Rep. Sensenbrenner Rams Gun Ban Through On (Voice Vote)

http://www.gunowners.org ^ | Wednesday, November 5, 2003 | http://www.gunowners.org

[veryone]

Rep. Sensenbrenner Rams Gun Ban Through On Voice Vote -- Time to ask your Senators to oppose the same ban

Wednesday, November 5, 2003

The gun grabbers know what this fight is all about... it's about "incrementalism." It's about steadily advancing their illicit cause, even when support for gun control has little popular appeal outside of Congress.

Consider the statement of one prominent Democrat on the House floor today:

"In the wake of the September 11 attacks, we need to do much more to prevent dangerous firearms from falling into the hands of would-be terrorists and other violent criminals," said Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) when speaking in favor of the ban that passed the House this morning.

"We could start by renewing the current assault weapons ban. We could also strengthen criminal background checks and close the gun show loophole," Scott said. "Finally, we need to protect us from [plastic guns]. The bill before us today achieves the last of these objectives."

In other words: "We want much more, but today, we'll settle for a ban on a gun that doesn't even exist."

Scott wants to ban these guns, before they are ever invented, to keep bad guys from getting them. The fallacy of his argument is in thinking that ANY gun ban will stop terrorists and violent criminals from getting the outlawed weapons. No gun ban on the face of the earth has done that yet.

Not in the nation's capital -- nor in Chicago, Los Angeles or even England -- have gun bans worked to keep bad guys from getting firearms.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) authored this bill to extend the prohibition on plastic firearms. The current ban is scheduled to sunset in December.

The Wisconsin Congressman brought it directly to the floor of the House, having skipped the committee process, after successfully urging the House leadership to allow the rules of the House to be suspended.

Speaking in favor of the ban, Sensenbrenner praised the Bush Justice Department for supporting the bill. In opposition, Gun Owners of America was the only national gun lobby to fight the ban.

Sensenbrenner managed to get H.R. 3348 passed on a voice vote, meaning that fewer than 30 Representatives -- those who happened to be on the floor at the time -- were all that it took to extend the ban on these firearms.

In one sense, the ban is meaningless since a completely plastic gun has yet to be invented. It would be like banning Star Trek phaser rifles. The technology is not even there. And no gun manufacturer is even close to developing an all-plastic gun in the near future.

In another sense, however, the ban continues to extend the illegitimate reach of Congress into the realm of firearms -- a precedent which will be used by gun grabbers in the future to justify more bans.

The fight now shifts to the Senate, where Senator Ted Kennedy is expected to push his version of the bill very soon.

Unlike the House bill, which simply extends the ban for 10 more years, S. 1774 would make the ban permanent.

ACTION: Please urge your Senator to oppose S. 1774, and to instead support REAL efforts aimed at stopping terrorists -- such as arming the rest of the pilots who want to carry guns.

Please visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send the pre-written message below to your Senators.

------ Pre-written message ----- Dear Senator:

I urge you to vote against S. 1774, a bill authored by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). This bill is unconstitutional, and it is a useless waste of taxpayers' money and of your time. Plus, the gun it purports to ban doesn't even exist!

If a totally plastic gun is ever developed, a ban will not keep bad guys from getting their hands on such a firearm any more than the other 20,000 or so gun laws keep murderers and thieves from getting their hands on guns now.

You have much more important things to do. Please, instead of wasting your time banning a gun that does not exist, force the Transportation Safety Administration to arm pilots.

Gun Owners of America will inform me how you vote. Please vote against S. 1774.

Sincerely,

**************************** New! "Just For Skeptics" Websection

Know someone who doesn't know what to think about using guns for self protection? Or perhaps someone who "knows" all about the need for gun control -- and doesn't know they are wrong? Check out the Just For Skeptics section of the GOA website at http://www.gunowners.org/skeptic.htm to help your friends. Dozens of articles and fact sheets divided into eight categories explode common gun control myths, highlight real-life instances of self-defense, and explore the role of the gun in modern society. Even a long-time activist will find plenty of "soundbites" suitable for talk shows or casual conversation. Tell those skeptical friends of yours about it today -- before some thug gets to them first!

[veryone]

CONGRESS SNEAKS NEW DOMESTIC-TERRORISM BILL THUR
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a397fa1e06ab0.htm

[GeronL]

but but but. I thought putting more Republicans in the Congress would stop this. I thought RINO's were needed because we could get judges confirmed and our laws passed and stop liberal bills.

right. that'll happen.

[veryone]

got an answer from C-Span's Capitol Questions concerning this vote and House rules...

My question:

Two nights ago, the House voted in favor of suspending the rules and passing a bill. It was a voice vote, and there were only about 20 Congressmen present on the floor at the time. (The bill was H.R. 4210.) How can a bill be allowed to pass when so few Representatives are present? What are the rules concerning a quorum being required? If the motion to reconsider is immediately tabled, does that mean that the vote is final even though only 20 members were present?
C-Span's answer:

Suspension of the rules takes a 2/3 vote to pass, whether it's by roll-call [a certain discernible number] or by voice vote [judgment of the chair that 2/3 said "aye."]
Members may choose to pass anything by voice vote. They have several procedures to call upon if they wish to get a roll call vote.

Only roll call votes prove the absence of a quorum. If the absence of a quorum [218 in the House; 51 in the Senate] is established, the vote would be invalid.

Although the written rules of the House and the Senate both require that a quorum be present at all times for business to take place, the reality is that it rarely is except for roll-call votes.

This practice is known as a "presumed quorum." In other words, a quorum is presumed to be present unless it is pointed out that it is not. That would be done by either a point of order that no quorum is present or by the numerical evidence of a roll call vote not adding up to a quorum.

Members can easily make a point of order -- and do, often -- that no quorum is present. Then business is suspended until a quorum materializes. But the quorum requirement must be enforced from the floor -- individual Members must feel strongly enough about it to make the point of order. Otherwise the presumed quorum continues.

As for the motion to reconsider, yes, if it is tabled the vote is final and cannot be reopened for lack of a quorum or for any other reason. See: http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly85.htm

Best Wishes, Ilona Nickels
C-SPAN Resident Congressional Scholar

So, a bill can be passed no matter how many (or how few) Representatives are present on the floor at the time. As long as nobody present objects to the lack of quorum, and as long as there's no recorded vote proving the lack of a quorum, the vote is final.

[veryone]

This bill required a two-thirds vote of the house.

What they did was waved the rules and voted on it with the 20 people that were present.

Unbelievable.

[GeronL]

was it a 20-0 vote??

[GeronL]

Thats as bad as letting a judge make law

[neverdem]

Veryone this is a great catch.

I never expected Sensenbrenner to pull this BS.

Tom Delay better use that hammer.

[Redcloak]

"Plastic" guns?

What's next? Declaring tribbles to be an endangered species?

[GeronL]

bump

[B4Ranch]

Sensenbrenner praised the Bush Justice Department for supporting the bill.

The Bush Justice Department may just be the one factor that pushes Bush out the door in 2004!

[weaponeer]

So, a bill can be passed no matter how many (or how few) Representatives are present on the floor at the time. As long as nobody present objects to the lack of quorum, and as long as there's no recorded vote proving the lack of a quorum, the vote is final.

That is simply amazing. I consider myself well informed in things political, but I never knew of this. So, as long as no one points out that the "rule" about quorums is being violated, our elected pols (we call them "law-makers", even) just close their eyes to the fraud. This just makes my blood boil.

I know there are dozens of CEOs, CFOs, and other company financial hacks (maybe soon to be joined by Martha) that are behind bars for having pulled off much lessor "fraud" than this. This just lessens what little respect I ever had left for our elected polititians, including the Pubs.

[af_vet_1981]

The gun grabbers know what this fight is all about... it's about "incrementalism." It's about steadily advancing their illicit cause, even when support for gun control has little popular appeal outside of Congress.

The next thing you know they'll be coming for your tanks and aircraft ...

[neverdem]

Here's the bill.

To reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms. (Introduced in House)

HR 3348 IH


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3348
To reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 20, 2003
Mr. SENSENBRENNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

A BILL
To reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE BAN ON UNDETECTABLE FIREARMS.

Section 2(f)(2) of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended--

(1) by striking `15' and inserting `25';

(2) in subparagraph (B)--

(A) by striking `and (h)' and inserting `through (o)'; and

(B) by striking `and (g)' and inserting `through (n)'; and

(3) by striking subparagraphs (D) and (E) and inserting the following:

`(D) section 924(a)(1) of such title is amended by striking `this subsection, subsection (b), (c), or (f) of this section, or in section 929' and inserting `this chapter'; and

`(E) section 925(a) of such title is amended--

`(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and provisions relating to firearms subject to the prohibitions of section 922(p)'; and

`(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking `, except for provisions relating to firearms subject to the prohibitions of section 922(p),'.'.

I thought this was about the House version of the AWB when the 10 years sunsetting provision was mentioned. With the imaging technolgy they have these days undetectable guns will have to be made with anti-matter.

[waterstraat]

What we need is a conservative in the white house who will not only veto any new gun control law, but who will actively seek to repeal existing gun control laws.

[waterstraat]

As I recall, didnt Reagan promised at the beginning of his presidency, to veto any gun control law that hit his desk???? - the oppositite of what bush said.

[neverdem]

Here's the link to the senate version.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query

[wardaddy]

DeLay says he will not support renewal of the AWB...and until I see otherwise, I believe him.

[Uncle Miltie]

"Finally, we need to protect us from [plastic guns]."

Squirt gun alert!

[neverdem]

I vaguely remember hearing that about Delay too.

I didn't realize this was about undetectable firearms. With Rep Scott talking about the AWB and the reference to a 10 year extension, I thought his reference to magic guns was a section of the AWB. This is a bunch of hot air.