NRA Defeated In Key Gun Violence Prevention Vote: Elections Have Consequences

[marmar]

from HuffPost:



Paul Helmke
President, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Posted: July 22, 2009 07:44 PM
NRA Defeated In Key Gun Violence Prevention Vote: Elections Have Consequences


The National Rifle Association leadership suffered a major defeat in the U.S. Senate today, losing a key vote on a bill that would have radically weakened rules governing the concealed carrying of firearms around the country.

Gun violence prevention advocates across America worked day and night contacting their Senators, convincing them to defeat the gun lobby's dangerous proposal. Today, all their hard work paid off as Senators voted to protect American communities and reject gun lobby threats.

One point of interest is the fact that three targets of strong NRA attacks in the 2008 elections for U.S. Senate, who went on to win their elections anyway, were part of a group that made the difference today in helping keep our communities safe.

Last November, these three individuals were all rated 'F' by the NRA. The NRA went on to spend more than a combined $600,000 to defeat them and elect their opponents. What's more, the NRA's preferred candidates in each of these three races were incumbents, and all three incumbents were defeated. .............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/nra-defeated-in-key-gun-v_b_243225.html

[Redneck Socialist]

1. Hell of a victory you eked out there Paul

The twenty Democrats that voted for the amendment certainly are an indication that elections have consequences. One consequence being that your organization is more marginalized than ever.

[krispos42]

2. It the same magnitude of victory that the Repubs have...

They filibuster it so a vocal idealogical minority obstructs the process. "Only" 58 votes for it.

[Va Lefty]

3. We haven't seen the last of this bill

I suspect it will come up for a vote before the mid-terms

[derby378]

8. My sentiments exactly

And this time around, I hope we'll have plenty of time to study the legislation thoroughly so we can make an informed decision.

[spanone]

9. or someone will attach it to a bill while congress is sleeping

[derby378]

13. Sort like how Charlie Rangel muscled that machine gun ban through the House in 1986

No evidence of a majority vote in the House for that measure. I'm just sayin'...

[marmar]

14. Good for Charlie Rangel.

n/t

[derby378]

20. How so?

Here's the deal:

Before the ban, if you wanted to legally own full-auto, you needed to fill out a special form for the BATFE, whose agents would then fingerprint and photograph you and insist that a judge or sheriff sign off on the purchase. The BATFE would then interview you, subject you to an extensive background/security check and waiting period of no less than 60 days (usually 6-12 months), and charge you a $200 transfer tax for the machine gun.

Since the ban has been enacted, if you want to legally own full-auto, you needed to fill out a special form for the BATFE, whose agents would then fingerprint and photograph you and insist that a judge or sheriff sign off on the purchase. The BATFE would then interview you, subject you to an extensive background/security check and waiting period of no less than 60 days (usually 6-12 months), and charge you a $200 transfer tax for the machine gun. But you cannot legally take possession of any machine gun or automatic rifle that was manufactured and registered with the BATFE after May 1986.

And yes, I do feel this provision needs to go bye-bye. If Rangel wants this ban reinstated, he can get it passed in the House with honor and transparency for a change.

[slackmaster]

22. Charlie Rangel is a lying sack of shit

:nuke:

[X_Digger]

4. Some win..

.. a measure that gun owners were ambivalent about to begin with, that nobody expected to come up any time soon, that is being made unnecessary by state reciprocity agreements.. got a majority of votes, but failed to get 2/3 by two votes.

Umm, yah, you go get 'em tiger. *snort*

[usregimechange]

5. I don't understand how a vote 58 in favor is rejected...

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00237

[X_Digger]

6. Needed 2/3 (60) votes to pass. n/t

[Statistical]

7. 2/3rds is not 60 it would be 67. 60 is 3/5ths and is just an artificial senate rule.

The 60 vote requirement is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The senate could change it tomorrow if they wanted to.

[X_Digger]

10. err yah, meant 60..

.. brain fart.

The whole '60 votes required for amending spending bills' thing can be a pain sometimes, sometimes not- have you seen the 215+ amendments to that bill? Going to be more amendments than bill soon..

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1390&tab=amendments

[Statistical]

12. Sadly that is business as usual for Congress.

I never understood why a bill isn't passed on its own.

Of course the Senate (and House) have the right and authority to create any sort of procedures they wish to facilitate the process but the whole ammending unrelated bills always seemed suspect to me.

[derby378]

11. If Paul Helmke covered the Battle of the Alamo...

...I think his report would look something like this:

The Texan rebels suffered a major defeat in San Antonio today, losing a key battle for a stronghold that would have radically weakened General Santa Anna's control of the country.

Texas independence prevention advocates across Mexico worked day and night contacting their General, convincing him to defeat the Texan's dangerous rebellion. Today, all their hard work paid off as the General's forces acted to protect Mexican communities and reject Sam Houston's threats.

Why do I find this funny? Because for every Alamo defender killed in the siege, Santa Anna lost three soldiers. Taking the Alamo hurt the Mexican Army more than it helped them.

:rofl:

[old mark]

15. Actually what was defeated was the rights of millions of American

citizens.

Glad you all are so happy about it.

mark

[DainBramaged]

16. WHAT RIGHT, the right to bring YOUR guns into a State where concealed carry

isn't given to everyone who can prove they can stand up? Give me a break, keep your paranoia in your home state. All of a sudden, the advocates of State's right who are gun huggers decide that State's rights are now trumped? YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

Glad you are so UNHAPPY about it.

[old mark]

17. My PA state license to carry a firearm is valid in 24 other states.

I am the same person who has had the thorough background check required to get this permit, which I have held for the past 15 years, no matter what state I am in at the time.
I see no reason why the permit should not be reciprocated in ALL 50 states - and DC.

I am not too unhappy - It will pass next time this comes up, when a few more Democrats support it.

It needs more Democratic sponsorship.

mark

[DainBramaged]

18. Yup carry that gun so the boogie man don't getya

Guns, the addiction of gun huggers. If you need to carry a gun 24/7 you need to see someone about your paranoia. I'm 58, NEVER in my life, and I have been all over the country in my work to all of the States except Hawaii, Alaska, South Dakota and Maine, and have NEVER found the need to carry a gun.

You folks are what the word fear is all about.

[old mark]

19. You certainly have the right not to do anything you don't want to do.

I am happy that you are happy with your choice.

mark

[slackmaster]

21. Paul Helmke is a lying sack of GOP shit

K&U

:kick:

[Tim01]

23. This bill did NOT have the full suport of the pro gun rights community.

Some of us supported it, some did not. I did not. Because I think is starts to open the door to a national concealed carry license that could then be taken away all at once. Currently I can carry in some states and the govt has no say about it.
It's no wonder it didn't pass if not even all of us were behind it.