Whether the Semi-Auto Ban Passes May Depend on What Happens to the Senate Rules

[Dan W]

Gun Owners of America
Whether the Semi-Auto Ban Passes May
Depend on What Happens to the Senate Rules

McCain may be working to stab us in the back

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is still trying to rig the Senate rules so that President Barack Obama can get his anti-gun and anti-Constitution agenda passed.

But first, here’s some good news.

GOA activists like yourself are having an impact!

Prior to the New Year, the reports coming out of Washington, DC indicated that Senator Harry Reid was going to nuke the filibuster on the first day of the new Congress (which would have been yesterday).

But Politico, which is one of the official papers of Capitol Hill, reported yesterday that Reid still doesn't have the votes -- despite having a Democrat majority.

The Politico headline blared:  "Reid expected to Postpone Filibuster Rule Change:  May buy time for a bipartisan bill."

This is somewhat good news, as it means that Reid still can't cram a rules change down our throats, limiting the ability that pro-gun Senators have to filibuster (or kill) anti-gun legislation.

But here's the bad news:  Reid is working on a "compromise" where certain RINO's like John McCain will help Reid do his bidding.

What's at stake?

Well, The Blaze reported yesterday that Vice President Joe Biden “guaranteed” to ailing Boston Mayor Tom Menino that sweeping gun control legislation would be passed by the end of January.

How sweeping?

A quick look at Feinstein’s semi-auto ban legislation suggests that up to 75% of all handguns currently in circulation would be banned, along with as much as 50% of all long guns.

Depending on its configuration, the AR-15 you already have would probably be treated like a machine gun.  You would have to be fingerprinted, background checked by the FBI, and undergo a six-month license application process to keep it.  And when you die, the government will seize it.

If you don’t get an NFA license, you can expect the SWAT teams to descend on your house.

But, you ask, how could such rabidly anti-gun legislation ever get past Congress?  Well, legislators could simply follow the path they took on the fiscal cliff, where they bludgeoned a minority of Senators into accepting several, coerced short-cuts in regard to the Senate rules.

However, these forced short-cuts would now become mandated and set in stone if Harry Reid & Co. get their way.

Under one new “compromise” being floated on Capitol Hill, the Senate would change its rules so that it could pass a gun ban with only 50 votes (plus the vote of Vice President Joe Biden).  Or legislators could write the gun ban in a House-Senate conference committee on a "must-pass" bill, employing a tactic that is frequently used to pass controversial legislation.  Democrats like West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, Nevada’s Harry Reid, and Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey -- who will not have to run for reelection for a while -- will cast “courageous” votes for this gun ban.

And it will hit the House with enormous momentum -- momentum which House Speaker John Boehner (who has already called for a dialogue on gun control) may not have the courage to resist.

But the first step will be to demolish the Senate rules so that gun control only requires 50 votes -- or so that gun control can be inserted in a House-Senate conference report on a must-pass bill.  And this is where John McCain comes in.

GOA working with Senator Rand Paul to preserve the filibuster

McCain was irritated at Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who worked with Gun Owners of America on a variety of pro-gun issues that slowed down his defense funding bill.   So McCain would not lose any sleep if his rules “compromise” diminished our ability to kill anti-gun legislation in the future.

McCain is now working with Leftist anti-gun Senator Carl Levin on a series of rules changes to make gun control a lot easier to pass.

The first McCain-Levin rules change would make it impossible to fight -- what's known in Washington as -- the "motion to proceed."  Remember ObamaCare?  Our last real shot to kill ObamaCare was by filibustering the "motion to proceed" to that anti-gun legislation.  Once the motion was adopted, the bill became amendable and Harry Reid could play “let’s-make-a-deal.”  So this change would eliminate our last real opportunity to set up a roadblock and keep anti-gun legislation from even being considered.

The second McCain-Levin rules change would make it easier to add gun control to a bill in conference.  Currently, senators can block a House-Senate conference from considering an anti-gun bill.  But if the McCain proposals are adopted, a "must-pass" bill could be sent to conference ... amended in conference with a draconian gun ban ... and then sent back to the House and the Senate on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

McCain will try to tell you that that inserting a gun ban into a bill that is sitting in a House-Senate conference would be outside the “scope of conference.”  But that would be a lie, because as any Senator knows, "scope of conference” rules are never followed.  For example, the Gramm-Rudman spending guidelines were written in conference from the ground up.

The third McCain-Levin rules change would block any amendments except for those offered by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell or Floor Manager John McCain.  All other senators would be left out in the cold.

This McCain-Levin package must be stopped.

We are currently working with Senator Rand Paul, who is planning to offer a GOA-originated amendment requiring a two-thirds vote in the Senate before any anti-gun measure can be passed.

We know.  We know.  If it were up to us, gun control would not be able to be passed with 100 votes.  But we need to propose something which will pass the Senate.

So we need your help in opposing the McCain package and supporting the Paul amendment.

[A-FIXER]

Dan I used some of your text in my responses to Sen Fisher,Johanns, and Congessman Smith, hope you don't mind....

[Aldo]

Thanks, Dan, for that very informational post! I wrote recently to my district congressman (Fortenberry) about the fiscal cliff scenario....and he never responded, but I subsequently read about how he voted. Nonetheless, I will write to Fischer and back-stabber Johanns (who "reluctantly" voted in favor of the fiscal cliff deal) per your informative post.

What also amazes me is that such a pro-gun friendly state as Arizona actually re-elected McLame to another term!!! 

[A-FIXER]

To all here was my response from Senator Johanns


Dear Dan:

 

Thank you for contacting me regarding Senate procedures and gun control proposals.  I appreciate having the benefit of your views.
 
 

Our founding fathers established a two-chambered legislature. The House, whose membership is based on population, is designed to reflect the will of the majority. In creating the Senate, the framers were careful to provide a safeguard against majority rule. By giving each state the same voting power, the framers provided protection for the voice of the minority. Thus, people from smaller population states like Nebraska have equal representation compared to more populous states like California or New York.
 
 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has recently indicated his intention to significantly alter Senate rules in the upcoming 113th Congress. These changes would make it harder for those in the minority to have any voice at all. The Majority Leader has expressed his intention to change Senate rules on the filibuster, so that unlimited debate—an important right of the minority—can be stopped by a simple majority of Senators, instead of the current requirement that three-fifths of all Senators (normally 60 votes) agree to end debate. The importance of the filibuster was described well by the Majority Leader himself when he served as the Senate Minority Leader in 2005: "Over the years, the filibuster has proven to be an important tool of moderation and consensus....It's part of the fabric of this institution."
 
 

Additionally, and deeply concerning, the Majority Leader is contemplating throwing out the system by which Senate rules are changed. If he is successful in doing so, Senate rules will be changed at a dizzying pace and any notion of the Senate as a deliberative body will be lost. The Senate would then operate much like the House.
 
 

Instead of changing the rules through the method required by Senate Rule XXII, the majority plans on changing the rules with a simple majority vote, which would set a precedent to easily change every rule. This ill-advised plan is commonly referred to as the "nuclear option" or "breaking the rules to change the rules." Once that bell is rung it won't be unrung, and simple majorities will run roughshod over minority rights, undermining our Founders vision of checks and balances between the House and Senate.
 
 

Specifically, you raised the concern that the Senate Majority may use the "nuclear option" to push through controversial pieces of gun control legislation.  I believe that hunters, gun collectors, and sportsmen alike take seriously the responsibilities of owning a firearm. Rather than focusing our energy on laws that penalize law-abiding citizens, we should focus on punishing violent criminals. Further, I am deeply wary of international treaties that may compromise U.S. sovereignty. When considering multilateral agreements, we must make every effort to ensure our constitutional rights, as well as U.S. national security interests, are fully maintained.  Rest assured that in the 113th Congress I will continue to support efforts to protect these rights and maintain the integrity of the United States Senate.
 
 

Again, thanks for taking the time to contact me. Your comments help me to represent our state, so please do not hesitate to reach out at any time. For up-to-date information about my work in the Senate, I invite you to visit www.johanns.senate.gov and sign up for my e-Updates or link to my Facebook and Twitter pages. I look forward to hearing from you in the future.
 
 

 

Very truly yours,
 

Mike Johanns
 United States Senator

[xwing]

I think the rule change will determine whether such a ban passes the Senate.  The House is the strong point, but there is worry there too, if some nominially pro-gun reps turn tail and cave to Obama's pressure.