National call to action S.845

[vbnative73]

imported post

Bflamante wrote:

scarletwahoo wrote:

only 58 votes, needed 60

Can someone explain why 60, not a majority??

Yes, kinda confused by that one too.

*Nevermind - I just read the VA-ALERT and am now up to speed on this.

 

[Pagan]

imported post

longwatch wrote:
No conflict that I see, guns that stay within a state don't affect interstate commerce. Permit holders traveling and presumably conducting business across state lines does affect interstate commerce.



That is the wayI was viewing it as well, to regulate the interstate commerce, I specifically do not travel to states that I can not carry my weapon on my person.

 

[longwatch]

imported post

Also, if the Gun Free School Zones act is allowed to exist, so long as it can be shown the criminal act in question affects interstate commerce, this bill is constitutional as well. I think interstate commerce is very closely tied to CHPs when one considers how important reciprocity agreements and recognition of permits among the states is. Interstate Commerce does not just mean business, it also means travel.

I would also say if someone has a problem with this bill as violating states rights, then they need to also reject the Firearms Owners Protection Act which already protects travelers with firearms moving across state lines.

 

[milkmanjoe]

imported post

longwatch wrote:

Also, if the Gun Free School Zones act is allowed to exist, so long as it can be shown the criminal act in question affects interstate commerce, this bill is constitutional as well. I think interstate commerce is very closely tied to CHPs when one considers how important reciprocity agreements and recognition of permits among the states is. Interstate Commerce does not just mean business, it also means travel.

I would also say if someone has a problem with this bill as violating states rights, then they need to also reject the Firearms Owners Protection Act which already protects travelers with firearms moving across state lines.

Having homes in South Carolina and Central Florida, it was well known that most, and I do mean most, of the cars picking up the kids at 2:15 had guns in them. Nothing was ever said, and on many days an officer was in attendance as busses pulled away and cars pulled up. I guess rural and semi rural rules are "different" from where I am now in South Florida, where it is crowded. Yesterday in Publix supermarket I watched an officer watching me, I started to wonder if I was printing. Anyways, seems the more the subject is pushed, or maybe the more populated an area, has something to do with enforcing school zones.

 

[TFred]

imported post

vbnative73 wrote:

Bflamante wrote:

scarletwahoo wrote:

only 58 votes, needed 60

Can someone explain why 60, not a majority??

Yes, kinda confused by that one too.

I'm not completely sure, but from what I read in various news stories today, the vote that failed was for "cloture", which is how you stop a filibuster, and allow an actual vote on a particular issue.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm

The Senate allows a filibuster, which is basically when a member or members talk a bill to death, not stopping to allow a vote yes or no. The Senate rules say you need a 3/5ths majority, or 60 votes to stop a filibuster, and allow a regular yes or no vote.

I guess in the interest of not actually talking forever, the rules take a failure to grant cloture as the death of the issue at hand.

I didn't read that the amendment was actually under a filibuster, but Schumer promised he would, so I suppose he did.

This is why there has been such a big deal about the Democrats gaining that 60th seat, and thus a filibuster-proof majority. Even the most hideous legislation or judicial nominee cannot be blocked by the Republicans, because the Democrats will have 60 votes, enough to grant cloture and stop any Republican filibuster that could ordinarily be used to prevent an up/down vote on very bad things.

TFred


TFred

 

[Squeak]

imported post

Orphan wrote:

It should be just like drivers licenses, each state has slightly different requirements for a drivers license but every state honers every other states drivers license. Each driver is expected to obay the driving laws of each state, there are differences.


Orphan

You are soooooooo right! BUT, that would make sence! Can't have that!!

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

TFred wrote:

vbnative73 wrote:

Bflamante wrote:

scarletwahoo wrote:

only 58 votes, needed 60

Can someone explain why 60, not a majority??

Yes, kinda confused by that one too.

I'm not completely sure, but from what I read in various news stories today, the vote that failed was for "cloture", which is how you stop a filibuster, and allow an actual vote on a particular issue.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm

The Senate allows a filibuster, which is basically when a member or members talk a bill to death, not stopping to allow a vote yes or no. The Senate rules say you need a 3/5ths majority, or 60 votes to stop a filibuster, and allow a regular yes or no vote.

I guess in the interest of not actually talking forever, the rules take a failure to grant cloture as the death of the issue at hand.

I didn't read that the amendment was actually under a filibuster, but Schumer promised he would, so I suppose he did.

This is why there has been such a big deal about the Democrats gaining that 60th seat, and thus a filibuster-proof majority. Even the most hideous legislation or judicial nominee cannot be blocked by the Republicans, because the Democrats will have 60 votes, enough to grant cloture and stop any Republican filibuster that could ordinarily be used to prevent an up/down vote on very bad things.

TFred


TFred

Yes, HOWEVER the fact that we got 58 votes on something that drives the likes of Shecky Schumer nutso must be very unnerving to him and Obama. The Demon-Ratz are no doubt sensing the beginnings of a blue-dog mutiny that could get appalling characters like Schumer right out of their powerful positions and make them mere back-benchers. They certainly know that they cannot take cloture for granted now. THAT'S the silver lining.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

ALSO all you folks in Indiana (where I was born) and Ohio (where I grew up) need to get somebody to repalce BOTH of your senators in each state. With any TWO of these four the vote would have gone the other way. Sheesh. They are republicans, and but for their votes we coulda had cloture. :banghead:

 

[Repeater]

imported post

TFred wrote:

I didn't read that the amendment was actually under a filibuster, but Schumer promised he would, so I suppose he did.

This is why there has been such a big deal about the Democrats gaining that 60th seat, and thus a filibuster-proof majority. Even the most hideous legislation or judicial nominee cannot be blocked by the Republicans, because the Democrats will have 60 votes, enough to grant cloture and stop any Republican filibuster that could ordinarily be used to prevent an up/down vote on very bad things.

TFred

Remember when Chuck Schumer threatened a filibuster last summer of the Thune Amendment? At the time, he invoked States Rights:

What about States rights?

Now they are saying that the States cannot make their own decisions. Why is it that every other issue should be resolved by the States except this one? The amendment flies in the very face of States rights arguments and takes away citizens' rights to govern themselves.

I say to my colleagues who have laws and citizenry who probably want the laws not drawn as tightly as my State, if you open up this door, one day you will regret it. Because if you say that the Federal Government should decide what law governs, you are taking away States' right to govern themselves.

This is not a case about firearms per se, but about whether the Federal Government can force States and local governments against their will to carry out Federal mandates.

Well now, Chuck Schumer has had a change in heart and he no longer supports States Rights -- for Gay Marriage!

This should not be a partisan issue," Schumer said. "After all, if Dick Cheney can support marriage, so can every senator, so can every Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative. Equality should know no bounds, and we must not rest until we have marriage in all 50 of these United States."

Yeah? How about saying:

Equality should know no bounds, and we must not rest until we have concealed and open carry in all 50 of these United States.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

Today "President" Obama signed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act. This provides for "enhanced" Federal penalties for "hate crimes" involving "real or percieved" sexual orientation. Here's a hot news flash.

Matthew Shepard's killers did not give a good god damn about the law, period. Had this law been in effect at the time young Matthew decided to flirt with two (IMO very obviously) dangerous young thugs, he would have been just as dead in the end as he is today.

The Washington Post attempted to explain the necessity of this foolishness by saying that "hate crimes" "Terrorize entire communities". REALLY??? And ordinary run of the mill random murder does what, exactly?? Leave a peaceful, easy feeling?? Give the community the warm fuzzies??

Poor young Matthew would probably survived had he thought with the big head instead of the little one. And even given the ultimate circumstance, a Charter Arms Pink Lady .32 in the bib of his OshKoshB'gosh jeans might likely have allowed him to live.

BUt Shecky Schumer wouldn't have heard of it. For all the good it does Matt Shepard and those who knew and loved him - and for that matter any other victim past, present. or future; criminals don't care about the law and they are not going to split hairs about "hate crimes". "Hate crime" laws amont to shaving "shamies" off the left forefinger with the right forefinger.

Guns, on the other hand, save lives.

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS.