Senate Voting on Gun Control Today - 6/23

Bartholomew Roberts · June 23, 2016, 01:56 PM

Sen. Collins's "compromise" bill is getting a vote tomorrow. The vote is a "motion to table." If the Ayes win, the bill is dead for now. If the Nays win, the bill moves forward for debate and may eventually get a real vote.

I am unable to locate any text for the bill or bill number; but the news is reporting it will prohibit anyone on the no-fly or selectee lists from buying a gun (about 109,000 people). Also, unlike the NRA/Cornyn bill, the burden to prove you are not a terrorist falls on the denied person but you at least get a kangaroo court as opposed to no court at all like the Feinstein version. Finally, LE will be notified but the sale not blocked for anyone on the terrorist watchlist in the last 5 years.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...mise/86288040/

ETA: The bill was just voted on and the motion to table was rejected; however, no vote was scheduled either - so there is at least 3 business days (probably more, even a lot more) before it can get a vote. And incentive wise, both sides of the Senate probably do not want to see it get a vote. A cynical person might suggest allowing it to not be tabled without scheduling a vote lets everyone tell their constituents whatever they want to hear.

rickyrick · June 23, 2016, 02:24 PM

The funny thing is that one of them (can't remember who) said that if they had enough probable cause to prove that they were a terrorist and shouldn't have a gun then they'd have enough probable cause to arrest them. So what they propose is to deny rights without enough probable cause to arrest them.... Shure sounds like freedom to me.

Glenn E. Meyer · June 23, 2016, 03:23 PM

A friend suggested that neither side would want a compromise bill (let's avoid saying there is no such thing for argument's sake) to pass. A failure lets both sides have fits and try to raise money on the failure to do anything.

davem · June 23, 2016, 04:50 PM

Of the 600,000 gun purchases denied the first year background checks were established 6 people were prosecuted for violating the law. Felons are not supposed to even touch a firearm let alone try to buy one. 599,994 persons who violated this law were not prosecuted. Liberals want gun confiscation not gun control. The idea is to pass endless gun control laws, enforce none of them, then say they don't work so more strict laws are needed and keep going until the only answer is gun confiscation.
According to these folks only the Federal Government has a right to keep arms. The national guard, with a stroke of the pen, is part of the federal government. I have some police officer friends and when I tell them they'll have to turn in their firearms along with everyone else they laugh at me. Yesterday, when those tearing up the halls of congress were outraged about gun violence "against their people" the famous shootings referred to were POLICE SHOOTINGS. I pointed that to the guys this morning. They didn't laugh at me this time.
Most people on earth dream of being free. We are the other way around, we are free and seem determined to throw it away.

5whiskey · June 23, 2016, 11:40 PM

Funny thing is the national guard, and military in general, will probably not respond too well to an order to confiscate private citizens firearms. Law enforcement response in many areas (south, most of the Midwest) won't be very enthusiastic either, if not plainly uncooperative.

This, of course, assumes a sweeping and drastic ban in a short time frame. The slow erosion of rights is our greatest danger.

June 23, 2016, 01:56 PM	#1
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Senate Voting on Gun Control Today - 6/23 Sen. Collins's "compromise" bill is getting a vote tomorrow. The vote is a "motion to table." If the Ayes win, the bill is dead for now. If the Nays win, the bill moves forward for debate and may eventually get a real vote. I am unable to locate any text for the bill or bill number; but the news is reporting it will prohibit anyone on the no-fly or selectee lists from buying a gun (about 109,000 people). Also, unlike the NRA/Cornyn bill, the burden to prove you are not a terrorist falls on the denied person but you at least get a kangaroo court as opposed to no court at all like the Feinstein version. Finally, LE will be notified but the sale not blocked for anyone on the terrorist watchlist in the last 5 years. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...mise/86288040/ ETA: The bill was just voted on and the motion to table was rejected; however, no vote was scheduled either - so there is at least 3 business days (probably more, even a lot more) before it can get a vote. And incentive wise, both sides of the Senate probably do not want to see it get a vote. A cynical person might suggest allowing it to not be tabled without scheduling a vote lets everyone tell their constituents whatever they want to hear. Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; June 23, 2016 at 03:03 PM.

June 23, 2016, 03:23 PM	#3
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	A friend suggested that neither side would want a compromise bill (let's avoid saying there is no such thing for argument's sake) to pass. A failure lets both sides have fits and try to raise money on the failure to do anything. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

June 23, 2016, 02:24 PM	#2
rickyrick Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2010 Posts: 8,238	The funny thing is that one of them (can't remember who) said that if they had enough probable cause to prove that they were a terrorist and shouldn't have a gun then they'd have enough probable cause to arrest them. So what they propose is to deny rights without enough probable cause to arrest them.... Shure sounds like freedom to me.

June 23, 2016, 04:50 PM	#4
davem Junior member Join Date: October 4, 2004 Posts: 458	Of the 600,000 gun purchases denied the first year background checks were established 6 people were prosecuted for violating the law. Felons are not supposed to even touch a firearm let alone try to buy one. 599,994 persons who violated this law were not prosecuted. Liberals want gun confiscation not gun control. The idea is to pass endless gun control laws, enforce none of them, then say they don't work so more strict laws are needed and keep going until the only answer is gun confiscation. According to these folks only the Federal Government has a right to keep arms. The national guard, with a stroke of the pen, is part of the federal government. I have some police officer friends and when I tell them they'll have to turn in their firearms along with everyone else they laugh at me. Yesterday, when those tearing up the halls of congress were outraged about gun violence "against their people" the famous shootings referred to were POLICE SHOOTINGS. I pointed that to the guys this morning. They didn't laugh at me this time. Most people on earth dream of being free. We are the other way around, we are free and seem determined to throw it away.

June 23, 2016, 11:40 PM	#5
5whiskey Senior Member Join Date: October 23, 2005 Location: US Posts: 3,657	Funny thing is the national guard, and military in general, will probably not respond too well to an order to confiscate private citizens firearms. Law enforcement response in many areas (south, most of the Midwest) won't be very enthusiastic either, if not plainly uncooperative. This, of course, assumes a sweeping and drastic ban in a short time frame. The slow erosion of rights is our greatest danger.