…….
Sadly whenever I get my hands on “disposable income” I first hit the local gun shops, and usually find something I cannot live without!
I think I have 3 rifles and 1 handgun that are ‘undocumented’. And one of the rifles needs some parts…..
That;’s what I’ve been saying. Democrats wanted to look like they were doing something. But they didnt want to do anything that was going to cause them to lose the Senate.
Very good article. I see it the same way. This could have gotten through the senate had it gone down like that, though I think a serious whack at NFA would be a minimum for me personally to want to cede the “gun show loophole” to the antis.
Bottom line is that for this to pass it would have required our support along the way. It’s quite clear that anything that would garner our support would have probably never cleared Obama’s desk.