Winning the Universal Background Check War

[pcfixer]

Winning the Universal Background Check War

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/townha...tm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

 

[Mr H]

Also a bit here...

http://www.ammoland.com/2015/01/billionaires-broken-promises-leave-washington-in-danger/

 

[abean4187]

Well, we are going to have a majority going into 2016. All we need is a president willing to sign the national carry bill. We are very close, needless to say, there is going to be some huge money in 2016 so let’s hope our side is better at courting billionaires.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

Well, we are going to have a majority going into 2016. All we need is a president willing to sign the national carry bill. We are very close, needless to say, there is going to be some huge money in 2016 so let’s hope our side is better at courting billionaires.

That would be nice but would do nothing to address the issues associated with much of state infringement. AW bans, etc.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Well, we are going to have a majority going into 2016. All we need is a president willing to sign the national carry bill. We are very close, needless to say, there is going to be some huge money in 2016 so let’s hope our side is better at courting billionaires.

Not a bill, an amendment to a budget bill.

It's really simple: Any attempt to pass an independent bill that President Obama can veto and have both houses sustain the override isn't worth doing, it's a lot of hot air, for nothing, at all. It's all about scoring for an NRA A rating rather than accomplishing anything and getting it done.

An amendment to something that the President MUST sign is how you actually make things happen. It's how we got National Parks carry, it's how we got to be able to transport our guns in Amtrak trains securely.

Stop thinking about bills, start thinking amendments. Serious gun rights activists need to stop hooting and hollering for worthless gestures and demand things get done. We have two years.

 

[DC-W]

I highly doubt our new congress passes any explicitly pro-gun bills or being able to override a veto if one did.
Boehner and McConnell are worthless.

Amendments as senor Peterson mentioned, would be the way to go.

 

[Boom Boom]

Well, we are going to have a majority going into 2016. All we need is a president willing to sign the national carry bill. We are very close, needless to say, there is going to be some huge money in 2016 so let’s hope our side is better at courting billionaires.

Be careful what you wish for. It means ceding more state power over 2A to the federal government. A federal government which can then use monopoly control over 2A to restrict or ban gun-related issues on a whim, such as carry, right to purchase, and/or right to own. In many respects, it would be an anti-2A billionaire's dream come true. No longer would anti-2A legal battles need to be waged across 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. Instead, anti-2A billionaires would only need to funnel money into the U.S. Congress.

That would be nice but would do nothing to address the issues associated with much of state infringement. AW bans, etc.

Indeed. It would open up the barn door to more and more infringement against states by the federal government.

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

Not a bill, an amendment to a budget bill.

It's really simple: Any attempt to pass an independent bill that President Obama can veto and have both houses sustain the override isn't worth doing, it's a lot of hot air, for nothing, at all. It's all about scoring for an NRA A rating rather than accomplishing anything and getting it done.

An amendment to something that the President MUST sign is how you actually make things happen. It's how we got National Parks carry, it's how we got to be able to transport our guns in Amtrak trains securely.

Stop thinking about bills, start thinking amendments. Serious gun rights activists need to stop hooting and hollering for worthless gestures and demand things get done. We have two years.

You, sir, are an apt student of the political process.

For this (not unlike many other high profile and volatile issues) subtlety, nuance and command of craft are required.

A bill would be all about overpowering the adversary. For 2A issues, that is a very expensive proposition both in terms of money and political capital.

The correct route is to place a rider on some other piece of libtard must have legislation that they (Dems) cannot allow to fail.

Power or finesse? Easy answer if you just think about it.

The acme of skill is to defeat your enemy without having to engage him....

 

[BeoBill]

Be careful what you wish for. It means ceding more state power over 2A to the federal government. A federal government which can then use monopoly control over 2A to restrict or ban gun-related issues on a whim, such as carry, right to purchase, and/or right to own. In many respects, it would be an anti-2A billionaire's dream come true. No longer would anti-2A legal battles need to be waged across 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. Instead, anti-2A billionaires would only need to funnel money into the U.S. Congress.



Indeed. It would open up the barn door to more and more infringement against states by the federal government.

I agree - bad idea. Federal-level national reciprocity would eventually be the camel's nose entering the tent. Perhaps later we would get Federal licensing standards, then Federal licensing (love to know how THAT could be done without a legal people registry), etc. Think about it - when was the last time the Feds were satisfied with an inch?

 

[Brooklyn]

Federal Lic will be passed within about 10 years. The only question us whether we gain anything.

The feds already have the power under the commerce clause abuse to ban carry in any businesses that in any way participates in interstate commerce.. that means at min any publicly traded business, without regard to state cary permits.

Don't belive me..OK let op force write the bill.

Or hope SCOTUS acts.

Those of you that want to fight back...to use the opposition tactics against them... this is how to do it. It has been and hallways will be their most effective tactic..

At least Learn about what the proposals say before discounting them..

Op force can not defeat us..but we can defeat ourselves.

 

[swinokur]

I know it's brought up frequently, but a simple amendment that mandates reciprocity between states while not licensing anything seems to not cede power to the Feds. The 10A would seem to remain intact.

But IANAL nor a political science guy either.

 

[danb]

IMO This will not go beyond the few western states that allow such ballot initiatives, and the states where the legislature is controlled by Dems (MD, NY, etc.) - which already have UBC anyway. I really don't see the need for federal pre-emption here. It's a dangerous road.

This will become a nonissue if/when minorities start pressing for their gun rights. It also will become less of an issue as states decriminalize pot. Two biggest things people are in the fed system for are unlawful immigration and pot. Take those two away and you are left with maybe 1/3 of the names. So, if the Dems want more immigration, decriminalized pot, they will have to deal with restored rights. Plus, background checks mostly prevent minorities from getting guns. They are discriminatory.

I would personally rather win outright at the ballot box than through some backdoor.

 

[Brooklyn]

IMO This will not go beyond the few western states that allow such ballot initiatives, and the states where the legislature is controlled by Dems (MD, NY, etc.) - which already have UBC anyway. I really don't see the need for federal pre-emption here. It's a dangerous road.

This will become a nonissue if/when minorities start pressing for their gun rights. It also will become less of an issue as states decriminalize pot. Two biggest things people are in the fed system for are unlawful immigration and pot. Take those two away and you are left with maybe 1/3 of the names. So, if the Dems want more immigration, decriminalized pot, they will have to deal with restored rights. Plus, background checks mostly prevent minorities from getting guns. They are discriminatory.

I would personally rather win outright at the ballot box than through some backdoor.

Take a good look at what happened in Washington state. Ask Alan Gotlieb .

Please. Within 10 years UBC will pass congress. And it will have Backdoor registration no Real FOPA and no restoration of federal gun rights.

Please learn the issue. This is not Brooklyn pulling this out of his ass. Saf has real Intel on this ... UBC will pass any time they want. Nationwide support is very high.. go to the SAF site and read about it ...listen to Alan's improptu speach at last years Grpc..

I got to speak with him for a bit one on one about this...its real..its not going away and we need to listen to guys like this...name one person who has done more for 2a..

Please give him the support he needs to fight..

Better yet join me the next conference and hear it first hand.

 

[danb]

Take a good look at what happened in Washington state. Ask Alan Gotlieb .

Please. Within 10 years UBC will pass congress. And it will have Backdoor registration no Real FOPA and no restoration of federal gun rights.

Please learn the issue. This is not Brooklyn pulling this out of his ass. Saf has real Intel on this ... UBC will pass any time they want. Nationwide support is very high.. go to the SAF site and read about it ...listen to Alan's improptu speach at last years Grpc..

I got to speak with him for a bit one on one about this...its real..its not going away and we need to listen to guys like this...name one person who has done more for 2a..

Please give him the support he needs to fight..

Better yet join me the next conference and hear it first hand.

I hear what you are saying. But, there was a much better chance nationally in 2013 or 2014 than today, and they still could not get it done. The next real chance in the Senate will be 2017, depending on who wins the presidency. They might try again next year to position themselves for a primary. Most of Bloomberg's candidates lost or had tight races, and now they are focused on state level, which is much more expensive.

The thing about making a deal on UBC's at the national level is that then they move on to the next issue like locusts. I would say any deal (e.g. including carry) would have to be super fantastic for me to support it, much much better than in 2013.

Maybe you are right, in 10 years they get it. And? Better that, than they get UBCs early and move on to the next issue and create the illusion of momentum. Right now, I'd personally rather that they spin their wheels for a while. Meanwhile, we get to see the effect of these laws, and polish the arguments against them.

My view is that if UBCs barely get past the ballot, then that itself is a win. The harder they have to fight for every inch, the better.

And, FYI I have some pretty tacky belt buckles from Gotlieb....

 

[Brooklyn]

Look niether party wants a clean bill.

A clean ubc bill would pass in a heartbeat. That's a fact.

D wants much more and wants to pound R. About ubc..

R want somthing in return.. the deal was set last year and one man one senator killed it because....he would not allow funding for Restoration of federal gun rights..

Now..

We have a lame duck failed president looking to pad his legacy with anything that even smells like a victory on gun control, and a pissed of Democratic caucus tha would love to pound some R on gun control in swing state. Plus a crop of demcratic hell raisers jockeying for attention in the primary only a year away who would live to pound on a do nothing congress.

So a clean UBC is offered. If R block they go into the primary season wouded and set up for failure in 2016. If the vote for it and get nothing they get pounded by the right and lose the majority just in time for the new congress to hand pres H Clinton a liberal wet dream of a Gun control bill.

Now..if the pres wants a clean bill he will get it.. and the d will play along because they can still pound the R on the issue because of all the other stuff, and they know many R will get pissed of and they will lose their base.

70 to 30 odds we get a clean bill just before the primary season. 80 to 20 it will pass.
Now if we get in the game we have a chance.. we can give the Big O his victory and actually win..

Because he is a megalomaniac and he wants a bill with His name on it not H Clinton... that means we can divide and conceur instead of getting carved up..

He will deal because he knows he is out of time, and also because he knows the court could go against him and give us real IS or better...in which case a lot of their leverage goes away..

Believe it or not there are somethings we can't get from the court alone.. and even if we could.. we might not.

And rember just because we get a bill that's better than what we will get if we are not at the table does not mean we can't change in court the parts we don't like..

It really has no downside..

I am not kiding newtown was not our worst nightmare.. that's still coming..

I don't even want to post about my worst fear of an incident.. but it does involve so called law abiding gun owners.. the odds of it happening are low but not zero..

Alan is very worried..he has the inside data it tracks with my game theory above...
So do you feel lucky? Well do ya,.....

 

[danb]

80 to 20 it will pass?! More like 20 to 80 it will pass the Senate!!

If you are offering those odds, I'll take those odds in a heartbeat. Winner donates to loser's charity, a brick of .22 LR or equivalent $$. We'll make it even though (good for you).

Last time around UBC only got 54 votes (53 Dems as I recall), and now many of those senators are extinct. There are now 54 R, and it takes 60 to pass a bill.

0% chance of a clean bill with 54 Rs and a majority Rs in the house. ok, not really 0%, maybe 10% or so, but very small we get a "clean" UBC bill from Shumer or the Dems.

 

[Brooklyn]

80 to 20 it will pass?! More like 20 to 80 it will pass the Senate!!

If you are offering those odds, I'll take those odds in a heartbeat. Winner donates to loser's charity, a brick of .22 LR or equivalent $$. We'll make it even though (good for you).

Last time around UBC only got 54 votes (53 Dems as I recall), and now many of those senators are extinct. There are now 54 R, and it takes 60 to pass a bill.

0% chance of a clean bill with 54 Rs and a majority Rs in the house. ok, not really 0%, maybe 10% or so, but very small we get a "clean" UBC bill from Shumer or the Dems.

Ubc has never had a clEAN bill and ment odds not votes so it will need a handful of deserters. But..it will pass if its clean.

So far the dems want the issue not the win. the antis want the win so they are taking it to referndum.

I will take the bet becuse if i lose i really win.

Now Shumer is the only reason the last bill fell apart, and he is no longer in the majority.. So what if we actually get what he was holding up..

What if the deal fell though because he also wants the issue to grease the skids for H. Clinton.

And what if the Big O has figured this out..what if Ried suggests, at the behest of the presient that just because the dems are in the majority does not mean he gets his chairmanship..or any of the pork he uses to pay off special interests on wall st.

Think that might change the game?

Chuck is a dirt bag,but he is no fool.

If the Big O wants ubc in his legacy and is willing to deal he can get it. Question is will we have a seat at the table.. Will we get anything worthwhile..

Saf pols show healty support for ubc among gun owners..that is a fact.

Maybe we can educate them...been trying for 40 years.. Maybe we can keep the bilionares boys club from outspeeding us 10:1 with pocket change...or maybe not..


Ubc has enough votes to pass as per Gotlieb that the word i get.

 

[Brooklyn]

80 to 20 it will pass?! More like 20 to 80 it will pass the Senate!!

If you are offering those odds, I'll take those odds in a heartbeat. Winner donates to loser's charity, a brick of .22 LR or equivalent $$. We'll make it even though (good for you).

Last time around UBC only got 54 votes (53 Dems as I recall), and now many of those senators are extinct. There are now 54 R, and it takes 60 to pass a bill.

0% chance of a clean bill with 54 Rs and a majority Rs in the house. ok, not really 0%, maybe 10% or so, but very small we get a "clean" UBC bill from Shumer or the Dems.

Ubc has never had a clEAN bill and I meant t odds not votes so it will need a handful of deserters. But..it will pass if its clean.

So far the dems want the issue not the win. the antis want the win so they are taking it to referndum.

I will take the bet becuse if i lose i really win.

Now Shumer is the only reason the last bill fell apart, and he is no longer in the majority.. So what if we actually get what he was holding up..

What if the deal fell though because he also wants the issue to grease the skids for H. Clinton.

And what if the Big O has figured this out..what if Ried suggests, at the behest of the presient that just because the dems are in the majority does not mean he gets his chairmanship..or any of the pork he uses to pay off special interests on wall st.

Think that might change the game?

Chuck is a dirt bag,but he is no fool.

If the Big O wants ubc in his legacy and is willing to deal he can get it. Question is will we have a seat at the table.. Will we get anything worthwhile..

Saf pols show healty support for ubc among gun owners..that is a fact.

Maybe we can educate them...been trying for 40 years.. Maybe we can keep the bilionares boys club from outspending us 10:1 with pocket change...or maybe not..


Ubc has enough votes to pass as per Gotlieb that the word i get.