Gun Owner's of America scores a big miss!

[Snowbandit]

I just received an email from Gun Owners of America regarding their position on several issues. Mostly it's well thought out as usual but one portion bothers me a lot. It states:

"Senator Jim DeMint may offer an amendment to the rules that would prohibit anti-gun legislation from being passed in the Senate, unless two-thirds of all senators vote to consider it. Now that's the kind of rules change that we can support!"

Now my problem is that I don't happen to care if they get 100 percent legislative support for an unConstitutional issue. It's still illegal. And all anti-gun legislation is unConstitutional on its face.

I understand they are trying to make passing these laws more difficult but, the end result could be to allow something to slip in that should be impossible. They will tell us "it's for the children".

 

[oldman45]

I just received an email from Gun Owners of America regarding their position on several issues. Mostly it's well thought out as usual but one portion bothers me a lot. It states:

"Senator Jim DeMint may offer an amendment to the rules that would prohibit anti-gun legislation from being passed in the Senate, unless two-thirds of all senators vote to consider it. Now that's the kind of rules change that we can support!"

Now my problem is that I don't happen to care if they get 100 percent legislative support for an unConstitutional issue. It's still illegal. And all anti-gun legislation is unConstitutional on its face.

I understand they are trying to make passing these laws more difficult but, the end result could be to allow something to slip in that should be impossible. They will tell us "it's for the children".

I would agree with you on the surface. I love my firearms, I shoot, I collect guns, I lobby for gun rights and against gun laws and certainly anyone knowing me knows of my activity in pro gun legislation.

However, many of the things that people claim in the Constitution is not there according to the Supreme Court. How we feel is not what they say the law says.

Each time I get into this, people jump on me but I am stating the facts. There are things that gun groups do not want to go to the Supreme Court since the ruling may be against gun owners.

This is nothing common to just the Second. There has been decisions rendered on just about every Amendment over the years.

I think the guy's proposal would be a good one and right now, is likely the best time to try to pass something like that.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

It sounds to me like Mr. DeMint is attempting to deprive the anti-gun critters a forum in the Senate. By requiring a 2/3 majority to permit consideration of a bill this would preclude extended floor debate, pontificating, scary stories, etc from taking place in that forum.

On the other hand, if 2/3 of the Senate-critters indicate support of a bill prior to consideration it is entirely likely that the bill is going to pass, no matter what facts, logic, historical data, or Constitutional issues are argued on the floor.

Personally, I would prefer that both houses of Congress adopt rules that would require a vote to expel any congress-critter that violates his oath of office (support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic) by offering up any bill that violates the Constitution on its face (such as the further infringement of 2A rights). That might cause some of these critters to be very careful about what they propose!