The short answer is hell no.
The Manchin-Toomey-Schumer gun control proposal that died (for now) in the Senate, according to the NRA (and other accounts), “would have criminalized certain private transfers of firearms between honest citizens, requiring lifelong friends, neighbors and some family members to get federal government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution (and its intended function of) . . . expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools.”
The best procedural analysis we found of what happened appeared in this Wall Street Journal masthead editorial. Read the entire analysis here. The following passage explains why Second Amendment supporters can take no great comfort in the vote because the measure received majority support. there were 54 votes FOR the Manchin-Toomey- Schumer proposal.
But under Senate rules, a simple majority vote would have opened the measure to up to 30 hours of debate, which would have meant inspecting the details. The White House demanded, and Mr. Reid agreed, that Congress should try to pass the amendment without such a debate.
Majority rules would have also opened the bill to pro-gun amendments that were likely to pass. That would have boxed Mr. Reid into the embarrassing spectacle of having to later scotch a final bill because it also contained provisions that the White House loathes. So Mr. Reid moved under “unanimous consent” to allow nine amendments, each with a 60-vote threshold.
The White House was right to worry. An amendment from John Cornyn of Texas that would have required all states to recognize every other state’s concealed-carry permits earned 57 votes, 13 Democrats among them. The nearby table has the list. On Thursday, Wyoming’s John Barrasso offered an amendment to protect gun ownership privacy that passed 67-30
Regrettably more Republicans bolted from their party’s principles to support this bad legislation then Democrats who had the good sense (or desire for political survival) to bolt from their party to oppose this useless big government imposition. Astute readers will see that the procedures used provide a mixed blessing with implications for how Democrats under the subterfuge of Harry Reid might bring things up in the future. Keep in mind that we cannot rely on filibusters to protect the Constitution because they can only last so long.
It is more maxim then cliche’ that the Republic is at risk when Congress is in session. A constant danger is the political drive “to do something” when nothing needs to be done. Regarding gun control existing law is more than stringent enough however unenforced, and liberals want more controls! It is astonishing that as Senator Ted Cruz reported, 15000 felons tried to buy guns in 2010 but the Obama DOJ prosecuted only 44.
Under Harry Reid by no means is the Second Amendment “safe” in the U.S. Senate. In addition we know it is under relentless attack by an Obama Administration disposed to “executive orders” regardless of constitutional limitations. And never underestimate the propensity of individual Republicans or the Republican House leadership to go all wobbly and cave on matters based on perceptions manipulated by the media.
Too often weak kneed RINO’s collapse when principled steadfastness with well articulated reason can bypass journalistic corruption, devastate the opposition, garner support and protect the Constitution. Such politicians would rather be liked by liberals then respected in history.
There is also the possibility, Obama’s hold card, that he will issue “directives” however unconstitutional, and the Congress won’t stop it with any meaningful corrective legislation because Reid will protect Obama in the Senate. The court process is slow and uncertain and in the meantime gun control fanatics win with no repercussions even when the courts do their duty, perhaps years later, to protect the Constitution.
President Obama threw a tantrum after the several gun control measures failed in the Senate. His petulance was juvenile if for no other reason then he knew the proposals were going nowhere in the House. However he wanted a whipping boy, Republicans, and he didn’t get it because more Democrats opposed the measures then Republicans who caved. So Obama lashed out at the NRA for their pressuring of lawmakers.
Pressure to protect rights, imagine that. Never mind that the liberal media and gun control groups have been pressuring legislators relentlessly, lying and using every trick in the propaganda book, obfuscating every aspect of the issue with rank emotionalism. Obama went into high dudgeon, feigning incredulity, and saying that the NRA “lied” that the legislation established a national registry because the legislation “officially” prohibited maintaining such a registry.
The NRA did not lie about anything. They stated facts about what the legislation contained. The problem with Obama’s crocodile tears is that people do not trust crocodiles . . . once bitten and all. What liberty conscious people did understand was that the precursors to universal registration were part of the legislation and would be active. The Obama administration in particular could not be trusted not to use the information.
In addition people understood that the whole regime set up under the legislation would have no effect on gun violence but would burden taxpayers with costs and install more reach of the federal government into commerce within states. The legislation essentially assumed private gun sales are nefarious and that is an outrageous assault on our Constitutional rights in several ways.
Democrat gun controllers in the Senate were not operating with sincerity. If they wanted to do something constructive they would take a straight up or down majority vote on Republican backed legislation to reduce gun violence and protect Second Amendment rights. They did not. R Mall
