The NRA are awesome back-room fixers. Their legislative team knows realpolitik like Texas Best Ranch Girls knows Lone Star stunners. As federal gun control looms, you can bet the NRA-ILA’s in it to win it, twisting arms like the pro-gun pro wrestlers they are. Meanwhile, Gun Owners of America jefe Larry Pratt is out front, defending firearms freedom live, in real-time, all the time. Pratt’s the man when it comes to disambiguating disarmament dupes like Piers Morgan and Wolf Blitzer (above). And now the GOA point man’s scoring major points in press releases. H/t to Larry for telling it like it is on the gun control bill sliming its way through the Senate. Watch this space . . .

We’ve been fighting these gun control battles for almost 40 years now. And we almost always win. But it’s almost always a nail-biter. And so it is on Obama’s gun control agenda. We’d hoped that we could stop the gun control bribe-o-thon early (and risk-free) by blocking the motion to proceed to the package. But thanks to sell-outs like Pennsylvania’s one-term senator, Pat Toomey, we’re going to have to take a different battle position and defeat the package at a later stage . . .

The Senate today overcame the Paul-Cruz-Lee filibuster and voted to move to proceed to Harry Reid’s gun control bill (S. 649). Where Reid needed 60 votes, the tally was 68-31. Click here to see if your Senator sold you out by voting to “move to proceed” to the bill.

Republican defectors who voted anti-gun were: Alexander (TN), Ayotte (NH), Burr (NC), Chambliss (GA), Collins (ME), Corker (TN), Coburn (OK), Flake (AZ), Isakson (GA), McCain (AZ), Heller (NV), Hoeven (ND), Kirk (IL), Graham (SC), Toomey (PA) and Wicker (MS).

So, here’s where we are. Right after the Senate proceeded to the gun control bill, Harry Reid used his privileged recognition to put a bunch of amendments in place. In Senate parlance, they are referred to as an “amendment tree;” and they contain the universal registry bill, the Feinstein gun ban, and the magazine ban. These will be voted on in upcoming days.

As for the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer universal registry bill, don’t believe the press’ efforts to sugar-coat it. If you have ever had an “Internet … posting” on (or related to) your gun, you can sell it only by going to a dealer and filling out a 4473 and getting the government’s approval. Only a cave man would be exempt.

And once you have a 4473? Well, the ATF is going from dealer to dealer, copying the information on these forms, and feeding it into a database. But, says Toomey, he’s against universal registries. This is where it would have helped if Toomey had consulted someone who knew something about guns.

Registration and violation of privacy.

First of all, Toomey’s anti-registry language prohibits photocopying the 4473’s, but it doesn’t prohibit going into the FFL with a laptop and copying all the information. Second, ATF takes the position that the data it’s accumulating in a database is not a “registry,” so Toomey’s ban does no good. Third, guess what the sanction is for violation of Toomey’s anti-registry language? Answer: Eric Holder has to choose to prosecute himself and his own department.

But this isn’t the only bad thing about Toomey-Manchin-Schumer.

Section 107 of the sell-out also waives any federal privacy prohibitions under HIPAA to sending the names of Americans with PTSD, ADHD, and post partem depression to the gun ban database. But that’s not all.

Believe in Jesus, hand in your guns?

Because private shrinks will be able to add patients names into a federal database of the mentally ill – without due process – you will be at their mercy.

As Red State editor, Erick Erickson says, “Activist mental health providers will probably be overly aggressive in adding people to the list. Give it five years in liberal areas and people who believe in the physical resurrection of Christ will probably get automatic entry onto the list.”

And as for veterans? Toomey-Manchin-Schumer reinforces the proposition that bureaucrats in the Department of Veterans Affairs can take away veterans’ rights without any due process. If a veteran has $30,000 to spend getting back the rights Toomey-Manchin-Schumer wrongly took from him, the sell-out creates yet another redundant money-trap for restoration of rights that shouldn’t have been taken away in the first place.

Repealing gun owner protections.

What if you want to travel across the country? McClure-Volkmer allowed you to do that with an unloaded gun in the trunk (18 U.S.C. 926A). But, under the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer sell-out, unless you can “demonstrate,” to the satisfaction of the New York police (1) where you came from, (2) where you’re going, (3) that you’re legally entitled to possess the gun in the place you can from, and (4) that you’re legally entitled to possess the gun in the place you’re going, they will arrest you in New York.

The Toomey-Manchin-Schumer sell-out creates a Biden-like commission to insure that the cries for gun control continue.

Like sprinkles on a pile of dung, Toomey and Schumer steal some of the proposals we drafted and try to use them to get us to buy onto gun control. But it won’t work.

The gun movement is united against this disgusting pile of gun control.

Here is the new battlefield. Because of the Senate rules, many of the upcoming gun control votes will need 60 (out of 100 votes) to move forward. That will almost certainly be the case with the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer proposal. And because the entire Second amendment movement – GOA, NRA, etc. – is against the Toomey language, it virtually ensures his amendment will fail.

And if Toomey-Manchin-Schumer doesn’t pass, then Reid probably won’t have enough votes to overcome a second filibuster on the bill – as it would contain the original anti-gun language sponsored by Reid and Schumer. This all but guarantees that the legislation would die, as Republicans and a half-a-dozen Democrat Senators would then team up to keep the bill from getting the required 60 votes.

One last question or thought: Did we waste our time supporting the Paul-Cruz-Lee filibuster and fighting the motion to proceed? No, because we forced Obama to fire most of his ammunition, as he dragged his human props around Washington in an effort to exploit them for political gain.

If Obama had been able to wait to play this card until Toomey-Manchin-Schumer came up for a vote, that vote would be a lot harder for us to win.

But Obama has already played this card for his “they deserve a vote” theme. Okay, they’re getting their vote. But by the time we reach the vote on cloture on Toomey-Manchin-Schumer, Obama’s exploitation of the victims of Newtown will begin to be realized for the cynical exploitative political ploy that it is. And he will be less able to shift gears and use the victims for the theme “They deserve a ‘yes’ vote.”

ACTION: Click here to contact your Senators. Tell them to vote against cloture on the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer sell-out.

72 Responses to Gun Owners of America: Gun Control Legislation is a “Nail Biter”

  1. My senators are John Cornyn and Ted Cruz. I can count on them to vote against this crap. I gave money to both Toomey and Ayotte. I won’t make that mistake again.

    • I’m under Ted Cruz and Cornyn also. I sent a “awesome job, I wub you” to Cruz and a “don’t f*ck this sh*t up” to Cornyn. I don’t trust him with anything since SOPA. I thought maybe the GOP was being tricksy, but the news is seriously making me doubt their sincerity. I’ll judge them by results, too much South Park is making me really cynical.

      • I also sent a $20 donation to NRA-ILA, since my NRA life donation doesn’t actually support them. Would have sent more, but pay-day isn’t for a couple days. This is it, point blank, no turning back folks. Our disinterest could be the cause of untold tragedies at this point. I’ve done what I can, and will continue to do so. God willing our voice will be heard.

  2. One term Toomey is right. Even the Fudds are paying attention at this point. If the local party has any brains, they will support a primary challenger.

  3. I think it was Pratt I heard yesterday who pointed out that many background checks are now done via the internet. What makes you think they won’t get that data and keep it, whether they’re not allowed to or not. Maybe just the state police will hold on to it (that seems to be the case here in Oregon) and then hand it over to the feds when asked (like what just happened to CCW holders in MO).

    • Every failed FFL record back at least 20 years is held by ATF. There is a record. The only thing left at this stage is us knowing that they shouldn’t know. I know every single FFL I’ve bought from over the years, and what I’d pay to keep them afloat would make a stupid percentage on here cringe.

  4. After calling all day sellout Burr, I finally got through and was told (para) there is another 60 vote threshold to go through (I don’t know about that) and he will vote no on ANY final bill. My response was that he just put his political life into the hands of 2 unnamed republicans. The dems will of course get Maine and Illinois and now looks like PA, that leaves just 2 more to turn on the American people (like that ever happens) for final passage.

    Now it looks like a bill will be in the house from P King and some other “centrist” democrat gun grabber. Also yesterday Boehner says (again para) I don’t need to have a majority of republicans to pass a bill.

    Get on the phones now!

      • Jim is right– it’s up to all of us to be loud and stay loud until we stop this legislation. Do the work today and avoid tears of regret tomorrow!!

        Phone messages trump emails these days – and are especially effective on days where Congress is in session.
        When I have time I also call the Senators whose seats are up for election in 2014. Here is a list of direct dial numbers. It helps to have a local zip code for each state- I get asked for one about half the time.

        • Shared as f*ck. I am getting sick of the GOP thinking they should be Democrat Light. I have to believe there are people who think we should be held responsible for our own actions, and not those of others.

  5. My senators are Boxer and Feinstein. I can count on them to vote for the most egregious proposals put forth, no matter what I or any other voter in California says, and both garner such overwhelming support that I can be assured that both will continue in Congress until retirement or death. Depressing, isn’t it?

    • I feel for you brother, but you California gun owners remind me of people who live in a desert and complain about being hungry! In the words of the late, great Sam Kinneson…..YOU LIVE IN A FU**ING DESERT, MOVE!

      • Fight for your rights wherever you are. CA sucks, and I’ll definitely leave, but having a 2 month old means nearby grandparents is a good thing.

      • If gun rights supporters ghettoize themselves in pro-gun states, there won’t be anyone left to fight civilian disarmament in slave states. Perhaps it is a futile battle, but it is one worth fighting.

  6. Ps, I understand what they (republicans) are attempting, but damn, they suck at politics.

    I am afraid that when it all is over they will be standing there with their pants around their ankles wondering what the hell just happened.

    Remember the best plan never survives first contact with the enemy.

    • Not what. We sure know what, after receiving it over and over. The why, though… you’d think they’d learn. If we are able to make an example of Toomey and some others, maybe… Lucy won’t move the football this time.

  7. Blah blah politics blah blah.

    It’s all theater designed to make us think there’s actually a lawful process behind what the government does. If there were any justice left in this country, half of senate would be rotting in jail cells for treason.

    Also, wow, almost completely D’s on that list to absolutely no one’s surprise. But yeah, keep beating the “both parties are equally anti-gun” drum.

  8. I have spent a long time calling and emailing my representatives and I am glad to see it was worth it because they voted no, if only more senators did the same. /sigh

    Another thing that is off topic, I am not sure why so many people do not like Larry Pratt. I find him to be a knowledgeable person who is good at debates.

    • Not always, I have seen him do some outstanding come backs in interviews, and then turn around in another interview and talk like he’s got on his tin foil hat!

  9. Well said, Mr. Pratt. I especially loved ” . . . as he dragged his human props around Washington in an effort to exploit them for political gain.”

    My only objection is I think he is a little hard on Senators (like Coburn) who didn’t go along with the filibuster. It might be better, in the long run, to defeat the bill after there has been what passes for debate in the senate these days. Given how little the average person knows about DC, I don’t think it was a bad idea to prevent Obama from ranting about how our side “denied the victims of Newtown a vote” or whatever.

    There are definitely some mushy wobblers on that list, but Coburn, Burr, and some others are very solid for us.

    Anyway, all that to say that I think we have to recognize there are people who are on our side, but may differ on which tactical moves are best. I would have supported the filibuster, but I think it’s a bit much to say Sen. Burr, for example, “sold us out.”

    • “There are definitely some mushy wobblers on that list, but Coburn, Burr, and some others are very solid for us.”

      Oh yeah! they’re solid as mud in a rain storm! They’re both nothing but back room compromisers who would sell their mother’s eyes for another vote! My God man! Coburn’s been right up Schumer’s ass for the past two months! The only thing that kept him from being the sellout instead of Toomey was his constituents staying on the phone 24/7, and telling him any “bi-partisan” hanky-panky with Schumer would spell certain death at the polls next go round. Both those bastards need to go, and the other Republicans who voted for the motion to proceed need to be made aware just how close to looking for a job they actually came……..

    • Naturally. When political figures see their constituencies cynically, when they think they are stupid and can be lead by the nose, then what you see around you is what you get. You instead get a country that works when they respect and fear, literally fear, their constituents wrathful ire.

      • You pretty much nailed Kaine. He thinks he’s God’s gift to man for the sole purpose of leading us rubes around on a leash….he’s a democrat… but he has a certain level of extra smug about him.

    • Yeah, tell me about it. The Va senators do not represent the constitutes of Va…they represent the Democrat party above all else.

  10. I think they allowed it as a set up. They will have rural Democrats and an independent on record, which will either piss off the voters or be smeared and money bombed by Bloomberg. Some of the Democrats will be Blue Dogs and centerists. One of the biggest losers will be progressives with fairly good NRA ratings like Bernie Sanders and Peter DeFazio.

  11. “…like Texas Best Ranch Girls …”

    God bless America…

    Oh wait, was there gun rights statement attached to this article?

  12. Don’t forget Mark Begich (D-AK) and Mark Pryor (D-AR). They broke ranks to oppose the debate and deserve as much attention as the 16 repubs that passed it.

    Of course it makes sense. When your states are named AK and AR you have to be pro-gun. If we could just find a few to rename FN, HK and SW we’d have nothing to worry about.

  13. Is “move to proceed” really a bad strategy? It’s not all that long ago the Republican party was the “Party of ‘No,'” constantly on its heels and playing the obstructionist at every corner. A filibuster opens Republicans up to more criticism for just getting in the way; it’s a defensive strategy without much potential upside. On the other hand, if there’s really a very good chance of killing this bill in the House then taking a vote will “out” anyone who favors it and that strategy could pay dividends in the next election cycle. A “move to proceed” is not the same as a “move to accept.” You can always say “sure let’s vote on this” and then vote no.

    Flake and McCain are both my guys. They’ll be hearing from me that I expect them to vote this down. In the meantime, I’m going to hold off on labeling them “turncoats.” For now. I didn’t like McCain’s response to my earlier contacts, but then there’s really nothing wrong with “considering” legislation, so long as you recognize when it’s a bad deal. And Flake never sent me anything beyond “Thanks for contacting me” messages.

  14. G.O.A. is where your money should go to. Not the NRA who spends millions to sponsor a NASCAR Race. I bet that those who watch NASCAR are gun owners, anyway. So, the sponsored race is a redundant. NRA is a joke and wastes your money.

    • So we complain incessantly that the NRA doesn’t buy national TV time (when the networks won’t sell any to them), but when they do get national TV time by sponsoring a major sporting event, we complain incessantly about the NRA.

      Got it.

      • Not to mention the time politicians spent deriding the NRA and NASCAR for the race. That got some MSM time.

  15. Why even have these shows? The “Talking head” who’s “invited” Pratt to talk on his show does NOTHING but talk over him. It’s not a court room you moron.

    I’m tickled that CNN is second to FOX news every time I pull up the Nielsen ratings.

  16. Wow, very well emoted Mr. Pratt. The prior restraint argument needs to be used much more often when you hear about “reasonable restrictions.”

    • …the supreme court has roundly rejected prior restraint.

      Never thought I’d say it, but Walter Sobchak is smarter than Wolf Blitzer.

  17. First and foremost we must remember that irrespective of party, these folks are all POLITICIANS. At the end of the day, what matters is not if a bill is good or bad for their particular party, but what can I get in return for my vote. Many voters, myself included made calls, wrote letters and/or e-mails, and got either form letters or vacuous promises based on bullsh!t. When the time to truly battle comes, the horse-swapping will begin, the good old quid pro quo will happen in the” smoke filled rooms” and those that were trusted by their constituents will sell their souls a la Judas.

  18. We’ve been fighting these gun control battles for almost 40 years now. And we almost always win.

    I think it is a stretch to claim any sort of winning record since that covers the period in which the Hughes amendment, Brady bill, the Clinton AWB, GFSZA, Lautenberg amendment and more infringements were enacted.

  19. The description of the “compromise bill” provided above is grossly inaccurate.

    Of course there are some problems with the bill that we need to correct, but it doesn’t come close to permitting the horrors the GOA and others describe. Here’s what it really says:

    With respect to online sales, you need to go through an FFL “if such transfer occurs pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm.”

    This does not mean that “If you have ever had an “Internet … posting” on (or related to) your gun, you can sell it only by going to a dealer and filling out a 4473 and getting the government’s approval.” If you post an ad online and then an ad on your church bulletin board, and the buyer contacts you from the bulletin board, you don’t need a background check. Such as sale would not have “occur[ed] pursuant to” the online ad. The “related to” language in the article is even further from reality. Posting about your gun online, like a gun review or general comment, does not prohibit you from selling it later to your neighbor sans background check. That sale would not have occurred pursuant to the online ad.

    As for the interstate transport language, the post above says, “But, under the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer sell-out, unless you can “demonstrate,” to the satisfaction of the New York police (1) where you came from, (2) where you’re going, (3) that you’re legally entitled to possess the gun in the place you can from, and (4) that you’re legally entitled to possess the gun in the place you’re going, they will arrest you in New York.”

    Nowhere does the law place such a burden on gun owners. In fact, that is what is happening right now. NY and NJ cops are presuming the gun is illegal until you demonstrate otherwise. The new language addresses this problem. It says:

    “(c) Limitation on Arrest Authority.-A person who is transporting a firearm or ammunition may not be-
    “(1) arrested for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State, or any political subdivision thereof, relating to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms or ammunition, unless there is probable cause that the transportation is not in accordance with subsection (b); or
    “(2) detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State, or any political subdivision thereof, relating to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms or ammunition, unless there is reasonable suspicion that the transportation is not in accordance with subsection (b).”

    This language does the exact opposite of what’s being reported. Further, the interstate transport section also expands the protection to ammo (they missed magazines, which need to be added in) and the law covers not just the actual travel but it also “includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, fuel, vehicle maintenance, an emergency, medical treatment, and any other activity incidental to the transport.” This language fixes a lot of problems people were having when they missed a flight and were arrested picking up their bags.

    As for the mental health records, I am not happy with the language about mental health records, but I don’t see any language that changes the current standard of mentally defective or adjudicated mentally incompetent. There is also nothing to support the claim that a psychiatrist can just unilaterally ban you from owning a gun. “Adjudication” requires a court determination. That requirement would remain unchanged. As for HIPPA, doctors are still bound by professional rules governing confidentiality. Doctors couldn’t disclose your personal info before HIPPA (passed in ’99), what makes you think things would be different now? If HIPPA protections are lifted, the professional rules and protections would still apply.

    Rather than listening blindly to what everyone else says is in this bill, why don’t you read it for yourself. The full text as been available since last night.
    http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968

    • One should also remember that if this ever reaches the House, it will be assigned to a committee, where they will presumably go over the text more carefully and deliberately than may happen in the Senate. It may be more fruitful to seek meaningful pro-gun amendments to the bill than trying to sink Mancin-Toomey at this point. And resist the magazine size limits and the AWB until their death can be confirmed. I may be misreading the situation, of course, but that’s my take on the current state of affairs.

    • There is jeopardy sliced by jurisdiction. I agree with the intent of the language as you state, but this federal statute does not prevent prosecution under local jurisdiction any more than FOPA protects gun owners transiting, say, the NY Port Authority.

      The process is the punishment.

      • True. My point is that the language is good. The fact that law enforcement violates the law by arresting people doesn’t change that fact.

        The same thing happens with local preemption. The state preempts local gun laws. The city passes restrictive gun control anyway. The only way to ovoid that is to do what Florida did. Pass a law saying that anyone voting for these local ordinances will be fined $5000. That worked like a charm.

    • Good job Armchair…I have read through the Toomey-Manchin amendment text, and was surprised by the glaring errors in Farago’s post. I was glad to see that someone else actually took the time to read the text for themselves instead of just accepting spoon-fed NRA/GOA talking points.

      Furthermore, the proposed amendment appears to do more than simply limit “photocopying” of 4473s. It specifically says that the Attorney General may not “consolidate or centralize” records maintained by current licensed FFLs. I can’t see how this wouldn’t apply to digital forms as well. ATF compliance is another issue….

      On another point, doesn’t it appear to anyone else that due to the wording “on the Internet or in a publication” that the background check requirement would be extended to classifieds ads in printed publications as well? I am surprised that this hasn’t been pointed out, but then again perhaps no one cares since the internet is now the dominant marketplace for private firearms transfers.

  20. How can Arizona be the “best” state for gun owners when its senator, McCain votes YES on bills like this?

    I guess the answer to the question, “Can you be senile and still a senator?” is “OH YEAH… JOHN ‘I HATE THE G**KS’ MCCAIN”.

    • John “the Manchurian Candidate” McLain. Arizona the “Shoot Ourselves in the Foot” State.

      Phoenix, Tucson, Tempe, Flagstaff, Surprise: enemy enclaves! Arizona is doomed by its demographics. Doomed by a hostile senator. Until all this changes, the Sunshine State will remain hostile territory to gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment.

    • I voted for him in ’08 but the further on we get, the more apparent it becomes that he and obama are WAY more alike than different.

  21. I’m going to raise some hackles and pass on advice from Alex Jones: refuse to cooperate with the dominant, gunless, gutless culture AT EACH AND EVERY LEVEL.
    They depend upon our cooperation. DO NOT COOPERATE.

  22. McCain is worse than Feinstein…at least she doesn’t pretend to be pro gun. What an asshat…he needs to go away.

  23. I love how Wolf completely erases the line between legally owning a gun, and murdering someone with a gun.

  24. No Kansans on the Bennedict List, I see. Roberts and Moran have my back, as does Yoder – more or less.

  25. So wait…section 107…does it REALLY say if you have ADHD you cannot own firearms?

    I know of NUMEROUS people in the arm forces with ADHD….

    But seriously…AHDH = no 2A?

  26. I seldom create responses, however I glanced through some responses on Gun Owners of America:
    Gun Control Legislation is a "Nail Biter" – The Truth
    About Guns. I actually do have some questions for you if you do not mind.
    Is it only me or does it give the impression like a few of the remarks appear
    as if they are coming from brain dead visitors? 😛 And, if
    you are posting on additional sites, I would like to keep
    up with everything fresh you have to post. Would you list
    of all of all your shared pages like your Facebook page, twitter feed,
    or linkedin profile?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *