Manchin cutting deals to undermine Second Amendment rights aboard his yacht named “Black Tie,” while cruising the Potomac and boozing it up with RINOs. The 2018 Republican attack ads practically write themselves.
Category: Gun Rights
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.
Glenn Reynolds on Toomey-Manchin Deal
While sarcastically noting that this will play well with his base:
Toomey seems to think he’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.
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.
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.
Coverage of the Toomey-Manchin Gun Control Press Conference
Well, my first attempt to live blog today didn’t go so well when the Democratic gun control sponsors decided not to stream their press conference to the public after promising they would do so. With that, I’m moving on to the feds and their bill.
So far, we’ve just got lots of panning around the room looking at reporters.
Joe Manchin starts off, calling Pat Toomey his “good friend,” along with Chuck Schumer and Mark Kirk as being key to this gun control bill.
Manchin says there’s still a lot of work left to do. It’s a deal with Schumer, not a deal with Manchin. It’s not clear who is actually writing the bill.
Manchin says that we need a federal government commission to study violence.
Manchin is using the promotion words of anti-gun groups by calling this “gunsense.” He says that this bill is this “gunsense.”
He just keeps saying that it’s about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and insane people, but won’t offer specifics at all.
Manchin still loves Pat Toomey, his “dear friend.”
Toomey is now speaking.
Toomey applauds his staff for their work on the bill – the same staff who were telling voters that Pat Toomey wasn’t working with Manchin at all. Trust.
Toomey says that there’s no gun control in background checks at all. He won’t volunteer what kind of issues he’s promoting other than lots and lots of background checks.
Toomey now claims he didn’t seek out working on gun control, but then immediately complains about how there was a “risk” that no gun control would pass. He says he reached out to Manchin & Kirk.
He now points out that background checks aren’t a cure for crime.
Toomey says that no records would be mandated from private citizens, but he won’t volunteer exactly what he means by requirements of background checks at gun shows and online.
Toomey claims that gun owners get benefits, but he refuses to say what they are.
This will be an amendment, so those of us outside probably won’t see any language.
Manchin says he’s “been in dialogue” with NRA, but he admits that he can’t actually speak for how the organization will react.
In taking questions, Manchin is just repeating the same things he said earlier in the press conference. He claims that he strengthened his own personal gun rights, but he still won’t say what he’s actually promoting.
Toomey was asked if his NRA ‘A’ rating even matters to him, whether he’s worried about it. He says he only cares about what people want.
Toomey is asked if he’ll get more Republicans between him & Kirk. Toomey admits he has absolutely no idea if there’s any other Republican who supports this.
Manchin has pledged to vote for the bill, no matter what it is, if his amendment is on it. Toomey says that because other amendments could be added, he won’t pledge to vote for it.
Manchin is specifically asked about private sales, and he just says that gun sales at shows and online will be covered.
Toomey is challenged on the benefit for gun owners. He just gives an example, not a list. It sounds like strengthening FOPA while driving. It supposedly fixes where active duty military can buy guns.
Toomey is then asked whether the driving protections are a “first step” toward national concealed carry reciprocity. Manchin jumps in and say, “YES!” Toomey more quietly says that he supports it.
I’m assuming that there’s some content the reporters have that we don’t because there’s something about concealed carry licenses protecting you from arrest at NY airports while traveling.
Manchin promises that when he gave the talking points to his political friends back home and they are fine with it.
Toomey goes to the Morning Call for the last question. She asks him if he’s bringing along House Republicans from the Philly suburbs along on this bill. He said that there is interest, but they want to know what’s really in the bill first.
Quote of the Day
This goes beyond the 2nd Amendment. Texas is attracting companies because it’s offering economic freedom. And it goes beyond that, too: This is about a fundamental dispute about whether our government exists to serve us and get out of the way of our exercise of our own free initiative, or whether government exists to instruct us and limit us as if we were schoolchildren in their care, permitted only to do the things the agreed to by a consensus of ill-educated moral scolds.
New England in a lot of ways never really got over puritanism. I think the puritan roots of New England largely explains why this kind of left-philosophy has gained such a strong foothold. The morality is different, but the inclination is the same.
Pennsylvania Gun Woes
I guess there’s good news and bad news to being a Pennsylvania gun owner. The good news is that there’s little interest in pushing gun control at the state level by current leadership. The bad news is that our federal lawmakers didn’t get this message.
I never really know what to tell people about these kinds of stories. On one hand, many of the points in favor of Sen. Pat Toomey working with Joe Manchin for some kind of background check bill are valid. He’s a Senator who has to run in a blue state during the next presidential election when turnout among Democrats will be much, much higher. On the other hand, it’s not well sourced and may have easily been dropped by anti-gun forces just because Toomey’s office didn’t hang up on them. Or, it could be something in the middle where he’s talking to them, but pointing out some absolutely fundamental objections that doesn’t mean he’ll actually try to push whatever language they want to push.
Add in the fact that Bloomberg is targeting Toomey in his attack ads and OFA has been targeting GOP lawmakers in the Philadelphia suburbs who have perpetually tight races, and it’s a constant reminder for people to call their lawmakers.
Then, today I was getting pushback from someone who was advocating that gun owners not call their Senators just because he’s confident that the eventual bill won’t have any of the concerns raised by gun owners so far. I argued that those concerns were based on actual language of the bill, not talking points. Yet, he continued to tell people to sit back and just trust our lawmakers. I am still pondering if it’s an American Hunters & Shooters-style infiltrator trying to convince gun owners to lay off the pressure since we’ve managed to hold the feet of our lawmakers to the proverbial fire for this long.
I’m curious if others who live in states that aren’t under immediate local threat are feeling this same kind of frustration in mobilizing federal action.
But I Thought Law Enforcement Supported Gun Control!
The survey, which was conducted in early March 2013, received 15,000 responses from law enforcement professionals. It found that the overall attitude of law enforcement is strongly anti-gun legislation and pro-gun rights, with the belief that an armed citizenry is effective in stopping crime. Response percentages varied only slightly when analyzed by rank and department size. Among the results:
Here’s the detailed results. This is quite good because 15,000 police officers is a very sizable survey, and represents a good chunk of law enforcement officers. A lot of the survey data on law enforcement attitudes toward gun control were getting stale, so I welcome this. This goes to show that when the gun control movement claims law enforcement is on their side, they are full of it.
UPDATE: On further investigation, the methodology leaves a bit to be desired. But then again, so do Bloomberg’s surveys, so I don’t see any reason not to use it.
Why Transfers?
That is why laws prohibiting transfers are a staple of most of the gun owner control packages we’ve seen this year; they want us to stop spreading our values and way of life. A culture is much harder to eradicate if it’s continually growing ya know.
I think this is absolutely right. There are ways to write a background check expansion that would be difficult to argue against, but that’s not what we’ve been seeing. We’ve been seeing sweeping prohibitions on even temporary and supervised transfers, where just handing a gun to someone else in the wrong circumstances would be prohibited. This reminds me of when they were targeting the “gun show loophole,” which you haven’t heard as much now because they decided “universal background checks,” was better rhetoric. Back then their bills allegedly were just meant to require background checks at gun shows, but contained onerous nonsense like requiring promoters (who just sell tables, not guns) to be licensed, for people entering gun shows be logged and reported, or other such nonsense which had nothing to do with background checks.
“Kill the Gun Culture” is an old game, and also, I think, one increasingly played by mostly old people. The real fear is if we free New York, Chicago, California and New Jersey, it’ll all be over for them. Heller and McDonald were just the beginning, and though we may not know where this road ultimately leads, the possibilities scare the snot out of people like Bloomberg.