Congress to decide whether Super Congress could impose gun control

www.gunowners.org ^ | 08/01/11 | Gun Owners of America

[Pining_4_TX]

Gun owner registration … bans on semi-automatic firearms … adoption of a UN gun control treaty -- all of these issues could very well be decided over the next 24 hours.

Both houses of Congress will be voting on a debt ceiling bill that establishes a legislative committee with TREMENDOUS powers. Fox News is calling this committee a SUPER CONGRESS, because its legislative proposals (which could include gun control provisions) CANNOT be filibustered or amended in the Senate or House.

[waterhill]

((PING))

[Big_Harry]

“We’re going from worse to revolution. Hate to say it, but it seems the writing is on the wall.”

If you are a citizen of the Republic, then no law that this “Super Congress” passes applies to you. The best revolution is just to quit producing for these jerks and let them bleed someone else for a change.

[The Sons of Liberty]

Here's a hint for those pinheads in Washington:
"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Merely discussing limiting MY access to firearms constitutes infringement.

Take Back AMERICA!
FUBO GTFO 2012 !

[Ingtar]

“If 7 or more Members of that Committee approve a bill by November 23rd, it is guaranteed a straight up-or-down vote in the House and Senate by December 23rd. No amendments and no Senate filibuster are allowed of this bill. It’s take-it-or-leave-it to everyone.”

This, from your link, seems to match the excerpt above. I see nothing limiting what the 6 Dim / 6 RINO committee can send to Congress that cannot be halted in the way things were 2008 - 2010.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Who will stop them? You?

I'll bet my house this super congress will be filled with the safest seats in Congress, which will let Congress ram home anything the majority of citizens find unpalatable.

The Lesser Congress will bitch and moan for political theater, all while grabbing the deficit-spending goodies.

[muawiyah]

The whole idea is manifestly UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Took a bunch of Democrats with totalitaritarian leanings to come up with something like that. We need their names.

[muawiyah]

The whole idea is manifestly UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Took a bunch of Democrats with totalitaritarian leanings to come up with something like that. We need their names.

[MNJohnnie]

http://keithhennessey.com/2011/08/01/bca-summary/

Don’t trust, verify. This thread is the usual “Let’s seize on the issue du jour to raise fund for our PAC” nonsense.

[Envisioning]

Really? (sigh)

[andy58-in-nh]

Congress can Constitutionally do no such thing. However, the effort might cause them to discover what a “Super Militia” looks like.

[what's up]

We are about to be ruled by a Politburo

Don't be ridiculous.

Why would any of the 6 Repubs on the committee vote for this?

Runaway sensationalism is alive and well today.

[OneWingedShark]

What’s this about the Supreme Court?
[/semi-sarc]

[ctdonath2]

I don’t see how you’re leaping from a budgetary commission to unstoppable gun control.

It’s like leaping from the UN to a cream soda.

[apillar]

While the whole “super congress” Idea is stupid and their are a lot of good reasons to oppose it. This article drifts into the realm of the absurd. No the six members of the “super congress” won't be able to pass UN treaties, that will still take a 2/3 vote in the senate as required by the constitution. The way I read the legislation, the “super congress” can only propose spending cuts and tax increase. I seriously doubt they could or would propose massive gun control (heck, the dems wouldn't even when they controlled the house by a huge margin) and even if they did, it would have to be approved by a majority in the House and Senate (and somehow, I'm guessing, virtually all of the Republicans and even some democrats aren't in any hurry to throw their jobs away.) Also it's my understanding that this “super congress” dies at the end of the current congress (2012) and would have to be renewed by the next one, because future congress can't be bound by the actions of a past congresses.

[Pining_4_TX]

I hope you are right. However, you have more faith in the Republicans than I do. This committee is unconstitutional at any rate. Not that the Constitution has much meaning to our elected officials any more.

[Pining_4_TX]

I thought GOA was a reliable source of information. If this so far out of the realm of possibility, then I apologize for posting it. Lesson learned.

Thanks for your comment.

[what's up]

It's not unconstitutional.

Committees are set up all the time.

Congress still has to vote ultimately.

[Astronaut]

You want a “John Galt” bloodless revolution. Sorry, but when (not if!) it comes, Civil War II is going to be vicious and blood will run in the streets. Patriots need to be prepared.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I hope you are right. However, you have more faith in the Republicans than I do. This committee is unconstitutional at any rate. Not that the Constitution has much meaning to our elected officials any more.

How so? Anything it decides will still have to pass the full House and Senate by majority vote, which satisfies the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring filibusters or any other specific procedures; Congress has the power to make its own rules (Art. II, sec. 5, cl. 2), so it can amend those rules to provide that certain bills must get an up-or-down vote.

[apillar]

I find it a bit amusing that some people think the congress is going to be shaking and quaking in there boots, mere slaves to the dictates of the “SUPER CONGRESS”. Even if every bit of fearmongering mentioned came to pass and the “SUPER CONGRESS” comes down with a list of gun control, eliminating the constitution an declaring Obama emperor for life and selling all firstborn into slavery. The House and Senate still have to vote on it, and I don't see a whole lot of Republicans voting for that scenario.