GOP Senators voting for Gun Bill

[Ramlock]

Did you hire any of these guys?

The following is a list of Republican lawmakers who voted to advance the gun legislation in the Senate Thursday:

New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte

Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss

Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn

Maine Sen. Susan Collins

Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake

Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson

Arizona Sen. John McCain

Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker

North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven

Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham

Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander

Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker

Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey

Nevada Sen. Dean Heller



Read more: List of Republican, Democratic defections on Senate gun legislation - Fox News

[gregintenn]

My two Senators did. I voted against both of them, and will continue to do so. I've called and emailed both. I don't know what else to do within the bounds of the law. This stuff is really getting old.

[DGT]

I have always thought a lot of Tom Coburn... until I saw this.

[pharman]

Just think, if these 16 would have voted No, the whole damn thing would have been dead in the water. What a dirty rotten shame! Remember them next election time!

[HAWKEYE10]

Originally Posted by DGT

I have always thought a lot of Tom Coburn... until I saw this.

I will have to take a different view. I don't think a lot of any politician. Don

[Foodfuzz]

They never fail to disappoint do they?

[jaykellogg]

Wish I was more politically savvy. My Republican Senator was on the list. He doesn't come up for reelection for six years. As you know anything passed in the Senate will have tough sledding in the house. If it is a close vote in the Senate some moderate Red State senators may be pressured to vote "for". This could seriously hurt their reelection chances next year. To some extent it is to our benefit to have these senators declare themselves before the election. I guess I will withhold my condemnation of Richard Burr until I see how he votes on the final bill. I believe Harry Reid would prefer to not have any anti gun votes this year for that reason. I believe Harry gives very little chance of anything passing.

OTOH, if it passes the Senate and the House votes it down, the administration can portray the house members as "extremists".

[HAWKEYE10]

Originally Posted by gregintenn

My two Senators did. I voted against both of them, and will continue to do so. I've called and emailed both. I don't know what else to do within the bounds of the law. This stuff is really getting old.

I agree. We just don't have a senator in Tennessee that will stand up us. Don

[jaykellogg]

OK, I called Senator burr's office and according to the person I spoke to there Senator Burr does not support the legislation and will not vote "for".

As I thought these are procedural votes and mean nothing. I will sit back and watch.

[V-35]

I just tried to contact Tom Coburn's Office and got a recording that 'they' were on the phone and to leave a message. When switched to the voice mail I got "I'm sorry, that mailbox is full". I wonder how many of these senators will have new 'jobs' working for Bloomburg after he buys this congress off. He's the only one with the money to do this and he said that he would.

I am extreamly dissappointed in Tom Coburn as I always thought that he was his own man. Looks like I was wrong.


Art

[Mickey D]

We don't have any GOPs in CA.

[Lost Lake]

Originally Posted by jaykellogg

OK, I called Senator burr's office and according to the person I spoke to there Senator Burr does not support the legislation and will not vote "for".

As I thought these are procedural votes and mean nothing. I will sit back and watch.

So what is this vote then? Just a vote to bring the issue up for vote maybe?

I'm not savvy to the ways of politics... I hate politics.

[KKECK5]

I'M from Massachusetts, so seeing a Republican Rep or Senator around here is like sighting Big Foot. BUT trust me there are 'normal folk' that live around here, especially away from Boston. I wouldn't go crazy just yet....this is only the first step and might be a good one.....Now the Dems need to actually vote and play their hand. NOT hide behind saying " The Republicans won't let us have a vote on a GUN BILL, it's all their fault". Ok, have your vote, and Good Luck in 2014. It's not going anywhere in the House anyways.

[V-35]

Originally Posted by jaykellogg

OK, I called Senator burr's office and according to the person I spoke to there Senator Burr does not support the legislation and will not vote "for".

As I thought these are procedural votes and mean nothing. I will sit back and watch.

I think this is a typical politicians Trick. Vote 'For' when you can kill it in committee, then when it Passes in the full senate they can say "Hey, I VOTED AGAINST IT. I'VE ALWAYS BEEN ON YOUR SIDE." .............. NOT!!!!


Art

[FishingPilot]

It's nothing more than a procedural vote to allow the bill to come to the floor. Then they get to debate/vote on the bill and any amendments added to it. That's when the fun begins. The DEMs will try to add amendments for an assault weapons ban & high capacity magazine limits (they have already indicated so) and will most likely try to add some amendment about school safety so when the REPs vote against it they can say that "The Republicans are against protecting our children by voting against this law". So even though the procedural vote might not mean much, it's opening the door for the DEMs to embarrass the REPs once again by forcing them to vote NO. Even if this makes it out of the Senate, House Speaker JB has already said it would not make it to a vote. So I'm not too worried about it passing. More worried about the fallout in 2014.

[jaykellogg]

As I understand things Universal background checks is a concept that a lot of low information voters can get behind. As written I don't see a lot of harm in this bill. Don't get me wrong, I oppose the bill as not necessary. However, I think the anti gunners have more to lose bringing a bill up assuming they actually think it won't pass.

The reason is, Pro gun voters have a long memory and are more likely to be one issue voters. Democrats are a lot less likely to vote against a Dem if he/she voted wrong on this issue.

[PlaytheAces]

When Heller ran here in Nevada, he claimed to be a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. He won election by a fairly slim margin. My wife and I voted for him, as did some of our friends. Course, he was running against someone with corruption issues hanging over her head.

Now it seems he isn't quite the proponent of our rights as he claimed.

While I'll withhold judgement until the final vote comes up, right now I don't see any of us ever voting for him again. We'll sit an election out rather than vote for anyone who doesn't support the 2nd.

[tops]

Originally Posted by jaykellogg

OK, I called Senator burr's office and according to the person I spoke to there Senator Burr does not support the legislation and will not vote "for".

As I thought these are procedural votes and mean nothing. I will sit back and watch.

If he is really not for it he should have voted against advancing the bill. He is as crooked as the Rep. the last state elections that said if they were elected we would get some of the concealed carry rules relaxed. We have seen how that worked out. Larry

[radar1972]

Ashamed to say my two Senatorial Wimps are on the list.
Emails and faxes sent indicating my EXTREME displeasure with their votes today (and my EXTREME joy that Chambliss is retiring at the end of his term).

[diamonback68]

This procedural vote means nothing. It merely allows it to move forward so they can debate it. Much to do about nothing. Calm down folks this thing has a long way to go.

[S&WIowegan]

Stay calm people. This a political game...the Republicans are voting to bring it to the floor for debate and real on-the-record votes! They are forcing the Dems to go on record.....either vote no and stick it to Obama or vote yes and get beat at home the next time they run.

Wait and see!!!

[mstuhr]

"I cannot imagine any condition which would cause a ship to founder. I cannot conceive of any vital disaster happening to this vessel. Modern ship building has gone beyond that."
-Captain Smith, Commander of Titanic

Thanks
Mike

[HAWKEYE10]

Originally Posted by Mickey D

We don't have any GOPs in CA.

The way things are going it's hard to tell the difference. Don

[ancient-one]

Originally Posted by V-35

I just tried to contact Tom Coburn's Office and got a recording that 'they' were on the phone and to leave a message. When switched to the voice mail I got "I'm sorry, that mailbox is full". I wonder how many of these senators will have new 'jobs' working for Bloomburg after he buys this congress off. He's the only one with the money to do this and he said that he would.

I am extreamly dissappointed in Tom Coburn as I always thought that he was his own man. Looks like I was wrong.


Art

Senator Coburn is a man of intense intelligence and integrity. I have
been corresponding with him on this matter and just last night I received a long email. The reason he wants an open debate, is to make Senators who support gun control be required to vote in the open exposing and defending their position.
Your can be sure he will not be bought by Bloomberg or anyone else and he won't need a job, he still has a medical practice to return to if he so chooses.

[GKC]

I really don't care if it's a procedural vote or not...this is the time that Senators and Representatives need to stand up for what they believe. I believe that the Senate and House need to address more compelling and urgent issues than debating gun control legislation that won't solve the problem with violence. Instead, they need to focus on the budget, employment, the economy, etc.

Any politician who could not stand firm from the outset on this issue would not ever get my vote again. I thank God every day that I live in Texas.

[gregintenn]

If they'd simply voted not to bring it to the Senate floor, it would be over now. Not doing that tells me these clowns are receptive to the idea of some form of gun control. I find that simply unacceptable.

Surely they have more important matters to attend to assuming they don't plan to at least consider this legislation.

[tjfenske]

Politicos and Diapers need frequent changing, for the same reason.

[CW Spook]

I'm pleased to announce that my senator, Chas. Grassley stood firm. Of course our other senator, Chuck Schumer's mini-me Tom Harkin voted the other way.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Noticed all four Senators from TN and GA (all four A & A+ rated and endorsed by the NRA) are on the list.

Before TN and GA gun owners commit hari-kari for voting for these guys, keep in mind this is a procedural vote. I agree with Bob from Iowa and others... there are more subtle agendas in play.

That said, I do believe polling that show overwhelming support, including gun owners, for some type expansion of NICS. It would be nice if pro-gun legislators in Washington got a little more support on this issue! NRA can only do so much.

[V-35]

Originally Posted by ancient-one

Senator Coburn is a man of intense intelligence and integrity. I have
been corresponding with him on this matter and just last night I received a long email. The reason he wants an open debate, is to make Senators who support gun control be required to vote in the open exposing and defending their position.
Your can be sure he will not be bought by Bloomberg or anyone else and he won't need a job, he still has a medical practice to return to if he so chooses.

I refer you you to post #26 in this thread to explane my disgust with Tom Coburn's vote yesterday. This would be over except for them. I called his office the day before yesterday and his staffer Assured me that the senator would vote against Any new 'Gun Control' until the laws that we now have are enforced.

I have always been a very big supporter of Tom Coburn ...... until now. I just think that Chuck Schumer et.al. have worn him down, and I'm very disappointed as this would be over (for this session at least) except for these 'enablers'. The Prez has already said how proud he is of them. That alone would mean that I'm Not.

Art

[gregintenn]

Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil

Noticed all four Senators from TN and GA (all four A & A+ rated and endorsed by the NRA) are on the list.

Before TN and GA gun owners commit hari-kari for voting for these guys, keep in mind this is a procedural vote. I agree with Bob from Iowa and others... there are more subtle agendas in play.

That said, I do believe polling that show overwhelming support, including gun owners, for some type expansion of NICS. It would be nice if pro-gun legislators in Washington got a little more support on this issue! NRA can only do so much.

You place a lot more confidence in Corker and Alexander than I do. If they'd start voting correctly, they'd find a lot more support.

[DavidA]

Yep, I hired the Senator from NC. I sure am sorry. I am ready to fire his sorry butt now. He will pay for it when he comes up for re-election.

[doublesharp]

the frog in the hot water said it's just a little warmer.......nothing to worry about yet.

[Lost Lake]

Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil

I do believe polling that show overwhelming support, including gun owners, for some type expansion of NICS. It would be nice if pro-gun legislators in Washington got a little more support on this issue! NRA can only do so much.

I'd like to read what the pollsters actually asked. The way you phrase the question means a lot, and they phrase questions to get the answers they want.

Pollsters are in business to make money, and deliver poll results that show support for whoever hires them.

[Etemmu]

This just opens up the debate on the floor. The more important, and much more telling, event will be the votes on the actual bill(s).

[ISCS Yoda]

Because it is a procedural vote these GOP geniuses get to say they stood up and allowed a fair debate. That will work for them come election time. If they vote FOR the actual bill, that's different.
But, still, in the event they pass something, then what? It still requires the House to pass it - assuming Boehner even allows it to come to the floor.
Worst case - it becomes law. Then what? It closes the so called gun show loophole? Seriously, does anyone really think 40% of guns are purchased that way? It's a lie. It's a relatively small number.
As long as we can still sell our guns privately to friends, or will them to our heirs, it's a tempest in a teapot. I don't say I like it but it won't change much. Feel good legislation never does.

I have another question on this but it requires a new thread, to be fair to this one.

***GRJ***

[fdw]

Thanks for the list. Just sent Senator Graham an email detailing my displeasure...

[HereSinceTheLongHunters]

Well.... more time to write 'em all. Might help to compile a list of arguments and key points here... maybe the mother of all 2A support letters to send to everyone everywhere...???? Keep it concise, intelligent & potent...

Just read that Senators are supposedly going home for the weekend to speak with constituents.. Please post/compile your collective thoughts and light up the phones/inboxes asap...

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Originally Posted by Lost Lake

I'd like to read what the pollsters actually asked. The way you phrase the question means a lot, and they phrase questions to get the answers they want.

Pollsters are in business to make money, and deliver poll results that show support for whoever hires them.

Here is one, among others. This one is by Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...d-gun-control/

[[ 34.-43. Do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals to reduce gun violence?

Requiring criminal background checks on all
gun buyers, including those buying at gun
shows and private sales.

------- 91% Favor ]]

I don't think the question was too tricky for most gun owners to comprehend.

------------------------------------------------------------------


So we can scream and complain all we want about lawmakers.... but IMO it's gun owners who aren't stepping up to the plate to fight background checks. Like I said, the NRA can only do so much.

[riderrick65]

Originally Posted by FishingPilot

It's nothing more than a procedural vote to allow the bill to come to the floor. Then they get to debate/vote on the bill and any amendments added to it. That's when the fun begins. The DEMs will try to add amendments for an assault weapons ban & high capacity magazine limits (they have already indicated so) and will most likely try to add some amendment about school safety so when the REPs vote against it they can say that "The Republicans are against protecting our children by voting against this law". So even though the procedural vote might not mean much, it's opening the door for the DEMs to embarrass the REPs once again by forcing them to vote NO. Even if this makes it out of the Senate, House Speaker JB has already said it would not make it to a vote. So I'm not too worried about it passing. More worried about the fallout in 2014.

Hope your right partner!

[Steely Dan]

16+ trillion in debt.

Economy is in the *******.

No info on 4 Americans killed in Benghazi.

North Korea threatens a nuclear strike.

But the top priority on the Prez's agenda is to take away the rights of Americans to Keep and Bear Arms.

What the hell.

[Harry58]

I would not go trashing the GOP senator's on the list just yet. One of mine, Graham-R (SC), explains his vote on his webpage. And yes, part of it is to force all of the senators to take sides. No free passes on where they stand on the proposals. While I am disappointed at the 68-31-1 outcome, I still support Graham, & trust him to represent me.

[gregintenn]

Originally Posted by Harry58

I would not go trashing the GOP senator's on the list just yet. One of mine, Graham-R (SC), explains his vote on his webpage. And yes, part of it is to force all of the senators to take sides. No free passes on where they stand on the proposals. While I am disappointed at the 68-31-1 outcome, I still support Graham, & trust him to represent me.

Good luck with that! I sure hope you're right. I have no use for either of mine, and that didn't just develop today.

[VMaxSplat]

Originally Posted by Foodfuzz

They never fail to disappoint do they?

Nope.

[ladder13]

Gee, the guys you want to fire I wish I had as my Senators.Replace these guys, with who?? I guess it's all relative.

[gregintenn]

Originally Posted by ladder13

Gee, the guys you want to fire I wish I had as my Senators.Replace these guys, with who?? I guess it's all relative.

Come and get them for my part.

I'm still voting to reelect my Congresswoman, but I'll never vote for Corker nor Alexander; unless we're voting them off the island.

[Harry58]

OK, so what's up with Lamar & Bob? I believe that both of them will defend our 2A rights. Right now, that's plenty good enough for me.

[azsun3]

Great both Arizona senators voted for it! Maybe now I'm glad McCain wasn't elected president...either way I didn't have much of a choice. What's that saying, "If a politician lips are moving you know they are lying!"

[SmokeEaterFD]

well so far my iowa senators have stayed on the good side. SO FAR being the key words there. keep up the fight everyone.

[Buffalohunter60]

I have contacted senator Ayotte quite a few times. While I liked the idea of the filibuster.....this will really tell us what side the people are on. This is a letter from Senator Ayotte, If she is being truthful...she will vote the right way...if we do not face this thing now...they will try to slip it through on an amendment to a bill. At the end...there will be no doubt who supports the second amendment and who the traitors are.


March 7, 2013
Dear Mr. Hackett:
Thank you for contacting me regarding recent gun control proposals and other efforts to reduce violence. I appreciate hearing from you.
Like all Americans, I was shocked and deeply saddened by the murders of innocent children and educators in Newtown, Connecticut. As the mother of two young children, it is difficult to imagine the pain felt by the parents of the children who were murdered. My thoughts and prayers remain with the victims, their families, and the Newtown community.
As President Obama said, "no single law or set of laws will eliminate evil." In the wake of this horrific tragedy, I welcome a renewed and thoughtful discussion in Washington and across the country about how we can best prevent senseless acts of violence.
Moving forward, we need to be careful to ensure that we do not infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. As a former murder prosecutor, I believe our focus should be on enforcing current federal laws to ensure that criminals and those who are "adjudicated as a mental defective" by reason of being a danger to himself or others (as defined by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives at 27 C.F.R. Section 478.11 and prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(4)) do not possess firearms. We also should engage in an honest discussion about improving our mental health system, while working with law enforcement and local community leaders on school safety measures. These are areas where I believe we can achieve bipartisan consensus.
On January 16, 2013, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum outlining proposals to reduce gun violence. These proposals include a so-called "assault weapons" ban, universal background checks, prohibiting high-capacity magazines, increasing access to mental health services, and school safety measures. Subsequently, on January 24, 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced S. 150, a bill that would ban 157 firearm makes and models and also limit magazine capacities to 10 or fewer rounds. Other proposals may be offered, and I will certainly review each carefully.
First, any discussion about reducing violence must begin with our Constitution. Our Bill of Rights clearly protects the right to self-defense. The Second Amendment to the Constitution states: "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In 2008, the United States Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S. 570) that the Second Amendment does, in fact, confer an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
As well as respecting constitutional limits, I believe that our laws should protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. I appreciate that many New Hampshire citizens possess firearms for recreation, hunting, and self-defense. In fact, my husband, who is an Iraq war veteran, often participates in shooting competitions at our local fish and game club. Based on my experience as a prosecutor, I do not believe we will stop criminals or mentally ill individuals intent on illegally obtaining and misusing firearms by restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.
With those principles as a guide, I do not support a so-called "assault weapons" ban or arbitrary limits on magazine capacities as contained in Senator Feinstein's bill. This legislation is very broad, banning many common models of semi-automatic firearms lawfully owned by citizens, including three very popular models of rifles. While the legislation would grandfather current firearm owners, allowing them to keep the newly banned guns, it would also take the unusual and confiscatory step of requiring the forfeiture of those firearms to the government upon the owner's death.
It is important to understand that there was an "assault weapons" ban in effect from 1994 to 2004. A report submitted in 2004 to the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and the National Institute of Justice evaluated the effectiveness of the ban. That study, conducted by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania, found no statistically significant evidence that either the "assault weapons" ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders.
I do believe that there are improvements we should make to our existing background check system to stop criminals and others prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law from obtaining them. For example, all federally licensed firearms dealers are required to contact law enforcement to conduct a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) search regardless of where they sell the firearms. However, there is a deficiency in what records are being entered into NICS. Although it is illegal to sell or transfer a firearm to an individual who is adjudicated as mentally incompetent, many states, including New Hampshire, are not entering all relevant records into NICS. It also appears that in many states, including New Hampshire, once an individual is in the system as mentally incompetent, there is no way to appropriately petition to be removed from this list if he or she has received treatment and is deemed to have recovered.
Following the Virginia Tech tragedy, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA; Public Law 110-180) was enacted to, among other things, encourage states to make more records available for use during NICS background checks. However, according to a July 2012 Government Accountability Office report, only 12 states dramatically increased the number of mental health records available for use during NICS background checks, and most states made very little progress in entering these records. As of October 2011, there were four states that had not submitted any mental health records at all, and 17 states that had submitted fewer than 10. New Hampshire had only submitted two records. Some states have not entered these records because of concerns that privacy laws, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA; Public Law 104-191), prevent them from providing mental health records to NICS.
We must eliminate legal barriers to ensure that records of individuals who are adjudicated as mentally incompetent get included in the NICS index. We also need to more effectively enforce current laws. Astonishingly, according to the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia, of an estimated 80,000 people who failed background checks under NICS in fiscal year 2012 (e.g., fugitives, domestic abusers, felons, and mentally ill individuals), the DOJ prosecuted only 44 for attempting to purchase a firearm-essentially sending a signal that individuals who are prohibited by law from owning a gun won't be punished for breaking the law by trying to obtain one.
While I believe there is much we can do to improve our background check system and enforce existing laws, I do have concerns with "universal" background check proposals that retain the records of law-abiding citizens in a way that could be used to create a firearms registry that would infringe on privacy rights. I also believe we should respect the current rights of law-abiding citizens to transfer their firearms to family members.
Finally, any discussion of how we stem violence must address the deficiencies in our mental health system. We should re-examine our laws to ensure they are effective. Having worked with law enforcement, I recognize that there are not enough treatment options for mentally ill individuals. A 2006 DOJ study found that 56 percent of state prisoners, 45 percent of federal prisoners, and 64 percent of local jail inmates suffer from mental health challenges. There appears to be a bipartisan consensus that there is much more we can do to improve our mental health system.
That is why I have joined Senator Al Franken (D-MN) in introducing the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Act, which would expand mental health services available to inmates. I also worked with Senators Mark Begich (D-AK) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) to introduce the Mental Health First Aid Act, which is designed to expand mental health first aid training in communities across the nation.
In the weeks ahead, I am willing to work with any of my colleagues who are serious about finding solutions that will prevent mass shootings without infringing on Americans' Second Amendment rights. With a firm commitment to our Constitution, I will carefully review and evaluate all proposals to reduce violence. While there are no easy answers to address mass gun violence in our society, there are steps we can take right now to ensure our background check system is fully enforced while working to improve early intervention with mentally ill individuals.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. As your Senator, it is important to hear from you regarding the current issues affecting New Hampshire and our nation. Please do not hesitate to be in touch again if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,

Kelly A. Ayotte
U. S. Senator