Skip to comments.BREAKING: Senate Kills Major Gun Legislation
Posted on 04/17/2013 3:34:17 PM PDT by Kaslin
Much of the drama has already dissipated; most of these amendments will fail. The Toomey/Manchin bipartisan compromise appears to be dead in the water, with Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) pounding home the final legislative nails earlier today. USA Today has a useful primer on what to expect this afternoon and evening, including the items liberals will be watching most carefully:
- The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act (Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and three co-sponsors): The compromise background check provision expands background checks to gun shows and Internet sales, but exempts family-to-family and other in-home sales. It also authorizes $400 million to upgrade the national background check database and reduces the turnaround time for background checks from three days to two days; in four years, it would be reduced to one day
- The Assault Weapons Ban (Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and 23 co-sponsors): The amendment bans the sale, transfer and importation of assault rifles, including 157 specifically mentioned in the law -- a broader definition than existed from 1994 to 2004. Current lawful owners of assault weapons would be grandfathered.
- The Large-Capacity Magazine Feeding Devices Amendment (Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and 21 co-sponsors): The measure would ban magazines and other devices holding more than 10 rounds, but exempts .22 caliber rifles. Police officers -- both on- and off-duty -- would also be exempted. It also authorizes federally funded gun buyback programs to purchase high-capacity magazines.
None of those three are expected to pass (see update), though some of the other provisions might. The assault weapons ban and magazine capacity limit will go down hard, a reality that has forced a beleagured Harry Reid to toss a last-minute gesture of lefty solidarity by backing Feinstein's doomed dream. Stay tuned for updates...
UPDATE - Toomey/Manchin fails 54-46, with a handful of aisle-crossers in both directions. The bill's supporters were six votes short of 60. Four Republicans joined most Democrats in voting aye: Toomey, McCain, Kirk and Collins. Dems going the other way: Baucus, Begich, Heitkamp, Pryor, and Reid (for procedural reasons).
UPDATE II - The primary Republican replacement amendment also goes down, 52-48.
Seven Nine Democrats joined nearly every Republican in voting yes, but it wasn't enough. Looks like nothing (or close to it) is getting passed tonight.
UPDATE III - I'm sure this statement won't be demagogic at all:
White House sets 5:30 pm Rose Garden statement on guns by President Obama — Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) April 17, 2013
UPDATE IV - Here's the roster of Democrats who joined the GOP on their unsuccessful alternate amendment:
D's voting for GOP gun bill: Baucus, Begich, Donnelly, Hagan, Heitkamp, Landrieu, McCaskill, Pryor & Tester. — Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) April 17, 2013
UPDATE V - Leahy/Collins (re: gun-trafficking) is defeated.
UPDATE VI - The difficulty of gun legislation, in one tweet:
RT @hotlinejosh: RT @mikememoli: Asked to explain his vote, Sen. Baucus said one word: "Montana." — Lachlan Markay (@lachlan) April 17, 2013
UPDATE VII - Down goes Cornyn's amendment on concealed-carry reciprocity, 57-43. That's an awful lot of votes for the idea, even though it failed. Chuck Todd points out that more Senators voted to vastly expand gun rights than for the tepid Toomey/Manchin gun control law. Wow.
UPDATE VIII - Let the lefty machinations begin:
---> MT @fschouten it begins: @boldprogressive announces full-page ads against Pryor, Begich, Baucus& Heitkamp over bkgrnd check votes — Brad Dayspring (@BDayspring) April 17, 2013
UPDATE VII - Surprise:
Newtown families, Gabby Giffords at the podium at the White House. whitehouse.gov/live — Andrew Kaczynski (@BuzzFeedAndrew) April 17, 2013
UPDATE XIII - The federal Assault Weapons Ban stays buried. It wasn't close: 40 yes votes, 60 no.
UPDATE IX - Great point. Keep this in mind when you see video of the president's furious -- and I mean furious -- Rose Garden statement:
Didn’t this guy have 60 Democratic votes in the Senate not long ago? Where was the gun-control push then? — Allahpundit (@allahpundit) April 17, 2013
The grand irony is that this is happening at the exact same time that the Boston bombings are reminding people that there are worse weapons than guns.
What kind of anti-gun advocate is that ~ reminds me of the mob counseling that people don't need guns.
LOL! I hope he's spitting mad! Watch out for domestic violence, Reggie!
FYI...on the NY Safe Act
Albany Police Officers Union, local 2841, We respectfully demand that you do the right thing and repeal the law.
To: Andrew M. Cuomo / Dean G. Skelos / Neil D. Breslin / John T- McDonald III / Phil Steck / Sheldon Silver / Jeffrey D. Klein / Cecilia Tkaczyk / Patricia Fahy Note; see the formal list of people this letter went to at the bottom.
Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Albany Police Officers Union condemns and opposes the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act (the SAFE Act) Substantively, we believe that it violates fundamental constitutional rights, that it is unduly and purposely burdensome on law-abiding citizens, and that it will not deter criminals or menially ill individuals from plotting and carrying out bloodshed and violence. Procedurally, we believe that the way in which the bill was rammed into law via an unjustified and expedient message of necessity, which circumvents the right and the ability of the citizens of this State to voice their concerns about the bill and have them addressed, is an outrage. This flawed law and the w ay in which it was rushed and passed., shows the apparent contempt that those who govern have for the governed, and. calls into question whether we truly have a representational government. Morally, we believe that this law is about ideology and politics and not about making anyone any safer. We respectfully demand that you do the right thing and repeal the law.
First, while we applaud and support your overall concern for public safety and your desire to improve it. The SAFE Act will not improve public safety. Criminals and the mentally ill will not abide by it, and it is either foolish or dishonest to think or suggest otherwise. While law-abiding citizens will abide by the law and not load a ten-round magazine with more than seven rounds, do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence not load ten rounds into a ten-round magazine? While law-abiding citizens will abide by the law that previously legal thirty-round magazines must be sold within one-year to an out-of-state resident or turn in to local authorities, do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence to sell or turn in his thirty-round magazines? While law-abiding citizens will abide by the law requiring that they register weapons which they already do and which have been deemed assault weapons, do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence to do so? Do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence to be concerned about any increase in penalties for shooting first responders? Do you really expect that a mentally ill individual who owns firearms and who is intent on doing violence will voice his intentions to his or her mental health professional and thus put into motion the confiscation of his or her firearms? Do you-really expect that a mentally ill individual will safely store his firearms? Of course you dont. Again, only law-abiding citizens, who are not intent on doing violence, will abide the NY SAFE Act criminals and the mentally ill who are intent on doing violence will not do so. The public will not be any safer under this 1aw. What then, have you accomplished?
Second., the SAFE Act carries with it unfair burdens on law abiding citizen. What is the point of making law-abiding citizens register their previously lawfully owned and lawfully used firearms which are now deemed to be assault weapons? What is the point of making law-abiding citizens who affirmatively opt into protection from public identification that they hold permits or own firearms? What is the point of making law-abiding citizens renew their pistol permits or assault weapon registrations every five years? Why are you preemptively punishing those who have done nothing wrong?
Third, -we fully believe that the SAFE ACT broad prohibitions against will not. withstand constitutional challenge and scrutiny. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides and U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right of individuals to possess and carry firearms and to use them for lawful purposes. The SAFE Act, however, infringes on that right as it bans the possession and use of certain firearms that were heretofore possessed and used lawfully for the defense of life, liberty, and property, and as it bans the possession and use of certain firearms that were heretofore possessed and used lawfully for safe use of firearms recreation, hunting, and shooting.
We as police officers are on the front lines of public safety. Respectfully, none of you are. We see, feel, work, and live with the effects of gun violence in ways that you cannot. We believe that you see gun violence as a means to move your agenda and your ambitions forward. You know that the SAFE Act will not work in the way that you pretend it will. You know that this shameful SAFE Act was about ideology and politics and not about making anyone safer.
Regarding the reduction in violent crime this new legislation is proposed to have, in 2011 the most current year for which FBI crime statistics are available, New York State had 77l homicides, 445 were committed with a firearm, 394 of that 445 were committed with a handgun, 5 were committed with a rifle, 16 were committed with a shotgun, in 30 the firearm type was unknown, 160 were committed with a cutting instrument, 143 were committed with another type of weapon, and 26 were committed with bare hands. We believe based on these statistics, that the SAFE Act will do nothing to reduce violent crime as the primary target of the legislation is the assault rifle which would be included statistically with standard rifles and used in less than 1% of New York homicides in 2011.These so called Assault Weapons were not used in the commission of one reported crime in Albany County in 2011.
For the reasons set forth above, the Albany Police Union believes that the SAFE Act is wrong - substantively, procedurally, and morally. The SAFE Act infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens, it will burden and negatively impact firearms ownership by law-abiding citizens and will not affect the willingness of criminals or those who are mentally ill from perpetrating violence. Again, we respectfully demand that each and all of you do the right thing and repeal the law.
Very truly yours,
Thomas Mahar: President Albany Police Officers Union, local 2841 Council 82, AFSCME, AFI-CIO
thank you Republican senator Kelly aYote. and she's pretty too
I was hoping he would have a stroke and drop like a rock during his speech.
I’m confused. The only thing that got voted down today as I understand are the amendments, some of which would have instituted universal background checks (national rights exercise database). But the base bill already has a rights-exercise database provision. So why are so many on left AND right acting as if the bill is KO’ed? Is there some procedural thing I’m missing here?
Obama has his panties in a bunch. We have three years to make him look like a total loser and completely demoralize him. Wouldn’t it be ironic that things get so low for him that he takes a ....
He did have a class A, third grader, foot stompin, bawlin hissey fit, didn,t he? hehe
You would think those people could afford a suit for their kid to go to the white hut. At least tuck his shirt in and wear a belt.
Who is the buck and the sour looking guy on the left?
I don't think anybody wants President Plugs (The First Plagiarist of The United States). He'd probably nuke Canada thinking he was calling for coffee.
That arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania AVE is (starts with a p and ends with a d. Life is sweet. *Big smile*
I saw that - he was downright nasty. And full of "it".
He even kicks like a girl.
You did great!
Only thing better would have been to see the POS break glass kicking into the white hut or going in and then throwing things around.
I'd have a difficult time answering the question of whether I support gun control; if you mean accurate aiming, perhaps even involving holding the gun with both hands, then, yes! Of course; by all means.
On the other hand, if by "gun control" you mean a tyrannical government unconstitutionally infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms then the answer would have to be: "Of course not; what's the matter with you?"
Fox News just showed him on TV. Trust me he was pissed.
Bwahahaha!!! The tribe has spoken.
After yesterday, people have every reason to be skeptical about their government's intentions in terms of gun control when they can't even congregate in a public space safely.
As soon as I heard the news of the bombing, I speculated that the gun control issue would suddenly become a non-issue.
Big Bang Bumparoo!
I have summarized the results of all of tonight’s votes over on this thread:
****menially ill individuals****
In my opinion this is a “hinge phrase”. Highly appropriate in its use and highly useable by the left to distort its meaning.
Don’t worry nobama. Reggie will make you feel better next time you two are “together”.
At least he could tuck his shirt in.
I will tell you....Prior from AR voted NO only because his vote wasn’t needed. We will defeat this Marxist in 2014. Count on it.
I know that this guy has to say this about law-abiding citizens, but I'd like to know if he really believes that there's going to be anything close to 100% compliance. Methinks that it'll be more like 25%. I can tell you from my experience in NJ with its magazine ban that compliance will be miniscule - the people that own guns generally know their rights, know that a Constitutionally-void law is no law, and have a certain contempt for statist SOBs that want to burden them for the acts of criminals and mental defectives.
Oh, and I wouldn't want to be a cop in NY trying to enforce this POS legislation. I presume that they all want to return home in their automobiles every day, not leave work in a body bag. THAT is the real reason this letter was written.
Oh, and I have a message for pResident Zero: Phuck you and the horse you rode in on. We won, and you can't do diddly about it, chump! Hope you get a bad case of the Hershey squirts and don't sleep a wink tonight, knowing that the American People are wise to your statist crap, and that even your bought-and-paid-for Senators can count voters.
Ubama and the scumbag liberals are stomping their feet? Good.
One thing I’d like to see more people start doing: use terms other than “law” to describe illegitimate statutes, regulations, ordinances, etc. Statutes, regulations, ordinances, etc. which are contrary to the supreme Law of the Land are void and are not laws; thus by definition, anything which is actually a law must be constitutional. I’m not saying every mention of unconstitutional acts must get into a discussion of the fact that such things are not laws, but would like to see such things using nouns like “statute” or “rule” rather than “law”. Liberals subvert vocabulary to promote lies; conservatives need to use correct vocabulary to promote truth.
Right, but isn’t the base bill still alive (S.649, with national database)? So why are they all so pissed and why are all the pro-rights people so happy, like this was a fait accompli?
First, Senator Dianne Feinstein during the debate on her so-called assault weapons ban urged her colleagues to show some guts. I am reminded that in Japan failed leaders tended to “show their guts” in a more ritual way via seppuku(also called harakiri). Perhaps the Senator from California should take her own advice.
Finally, after reading what our President said today about this being only the first round. I am reminded of the words of former Sec. State and Senator Hillary Clinton, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
Hip! Hip! Hooray! Finally some good news.
Several amendments were voted down because they didn’t get the required 60 votes. My understanding is that the cloture vote on Apr. 9 allows the bill to pass the Senate on a majority vote. So whatever the bill reads and if no amendments are agreed to then a simple majority can pass it in the Senate. Don’t know how accurate all that is.
from the following:
The cloture vote does not guarantee that the bill will pass, but it does now put it up to a simple majority vote in the Senate. Democrats have the majority in the Senate, and often vote with their party rather than vote with what their constituents want. They did that very thing when they passed ObamaCare, and had not read that bill before passing it either. Democrat Mary Landrieu, for instance, is from a red state, but shell do what the party tells her to do after extracting some meaningless concessions. The pressure will then mount on the House to kill it. Obamas political army OFA is already emailing its minions to keep the pressure up on Congress to pass the bill which no one has actually read.
We need to make that faggot pay to replace that door jamb.
I did email him and let him know we expected a NO vote. I don’t know if it did any good but I will support any conservative candidate.
Beautiful! Thank you!
remember the MSM was confident is reporting THE GREAT ONE Obama was PERSONALLY making calles.
the democrats must hate him, really really hate him.
This bill was never major. The base bill does almost nothing, the amendment that was rejected was about the minimum possible thing they could do and say they did anything.
Obama should feel lucky that the entire bill isn’t hijacked to roll BACK some of the restrictions on guns.
Agreed, the base bill was intended as a vehicle to which these other proposed laws could be affixed as amendments. Looks like Lautenberg’s magazine-capacity amendment is still awaiting a vote, though. Think I’ll wait on that one before celebrating (but I am smiling a bit - can’t help it).
Right out of the Big Lie Playbook. Particularly effective with a cooperating MSM.
There is only one reason this failed, and that is because it would not have passed the House. These senators didn't want to put themselves on the line and then have it hurt them.
Always count ALL democrats in favor of gun control. If this were a matter of one or 2 votes WITH a good chance to pass in the House, then all of those democrats would have voted FOR it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.