Jump to content

Feinstein Moves To Ban ALL Assault Rifles, High Capacity Magazines, and Pistol Grips


heckler&kochp2000
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't know how the Senate believes they can supersede the House and start doing whateverTF they want, suggesting some sort of new assault weapons ban? All bills begin in the house, not the Senate. I read an article earlier this morning on Harry Reid suggesting that they change the Senate rules pertaining to rules changes (so they can amend the rules on filibustering,) requiring a simple majority (51 votes) instead of a 2/3's majority. Really? Just pick and choose whichever rule or law that fits their agenda, and make it up as they go? Lawmakers should not be permitted to violate the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how the Senate believes they can supersede the House and start doing whateverTF they want, suggesting some sort of new assault weapons ban? All bills begin in the house, not the Senate. I read an article earlier this morning on Harry Reid suggesting that they change the Senate rules pertaining to rules changes (so they can amend the rules on filibustering,) requiring a simple majority (51 votes) instead of a 2/3's majority. Really? Just pick and choose whichever rule or law that fits their agenda, and make it up as they go? Lawmakers should not be permitted to violate the law.

Feinstein is within her rights, but it's grandstanding, simple as that. And NO, they aren't violating any law in the Senate.

If you and others are curious about the real process a few points to share:

Any House Member or Senator can propose legislation with the exception of revenue generating bills that must originate in the House (Art.1, Section 7, Clause 1) so Feinstein can "suggest" whatever she wishes. Look up the hundreds of bills and resolutions annually numbered with an "S" vs an "H" prefix to see that the Senate has this right to propose legislation.

Second, the Senate alone can do nothing. Until the Senate and the House pass identical legislation and the POTUS signs off, it means nothing. Third, the Constitution provides broad guidelines, but the Senate operates by a set of rules, and changes to those rules can and have changed frequently over time. In regard to the filibuster, 2/3s of the vote means nothing (at least currently). 2/3s of the vote required refers to passage of treaties, joint resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution and overriding a POTUS veto. 60 votes or 3/5s invokes cloture and ends filibustering currently. This is an agreed to "rule" that can be changed, but as it offers protection to the minority, even the majority meddles with it at great peril. After all, things change. We won't see a change to a simple majority vote (ala the House) on all legislation, but we may see things that make filibustering and "holds" on nominees harder to execute or at least more visible. The constitutional option often referred to as the "nuclear option" has been in place since 1957. This is not to be confused with reconciliation, which allows issues related to the annual budget to be decided by a simple majority without the possibility of filibuster.

Edited by BigHat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Senate has become a hyper-partisan vehicle of gridlock over the past decade, really forcing one to contemplate and re-examine why the need for such a chamber in the first place? Each State gets two Senators regardless as to the number of constituents? Well, at least D.C. doesn't get any, despite getting 3 votes in the electoral college.

 

Fact of the matter remains, Fienstein can sit there and look stupid by trying to define what an assault weapon actually is, but for the next two years at least the House is controlled by the GOP and there will be no legislation on firearms. And even if the Senate were to take up a UN firearms treaty, I don't see how they would get 66 votes with only 55 Democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Senate has become a hyper-partisan vehicle of gridlock over the past decade, really forcing one to contemplate and re-examine why the need for such a chamber in the first place? Each State gets two Senators regardless as to the number of constituents? Well, at least D.C. doesn't get any, despite getting 3 votes in the electoral college.

 

Fact of the matter remains, Fienstein can sit there and look stupid by trying to define what an assault weapon actually is, but for the next two years at least the House is controlled by the GOP and there will be no legislation on firearms. And even if the Senate were to take up a UN firearms treaty, I don't see how they would get 66 votes with only 55 Democrats.

This was basically my point. Don't worry about Feinstein and her legislation. The gun lobby and gun owners still scare the crap out of most Members that aren't in safe, urban Dem districts.

 

I'll pass on offering comments regarding your positions on the Senate, etc. Discussions on that are better conducted elsewhere.

Edited by BigHat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...