Senate Is at stake in Georgia runoff

[HiBC]

This is a heads up. It relates to the 2A via stated policy intents.

Two Senate seats will soon be decided by a runoff in Georgia. I'd post names but then it would seem I'm campaigning. I'll leave this neutral and report facts.

You make your own choices.

IF Harris become VP,and if the two GOP Senators lose the runoff, the Senate will be a 50-50 split with Harris having the tie breaker vote.
That means the Senate is at stake.

I suspect some very wealthy people will be interested in steering the outcome.

There are about 100.000.000 gun owners in the USA.

A bunch of them have a little available cash to buy ammo,or components.

Only there is no ammo or components on the shelf to buy.

So that cash might be "fungible" ...or available to be diverted into another cause.

I'm not sure how the Mods would take it if I suggest exactly what you might do.
I suggest if you search "Georgia Senate Runoff" you might get some ideas.

[5whiskey]

This has been my one concern. I am not upset at Biden winning, but I did not want a Democrat sweep and I definitely wanted republicans to hold the senate.

I do have a question, however, since we are here and discussing senate majorities. Why is it that republicans will have 50 (assuming Alaska and N.C. pull through), and the Democrats would have 48 IF they won both runoffs, yet the two independents are added to the democrat caucus to give them 50 also (if they win both seats in GA)? That does not seem right or fair. Why do 2 independents get to be counted for democrats and make a tie, in essence making Kamala Harris the head of the senate?

[44 AMP]

This is a heads up. It relates to the 2A via stated policy intents.

Very THIN ICE...particularly here in L&CR...
but lets see if it will hold the conversation without cracking

First point I'd consider is the Senate will be a 50-50 split with the VP having the tie breaker vote.

That is our system. Its been our system for some time. How often does it actually come to that? Not often.

On some things, like when their guy is being impeached, the parties get very tight lockstep party line vote but on other issues there are often those who "break rank" with the party line. ON both sides.

When it comes to gun control issues a lot of the matter will absolutely depend on specifically what is proposed, and to a degree, when. Right now other than general intent (Hell yes we're coming for your AR15!) its all just hot air. The apparent administration elect won't be in office until next year. Until they are, and can propose something specific, they are promising people they well fix everything and giving only vague hints how.

Neither side is as monolithic as they try to appear, and after the heady days of "we won! we can do ANYTHING!" wear off reality will be a bit different than their boasts of today.

There is no landslide in this election, no overwhelming mandate from the majority of the voters. Its a SLIM margin election, and the future is far from set.

[HiBC]

Its also still hypothetical,regardless of a certain amount of jumping the gun.
The election is not certified yet.
The news media does not have powers granted by Congress to declare an election.

It ain't over till its over. Time will tell.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Right now other than general intent (Hell yes we're coming for your AR15!) its all just hot air....giving only vague hints how

So you place no stock in this:https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/

Maybe here is something to consider?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=836WNTHzdbI

I do find the "whistling past the graveyard" view here interesting. I do hope you're right in that it is all hot air but if the Senate does not remain in R hands then I think it will be a reality. Discussion here will then be moot.

[44 AMP]

the real difference at this point is that they haven't printed 100,000 copies of the paper saying "DEWEY WINS!".

So, we're saving paper, at least....

[ballardw]

Originally Posted by 5whiskey

This has been my one concern. I am not upset at Biden winning, but I did not want a Democrat sweep and I definitely wanted republicans to hold the senate.

I do have a question, however, since we are here and discussing senate majorities. Why is it that republicans will have 50 (assuming Alaska and N.C. pull through), and the Democrats would have 48 IF they won both runoffs, yet the two independents are added to the democrat caucus to give them 50 also (if they win both seats in GA)? That does not seem right or fair. Why do 2 independents get to be counted for democrats and make a tie, in essence making Kamala Harris the head of the senate?

One of those "independents" is Bernie Sanders and the other, Angus King of Maine historically has voted with the Democrats.

[natman]

In the interest of non-partisanship, here are the places to make donations for all the candidates in the Georgia Senate runoff:

Republican
https://kellyforsenate.com/
https://perduesenate.com/

Democrat
https://warnockforgeorgia.com/
https://electjon.com/

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

So, we're saving bits and bytes, at least....

Fixed it.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by HiBC

It ain't over till its over. Time will tell.

Do you seriously believe that Trump can win?

[5whiskey]

One of those "independents" is Bernie Sanders and the other, Angus King of Maine historically has voted with the Democrats.

I completely understand that. My point is republicans technically will still have a majority when it comes down to electing senate leadership. You want to run independent instead of democrat for political expediency that’s fine, but you shouldn’t count toward figuring majority when it comes to determining senate majority leadership. Along with committee majorities. If Mitch could keep his post we would be, theoretically, safe as he SHOULD refuse to bring any gun control measure to the floor for a vote. That’s my point. I understand angus and sanders are basically democrats, but why do dems get to count them in their numbers when they are technically independent? That does not seem right. That’s all I’m saying.

[ballardw]

I really wanted to see the challenge related to party membership if Bernie won the democratic presidential nomination. I suspect it would have been a wonder to behold.

But the question would be "functional majority". I seem to remember one of the times the Republicans lost a senate majority was not due to an election but an "independent" declaring a change in which party he/she would caucus with. Senate rules are esoteric at best.

[TXAZ]

The math is straight forward, the Republicans have 48 solid and 2 virtually here for 50 seats based on the current tally’s (Alaska and NC). Here’s the breakout.
Alaska is very likely to go down as Republican if the R candidate even gets 15% of remaining votes, that gets Republicans up to 49.

North Carolina, not having a runoff requirement for the senate election gets down to basic math: 5.4 million votes have been cast in the senate race, that's 98% of the total vote, with 2% (108K) remaining to be counted. The republican is leading by 96K votes. That means that if the republican candidate get 12% of the remaining vote, he wins. It's likely he's get at least 30%, so North Carolina, short of Lyndon Johnson rising from the grave to steal another senate race 72 years after the first, that makes 50 republican senators.

Only Georgia (and Louisiana) require a majority win in general elections.
That leaves 2 in Georgia, both with 2% of the votes not counted. While republicans are ahead in both races, currently neither has a majority, so there's a runoff.
With the senate in the balance, expect 100's of Millions up to Billions (yes billions) of dollars to flow into Georgia to influence these runoffs of the 7.6M registered Georgia voters.
The democrats have to win both. The republicans only have to win 1.

But then again Michael Bloomberg has offered to spend up to a Billion, so he could afford to pay (indirectly of course ) $130 to each voter for their patronage. And others (on both sides) are likely (legally try ) to buy the senate.

But even with a 50-50 senate, one current US senator noted it is very difficult for the president to get things done as a single senator from the presidents party can screw the pooch. And don't forget there are at least 6 Democratic Senators who are from conservative states.

Bottom line: 1 republican senator from Georgia shuts the “wave” down, but if that doesn't happen, still don't bet heavy on the Green Deal, comprehensive gun control, repeal of Trump tax cuts and other key issues.

One last thought on the flip side of the aisle: At 50/50 a single democrat senator can literally get almost anything they want by threatening to vote against a presidentially supported bill, making leadership very nervous and more likely to water down harsh legislation to even have a hope of passing.
This isn’t the first 50/50 split and won’t be the last. What is assured is a president must move toward the opposition to pick up enough votes to pass *****ANYTHING*****.

[roscoe]

You can be sure that gun control is pretty far down the list of Biden's priorities. Nothing happened under Obama, and I expect the same. And then there is the 6-3 USSC split. I would say guns are safe.

Not that folks won't use the issue on both sides for fund raising, etc., but the will just isn't there for advancing gun control.

[raimius]

Roscoe, a lot of the public is pliable to anti-guin claims. I wouldn't be so sure that there won't be some sort of push. It is something Biden actively campaigned on. The specifics are what remains to be seen. The broad agenda has been posted for months.

[BJung]

Raimus, I look forward to a report from you within a year. My post is not meant to offend you but I want to know how much gun control will be imposed on AZ as it turns from a Red to a Blue State. A high school buddy of mines lives in Tucson and I asked him how AZ could turn Blue. He said that too many Californians moved there.

[HiBC]

Question:
If the Senate runoff does result in a 50-50 split
And if the Pres election goes Biden-Harris,with Harris the tie-breaker,
Does Chuck Schumer become Senate Majority leader?

Consider the implications.

[Mainah]

Anyone seen Wayne lately?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by 5whiskey

but you shouldn’t count toward figuring majority when it comes to determining senate majority leadership.

Both those independents caucus with the Democrats. For all intents and purposes they ARE Democrats for big votes.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by roscoe

You can be sure that gun control is pretty far down the list of Biden's priorities....I would say guns are safe.

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
I know he's a politician but I think it unwise not to take him at his word.

Originally Posted by roscoe

Nothing happened under Obama, and I expect the same.

The republicans controlled BOTH houses during all but two years of Obama's tenure. They stopped all efforts at gun control. If the Senate goes D then what I have shown you above WILL be proposed and likely pass. That is why the Georgia race is existential.

[natman]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
I know he's a politician but I think it unwise not to take him at his word.



The republicans controlled BOTH houses during all but two years of Obama's tenure. They stopped all efforts at gun control. If the Senate goes D then what I have shown you above WILL be proposed and likely pass. That is why the Georgia race is existential.

During the two years Obama had a Democratic congress, Harry Reid was Senate Majority leader. He was in the Senate in 1994 when the Democrats lost 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate as a reaction to the Clinton's Assault Weapon Ban and didn't want to risk a repeat. So he refused Omaba's request for a new ban.

It's possible that Biden won't act on his promise for draconian gun laws, but that's a mighty slender reed to gamble our freedom on.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Harry Reid is long gone and (named omitted) is hard over on gun control. Plus the first two years Obama spent all his political capital on Obamacare. Further, the left wing of the Dems was not as strong or vocal.

Like I said, I know Biden is a pol but I tend to take him at his word.

[sigarms228]

IMHO is is very unlikely that Joe Biden will get any gun bans through congress even if the democrats pick up the 2 seats in Georgia. Consider that in 2013 the proposed AWB shortly after the Sandy Hook shooting was soundly defeated with 15 democrat senators voting no and that AWB included grandfather of already owned firearms with no registration requirement. Senators are more independent than house members as there are only 100 of them, their term lasts 6 years, and it now costs tens of millions of dollars to defend a senate seat. Memories are still fresh with them with what happened to many who voted for the 1994 AWB losing their next re election bid and that there are a whole lot more firearm owners these days including the ever popular AR-15 style rifles where estimates run around 20 million being owned by law abiding gun owners which certainly does not qualify them as being both "dangerous and unusual" per the Heller decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assaul...ns_Ban_of_2013

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, failed on a vote of 40 in favor to 60 in opposition. It was supported by Democrat Reid and Republican Senator Mark Kirk, but 15 Democrats, one independent, and all the Republicans except Kirk voted against the ban.

Also keep in mind that now with ACB on SCOTUS, that may actually make democrats more reluctant to try and pass anther AWB and such a ban would almost surely go to SCOTUS after a court ordering a stay on the law in the mean time. If SCOTUS strikes down an AWB that could also have far reaching consequences invalidating most gun ban laws in blue/purple states.

I expect that priorities for gun control will probably include federal red flag law and UBC but not gun bans.

Please continue to financially support your favorite Second Amendment Rights organizations.

[BarryLee]

Keep in mind it won't take major gun bans to make exercising our Constitutional freedom more difficult. Things like restrictions on internet sells or increased taxes/fees for things like trauma rooms, mental health care, suicide prevention, criminal justice reform, gun violence related research etc. All funded by new fees on firearms, ammo and accessories. This would pretty much fly under the radar of the casual observer, but make things much more onerous for those trying to exercise their right.

[5whiskey]

Keep in mind it won't take major gun bans to make exercising our Constitutional freedom more difficult. Things like restrictions on internet sells or increased taxes/fees for things like trauma rooms, mental health care, suicide prevention, criminal justice reform, gun violence related research etc. All funded by new fees on firearms, ammo and accessories. This would pretty much fly under the radar of the casual observer, but make things much more onerous for those trying to exercise their right.

When reading through the newer posts in the thread this is exactly what I was thinking. I don’t think we see an AWB or anything that big with a 50/50 split. The party that typically campaigns on gun control did not see the sweeping wave that they thought they would get. Essentially they won the presidency by a slim margin, lost seats in the House, and it’s looking like they maybe pick up 1 or 2 in the senate. I believe the runoff will be much more like an off-year election where the opposition party to the presidency fares much better. And if history is an indicator, winning a majority in the HOR and expanding control in the senate will be on the table in 2022... depending on how the joe Biden presidency looks. There has been good bit of reporting on how many democrat house members felt like this election was disappointment to them. “Dumpster fire” was used as a descriptor by one democrat representative. There is no sweeping mandate attached to this election results, and that is widely known.

At the same time, banning internet sales of parts, and ammo, may be seen as “reasonable” by more people as it doesn’t ban any particular item... just makes them harder to get for some. Mucking around with internet sales of parts and ammo would be a huge hit to a lot of people once you think about it, it I could see that being an easier political sale to the general public than a AWB. And yes an excise tax would also hurt pretty bad, because I would wager if they go that route then it won’t be a petty sum.