Home » Blogs » Senate to Vote on S649 Gun Legislation and Amendments

Senate to Vote on S649 Gun Legislation and Amendments

Robert Farago - comments No comments

Screen Shot 2013-04-17 at 12.15.27 PM

Click here to watch C-Span’s live coverage of the Senate debate and on S649 and amendments to same. There’s bloody shirt waving aplenty and lots of “we need to do something”s. No mention of Fort Hood, for some reason. And here’s news [via yahoo.com]: “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, an NRA supporter, announced on Wednesday morning he will vote for bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines being offered as amendments one month after pulling those bans from a package of overall gun-reform legislation.” So Mr. Reid is retiring.

Photo of author

Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the former publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

0 thoughts on “Senate to Vote on S649 Gun Legislation and Amendments”

  1. As long as there are people alive who think they know better than everyone else, gun control will not die. This movement will continue forever. The best we can hope for is to put it to rest for a little while–until the next tragedy. Maybe a few months, maybe a few years, but it’ll always come back. Each time, a little stronger than before. Stronger because–like it or not–the antis are winning, one person at a time.

    Reply
    • I so want a shirt with that on it, trademark and all.

      Maybe on the back it could say “Don’t just do something, stand there!”

      Reply
  2. Common Sense – Do Something – Military style weapons – High Capacity Magazine – Precious Seconds – I just won BS Propaganda Bingo!

    Reply
  3. Here in the Peoples Republik of Suckachusetts the homeowner would be spending the first night of the rest of his life in jail. Obviously that poor fellow just wanted in from the cold…. and what happens? He gets shot! Oh, the humanity……..

    Fawk I hate this craphole of a state….

    Reply
  4. Can’t say enough good things about Todd V and how he has fostered a sense of community among the gun owners and 2A supporters in Illinois!

    I am new to the scene (arrived just before Sandy Hook but that situation really jettisoned my advocacy) but from my newbie vantage point, it seems like having someone like Todd V helping guide strategy here in IL has been invaluable.

    Reply
  5. I just called my senators and asked that they oppose S649. When you guys call, are you trying to have a conversation with the interns on the phone, or are you just asking them to oppose the bill? I just kept it simple because I feel like they are just tallying up the number of calls for and against.

    Reply
  6. Texan, born and raised. Yes, there is a stigma of Texas being the “wild west” much more so than Arizona is to some degree. Even though, we don’t have things like constitutional or open carry, in comparison it is fairly nice here.

    With respect to actual shooting, I think that a lot of the problems here is that over 95% of the land in Texas is privately owned. It’s not like you can find National Forest or some other wilderness places to practice, which does nothing to “normalize” guns. They end up being confined to shooting ranges and those luck few with rural property.

    More to the point, however, most of the carry laws on the books are based in reconstruction. RF wrote an article citing “Yankee Carpetbaggers,” however, in this case it may not be a bad thing. Like Billy Wardlaw (awesome avatar BTW) said we DO need more liberty minded people moving here. So while I have a geographical dislike of “Yankees” (i.e. which in Texas lingo is a lot more than you think), we need pro-gun, pro-liberty activists to prevent our freedoms from being eroded. So welcome, y’all.

    Reply
  7. “Intent? How did you establish that?”

    “When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn’t out collecting for the Red Cross.”

    “I think he’s got a point.”

    Reply
  8. When I call, the only person who will speak to me is whoever first answers the phone. I’m sure it is some low totem pole intern who is just tallying votes for and against the bill. NEVERTHELESS, call them anyway. They need to know that they will lose their seats if they vote in favor of the Manchin Toomey monstrosity.

    Reply
  9. The officers should have told the person that made the initial phone call that open carrying a long gun was legal. Instead, they hurassed the law abiding citizen (in front of his son). The police were clearly in the wrong and the officer should be suspended for lying and pushing his weight around.

    Reply
  10. Coburn is freaking awesome. Of course every law abiding gun owner would comply with a smart phone app check before selling as long as there is no record kept. I’m cool with checks, I hate that registry that has to be kept by FFL’s.

    Reply
  11. Really! I am not sure about of all of you, but having some field experience as a LEA, I can guess the call was something like “check a suspicious person with a gun”. Are you, any of you, prepared to state that a LEA is wrong to investigate the call? The LEA would be exercising unsafe working practices to leave the subject he is talking with a firearm, or any weapon, on their person until the LEA could determine the details of the situation.

    For all of you Cop haters out there, please explain to all of us what a suspicious person or a criminal looks like. After you have provided a profile, perhaps law enforcement can just look for people who look like that.

    Without knowing how the contact started, it would be very difficult to pass judgement on how the entire situation turned out. Perhaps, it is wise to wait until all of the facts are made public before rushing off to spread hate and discontentment.

    Reply
    • Ok, so the cop checks on the call, the person has the right to remain silent. So the cop looks at the situation, sees that nothing is illegal, notes that in his log and drives away.

      He didn’t do that now, did he. He wanted to play lets violate the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment because his ego was hurt. After that is said and done he had nothing to charge him with except for contempt of cop.

      And what makes you think you are the only LEO (not LEA) on here?

      Reply
      • Me too.

        So I get to call horseshit.

        In 2013 law abiding citizens are allowed to carry firearms according to their states applicable laws. When a LEO approaches someone in a car is he justified in assuming it stolen? If he is accompanied by a woman should we just assume she is being kidnapped? Does the presence of a child make him a molester? Not without probable cause. You might have heard of the concept in your distinguished career as a “LEA”.

        When I approached someone with a gun, I was very aware of it. I might have said something like, “Sir, be sure and keep that pointed at the ground. Just for my peace of mind.” Or if they did not have it in hand, “Sir, please do not touch that firearm.” But barring threatening body language or verbiage, I did not run away screaming and peeing down my leg in the presence of a fellow citizen of these free United States, just because he was armed!!!

        Yes, I’ve had guns pointed at me in anger. Yes, I’ve been in armed confrontations. But they were with BAD guys. Offenders. Law breakers. Not my neighbor with a shotgun. Or an AR.

        How do you know the difference? Discrecretion. Common sense. Awareness. Evidently qualities lacking in far too great a percentage of our current crop of cops.

        When I see videos like the above, it seems as though these cops are terrified of the sight of an armed citizen. Remember this video where the FL deputy threatens to kill the CCW permit holder? The guys printing like crazy – Deputy Dawg misses it. The idiot being stopped reaches for his wallet (What – 2 inches from his pistols grip?) two or three times. Deputy Clueless misses that too. And when he finally spots the gun, which the guy could have shot him with about six times, he just goes postal. Terror. Realized he could have been cooling out in the ditch if the guy HAD been hostile. But he wasn’t!!!

        Uh, dummy. The guy is not a threat. That gun ain’t jumping off his hip, all by itself to cap your ass. Chill.

        Reply
  12. So, let me get this straight. TTAG is upset and feels that capitalism should be regulated (“conflict of interest quote”) but when it comes to guns…nope. You guys are f’n hypocrites. Keep government out of Capitalism. Who cares what people do with their own money. None of use have the money to buy the group. And, if you do…place a bid.

    Reply
  13. What’s the real world application for unloading rediculously fast?

    Sorry, I understand the idiom now that I read it again. Unloading means shooting, not removing live rounds.

    Reply
  14. WTF? Wasn’t there an exclusive interview here with him from SHOT show either this year or last saying that he didn’t believe felons should have their rights restored? Why the (now double) change? Something is rotten in Denmark.

    Reply
  15. “But it appears the Democratic leadership in the Senate was opposed to letting this important consideration come up for a vote.”

    –From the Ministry of Bleepin’ Obvious!

    Reply
  16. Don’t try to play these dangerous games at the federal level, Alan. Too much can go wrong and it’ll end up screwing all of us. Block at the federal level, hit them in the state governments, and fight them in the courts.

    Reply
  17. He hedged a gamble on something palatable for gun rights coming out of what he drew up. Originally, it looked good but too unrealistic. I couldn’t see the govt toeing the line on a law that would leave them open to obvious litigation once they started overstepping the boundaries of said bill should it have become law.

    As predicted, it was gutted and very well without permission of the writer who is acting surprised. I thought his support of this bill (despite him writing it) was a fake out so that he could say he offered an olive branch and attack on the front of “we tried reasonable compromise”. I’m not sure how he will spin it now but I know that the original concept of the bill was too good to be true in this climate. Question is what does this change in the long run? It isn’t ever JUST a dog and pony show.

    Reply
  18. Slightly random question. Never even held an SLP, but it seems like the rim of the shell next up to go from the magazine to the chamber stuck waaaay out. Is that the way it’s designed?

    Reply
  19. Correct me if I’m wrong here. Didn’t SAF push the Heller case to the Scotus? And didn’t that case confirm for the first time in the history of SCOTUS rulings that the RTKBA was an individual right and not a group right?

    If I’m incorrect in the above I apologize now for what I’m about to say. For all those willing to condemn Gotlieb and the SAF for one misstep, FOAD.

    Reply
  20. So you’re telling me that the government doesn’t follow it’s own laws? But, but, M-T…

    Tonight’s Episode: “Why I’ve Never Applied For My MO CCW”

    Reply
  21. The comments system seems to be getting worse and worse. Now it’s eating submitted comments without warning or notification even when it contains nothing inflammatory or insulting. I have to copy everything I type in the submission box because I’m afraid something I took a few minutes to write will be lost to the mysterious internets as soon as I click “Post Comment.”

    What’s the deal?

    Reply
  22. Funny, investigators are actually saying it’s the media hampering their investigation:

    “The official said investigators are very worried that the media disclosures undermined efforts to locate the suspect or suspects, by tipping them off and perhaps allowing them to don disguises and escape the national and international manhunt now underway.”

    Reply

Leave a Comment