Sebastian – Page 262 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Cloture Vote on Motion to Proceed

I’m told it’s being covered on C-Span. Note this is just a motion to proceed, which allows debate and the amendment process to go forward. If they come up with the votes to proceed, it does not necessarily follow that they come up with the votes to invoke cloture to end debate on the final bill and vote on it.

UPDATE: 68-31, the Motion is agreed to. S.649 moves forward.

UPDATE: Reid is pleading that there be no filibusters on every amendment. I guess they can filibuster amendments. I fully expect Senators to filibuster any gun control if that’s what it takes to stop it.

UPDATE: Reid motions to adjourn for a joint caucus meeting. They will reconvene at 2:30. That’s when the fun will start.

UPDATE: Everyone needs to take a deep breath and calm down. The cloture vote on the Motion to Proceed is not a big deal. All this means is that the bill is now on the floor, and open for debate and Amendment. A lot of politicians on both sides want recorded votes on this issue to be posted for various, and often opposite reasons. Obviously, we’d prefer to stop it every step of the way, but political animals will be what they are.

Manchin Knows Who’s Buttering the Gun Control Bread

Thanks CNN for their support.

Glenn Reynolds on Toomey-Manchin Deal

While sarcastically noting that this will play well with his base:

Toomey seems to think heâ€™s there to get things done. As a Republican in the current Senate, his chief role is to stop bad things from happening.

Yes. Toomey’s problem is that he is more afraid of Bloomberg’s ads than he is of us. The people who would be motivated by Bloomberg’s ads will never vote for Pat Toomey. And how big is that number? A few dozen showed up for an Ed Rendell headlining protest in the heart of Philadelphia. A few dozen. Those aren’t votes that are up for Toomey to grab, and the rest of the voters don’t care about gun control.

There are no votes Toomey is going to pick up by embracing gun control, even if it’s gun control lite, and with a few bones thrown at us for good measure. But there are an awful lot of votes to be lost. Toomey might learn that the hard way.

Comment of the Day

From Steven ofÂ Bucks Right, in the comments:

ARLEN SPECTER MUST GO!

Oh, wait.

That was a good laugh this morning. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Though, to be fair, Toomey at his worst is still better than Specter.

Can The Toomey-Manchin Compromise Get to 60?

Manchin and Toomey are going around on the morning talk show circuit. Toomey isn’t sure. Manchin, who always comes off to me like a hyperactive kid in need of some Ritalin, thinks they’ll get there. I would like to see this deal die. I don’t think the concessions made to us are real hot items, and even the other side is unhappy with it. They decided early on to go big or go home, and I’m fine at this point with sending them home.

MAIG Pulls Opposition Ads on Toomey

Story here at Politco. People have long said that gun control won’t bring any votes to the table, and that’s true, but politicians hate looking bad, and that’s one advantage that our opponents have when backed by someone with Bloomberg’s money. I’m in agreement with a commenter at Ace’s:

By the way Senator, this isn’t an election season. If this pansy runs from commercials NOW what will he do during his actual campaign?

Good question. I think Bloomberg is happy to have weakened Toomey. If Toomey thinks Bloomberg will sit out the 2016 election if there’s blood in the water, he’s lost his mind. BTW, the article over at Ace of Spades mentions a mental health provision that I think would be highly unacceptable, but given that we haven’t seen language yet, I’m not going to jump on it and declare it truth. But it’s something to keep an eye on.

NRA Statement on S.649

After reports today revealed that Toomey wouldn’t appear with Chuck Schumer at the press conference, NRA releases this:

Dear Senator,

I am writing regarding the National Rifle Associationâ€™s position on several firearms-related proposals under consideration in the Senate.

S. 649, the â€œSafe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013â€, introduced on March 21, contains a number of provisions that would unfairly infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.Â This legislation would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by honest citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. The NRA is unequivocally opposed to S. 649.

In addition, the NRA will oppose any amendments offered to S. 649 that restrict fundamental Second Amendment freedoms; including, but not limited to, proposals that would ban commonly and lawfully owned firearms and magazines or criminalize the private transfer of firearms through an expansion of background checks.Â This includes the misguided â€œcompromiseâ€ proposal drafted by Senators Joe Manchin, Pat Toomey and Chuck Schumer.Â As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools. Â Given the importance of these issues, votes on all anti-gun amendments or proposals will be considered in NRAâ€™s future candidate evaluations.

Rather than focus its efforts on restricting the rights of Americaâ€™s 100 million law-abiding gun owners, there are things Congress can do to fix our broken mental health system; increase prosecutions of violent criminals; and make our schools safer.Â During consideration of S. 649, should one or more amendments be offered that adequately address these important issues while protecting the fundamental rights of law-abiding gun owners, the NRA will offer our enthusiastic support and consider those votes in our future candidate evaluations as well.

We hope the Senate will replace the current provisions of S. 649 with language that is properly focused on addressing mental health inadequacies; prosecuting violent criminals; and keeping our kids safe in their schools.Â Should it fail to do so, the NRA will make an exception to our standard policy of not â€œscoringâ€ procedural votes and strongly oppose a cloture motion to move to final passage of S. 649.

Should you have any questions on these issues, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 651-2560.

Sincerely,

Chris W. Cox

Which mentions that the drafters of this compromise bill were Toomey, Manchin and Schumer. Tomorrow it would appear to be game on, and we’ll see where the chips will fall.

Toomey’s Press Release

Toomey has some of the details of the deal with Manchin. It’s a bit of give and take on both sides if everything is as advertised; that is a real compromise, and not a compromise where they only get a smaller slice of my pie instead of a bigger one. Of course that doesn’t make me feel any better about the concessions, nor does it help that we do not have language yet for the Toomey-Manchin Amendment. The devil is often in the details, and “just trust me,” is asking too much when Schumer is involved in this whole thing. Hell, it’s asking too much by any politician.

I don’t think the anti-gun folks are going to be happy about this deal, even if some of them come out and try to make the best of it. I think Bloomberg will try to spin it as a good start, and declare victory. But Bloomberg has to be concerned that this deal is not reaching all private transfers, while simultaneously taking the bogeyman of “gun show loophole” and “internet sales” away from him. It’s possible they were approaching the needed votes on something far preferable to them, and are likewise viewing this concession as unnecessary.

Finally, consider that amendments to bills, as best as I understand Senate rules, only require a bare majority, rather than 60 votes. It requires 60 votes to invoke cloture on a bill, to end debate and have a vote. The Democrats can pass amendments without any Republican support. We will see how this all goes down, but we really do need to see the language of the bill.

Previous attempts to regulate gun shows have seriously overreached, and I’m very skeptical of how Internet sales could be regulated. What defines an Internet sale? If I IM my friend Jason and ask if he wants to buy one of my guns, do I have to go through an FFL now? Does it only apply to advertising for sale? What about a private message board on a gun club’s web site? As for gun shows, what exactly is a gun show? Is it a place where people gather to sell guns? Can a few friends looking over a collection I’m reducing constitute a show? If there’s a guy at a flea market selling a rifle, does that make it a gun show? Is a yard sale a gun show if there’s guns for sale? Is the parking lot also a show? What if you bring the gun to a show, but sell it at the gas station down the street? You can see where can potentially entrap people with language. I appreciate the concessions made to our side in this deal, but there’s quite a lot to be wary of, and I’m not going to say this is a win, am not willing, without language, to opine on how fair the trade is here.

Mass Stabbing in Texas

Looks like quite a number of injuries with people having to be airlifted. I’m going to bet this will recede from the news cycle rather quickly. There will also not be the ritual grabbing onto the event by political opportunists looking to turn other people’s grief into their own political advantage. No families of this tragedy will get a ride on Air Force One. Their grief and loss can’t be used for emotional blackmail to settle a political score. It will drive no narrative to advance the Bloomberg/Obama agenda. The victims of this won’t matter, because the weapon was not a gun. That will, of course, be of little comfort to those victims and their families.

MAIG to Issue Letter Grades

The Washington Post is reporting that MAIG is going to get into the grading business, noting that they are aiming to be a full counterweight to the NRA. I’m always surprised by anti-gun groups making this declaration, and then imitating NRA’s tactics. Without millions of single-issue or very near single issue voters, grading candidates won’t accomplish anything. It’ll amount to a tempest in a teapot. The only place MAIG can be a counterweight to NRA is in media buys, and then only because they are backed up by a billionaire mogul, and even with media buys, the benefit there is more likely scaring politicians rather than actually mobilizing a voting base.

People were surprised at my concern, when all this started back in December, because the anti-gun folks don’t bring much to the table. This is true, in terms of votes. But we only tally votes every two years, and in the mean time, perception is important. The gun vote has been greatly weakened the past two elections, in terms of perception, because of a combination of it not really being a top issue, and weaknesses on the top of the ticket. The great question is whether the gun vote was dead or merely sleeping. The reaction of the base in the past few months has indicated that it is the latter, but the true test will be the 2014 elections.

Every election since 2008 has been the most important election ever, and we’ve kept losing them (and yes, from a gun perspective, 2010 was a loss, because it wiped out the blue dogs, which was the Dem incentive to avoid gun control, hence where we are right now). MAIG can not be permitted to credibly claim victory in the 2014 races. Even if nothing substantive on guns gets through Congress up through 2014, if we think we’ve won, rather than just thinking we won round one, and go back to sleep, our gun rights will still be doomed in the long term.

UPDATE: Jacob came to the same conclusionÂ about the futility of MAIG letter grades.