It’s a battle that has been a long time coming. Today, pro- and anti-gun right lawmakers will lock horns on four bills targeting the Second Amendment.
And the anti-gun crowd is expected to get destroyed.
Democrats get their long-sought votes on gun control a week after the massacre in Orlando, Florida, but election-year politics and the powerful National Rifle Association dim any prospects for changes in the nation’s laws, according to The Associated Press.
The Senate will vote Monday night on four measures — two sponsored by Republicans, two by Democrats. All are expected to fail in a bitterly divided Congress.
Anti-gun bills have floundered recently as few lawmakers are willing to challenge the NRA and no mass shooting the past five years — from Phoenix; to Aurora, Colorado; to Newtown, Connecticut; to Charleston, South Carolina; to San Bernardino, California — has led to new laws.
“Laws didn’t stop them in Boston. Laws didn’t stop them in San Bernardino, where you had every type of gun control law that you could have. And they didn’t stop them in Paris, where people can’t even own guns,” NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre told CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday.
The four votes on Monday night are the result of a deal after Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., filibustered for almost 15 hours seeking action in response to the Orlando shooting that killed 49 people and injured 53. Democrats are expected to block two Republican amendments, arguing that they fall short in controlling the sales of guns. Republicans are expected to block two Democratic amendments, contending that they threaten the constitutional rights of gun owners.
Murphy signaled that passage of the measures was unlikely and focused on the response to his filibuster.
“It wasn’t just that 40 senators came to the floor and supported my effort to get these votes but there were millions of people all across the country who rose up and who joined our effort,” Murphy said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”
The Senate will vote on a measure by Murphy to expand gun background checks and one by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to keep people on a government terrorism watch list or other suspected terrorists from buying guns. The Justice Department has endorsed her legislation.
As a counter, Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas is pushing a measure that would allow the government to delay a gun sale to a suspected terrorist for 72 hours, but require prosecutors to go to court to show probable cause to block the sale permanently. The NRA backs the legislation, but gun control advocates and Democrats say that bar is too high.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley’s measure would boost funds for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and ensure that the correct records are uploaded into the system in a timely manner. It would also clarify language surrounding mental health issues that would disqualify someone from buying a gun. Democrats say that language in the bill would actually roll back some current protections.
The Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, was added to a government watch list of individuals known or suspected of being involved in terrorist activities in 2013, when he was investigated for inflammatory statements to co-workers. But he was pulled from that database when that investigation was closed 10 months later.
Both the Feinstein and Cornyn amendments would try to ensure that individuals like Mateen who had been a subject of a terrorism investigation within the last five years are flagged. Grassley’s would require that law enforcement be notified if a person had been investigated in the last five years and attempted to purchase a gun.
Last week, presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump tweeted that he would meet with the NRA about “not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.” Exactly what he would support was unclear.
Separately, moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is working with other Republicans, as well as talking to Democrats, on a bill that would prevent people on the no-fly list — a smaller universe than targeted by Democrats — from getting guns. But her bill had not been blessed by GOP leaders and it was unclear if it would get a vote.
In the GOP-controlled House, Republicans had no plans to act on guns and Democrats were unable to force any action, given House rules less favorable to the minority party than in the Senate.
The Associated Press contributed to this article.
The anti gun advocates have determined,(among themselves), that the use of the phrase “Shall not be infringed” means “May be infringed”…stating that the word “shall” is not a definitive term in legal documentation. These people are using the current bastardized definition of the word…and not the meaning of the word as it was defined at the time that the amendment was written and enacted. They know that they are wrong…and choose to redefine the word anyway.
Ed Meyer-
Yep. That’s the way attorneys think.
As another example, in the first US dictionary by Noah Webster, the definition of the word “affirm” had no legal significance whatsoever – but the attorneys changed the meaning such that now, “for legal purposes,” it’s meaning is identical to “swear.”
And the thing is, SCOTUS already ruled on this issue long ago, like over 140 years:
“[The Right to Keep and Bear Arms] is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed;… This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,…”.
~ U.S. v. Cruikshank Et Al. 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
Let me repeat that last line: “No other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government”. There’s that grade-school logic, of which the federal courts used to have a much better command than is the case today.
As the Cruikshank court clearly understands (and only the mendacious could not), “Shall not be infringed” prohibits the party limited thereby from any measure of any kind which has the effect of burdening, hindering, or, in short, affecting in any way the keeping and bearing of any weapon by any person. Interfering in the acquisition of any weapon is implicitly prohibited as well, of course.
Further, the issue of what constitutes “arms” is entirely and self-evidently outside the purview of any organ of the federal government as well. For one thing, the federal government is not granted any authority anywhere to interfere with such individual decisions in any event. More particularly, it is self-evident that determination of what is suitable and sufficient for the disaggregated citizenry to effectively enforce their supremacy over those controlling the apparatus of government at need is not within the competence of those controlling the apparatus of government (or that of judges they appoint)…
By virtue of the prohibition’s character, and purpose, it shouldn’t be necessary to point out that “unreasonably” has no place in any consideration of the phrase “Shall not be infringed”. Indeed, to assume or invoke “unreasonably” in consideration of such a prohibition (as in, “Shall not be unreasonably infringed”) is to make the phrase an oxymoron– a self-contradictory bit of nonsense. It IS necessary to point this out, however, because in ruling on the Heller case, today’s Supreme Court saw that word where no one else does.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To be fair, the commentary above is not mine, but a fella by the name of Pete Hendrickson, a smart guy who investigated and learned.
Unfortunately, he’s now the American exception, not the rule; most of us are so dumbed-down we ain’t got a clue-by-four. Visit losthorizons.com to get hip.
see also http://onsecondopinion.blogspot.com/2009/02/meaning-of-shall-not-be-infringed.html
Terrorism is the problem…not guns. The progressives use the gun issue as a distraction (ala Obama… the most corrupt, dishonest) (p)resident ever. Only foolish idiots will allow themselves to be sucked in to this kind of misdirection!!
Paul Nix-
foolish idiots
Are there any other kind?
They’ve got it bass ackwards, as usual. In fact, in the law, the word “shall” means mandatory, if lawmakers mean optional, the word is “may”.
The idiots who are pro gun control only are going after the decent law abiding citizens who obey the laws, not after the illegal gun suppliers that supply
Guns illegally, Which are bought on the black markets, stolen. Present gun control laws that are strictly enforced in places where the gun control laws
are enforced are supported. Instead of more gun control laws, go after the ones who are supplying the guns illegally, the drug cartels, and the ones
that are selling them on the black market, do that along with tough background checks would and can work. Not taking guns away from decent law abiding citizens and making more gun control laws is the solution. Donald Trump has the right idea when it comes to gun laws & gun control.
By the phrase, “gun cartels”, do you mean like Holder, ovomit, the gun walk guys?
Part of the problem with the terrorist lists is that due process isn’t provided before a person lands on the list. We have seen continuing attempts by the Obama administration to classify those who disagree with them as terrorists. Janet Napolitano issued a Department of Homeland Security report in 2009 that insinuated vets, Christians, and pro-lifers were possible terrorists. Lois Lerner used her powers at the IRS to deny tax exempt status to a number of TEA Party groups. In the days after the Benghazi attacks, Obama administration officials tried to pass the attack off as a response to a YouTube video. They even hinted that we might need to consider restrictions on freedom of speech rights.
Between terrorist watch lists and the ability to label someone as crazy, these proposed laws could be used to take away gun rights from most Americans. None of these proposals would have stopped Mateen from his terrorist attack in Orlando. His killing spree would have ended much quicker if someone would have had a gun and shot him.
Justin W. That damned, stupid, idiot Janet Nepaloitano is a Dingbat, as Attoney General in Mexizona, she showed herself to be a Dingbat, as Governor of Mexizona, again she showed herself to be a DO NOTHING DINGBAT. Every governor Mexizona has ever had, except for
Fife Symington & the current governor of Mexizona have all been DINGBATS, the DINGBAT governors of Mexizona make Edith Bunker on the 1970’s sitcom All in the family look like a genius. The watch lists are not targeting the damned illegal alien ragheads that are from Iran, Syria, the PLO, those are the 3 groups of illegals that are never captured & deported. Instead the watch lists are targeting the wrong people.
Due process isn’t even applied after a person gets on the list.
I stand by the opinion that the Second Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights in order to protect the American People against a tyrannical central government that oversteps its authority. Does this sound familiar?
The Obama Regime has overstepped its authority numerous times in the past 7 1/2 years without any serious opposition by a whimpy Republican-controlled Congress and all kinds of support from the Communist (excuse me, I meant Democrat) Party and the Main-stream Media.
I also stand by the opinion that if the Second Amendment falls, so will the rest of the Constitution and we’ll wind up completely “Balkanized” and a Third-world Nation is a very short period of time which will include a full-blown dictatorship that is backed by the United Nations.
SENATOR FIENSTIEN HAS ALWAYS BEEN 100% ANTI GUN AND SHE CARRIES ONE, WHEN SHE WAS AN SF SUPERVISOR, THE SLA HAD A CONTRACT ON HER AND CAME CLOSE TO GETTING THEIR WISH, THE BOMB WAS A DUD. SHE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU DONT WANT TO BE, A HIPOCRITE. SHE HAS BEEN POUNDING THIS BS. DAY IN AN DAY OUT. ITS ALL SHE THINKS ABOUT IS TAKING GUNS FROM THE SLA, THEY ARE GONE. BUT SHE IS STILL OUT TO GET THEM. KINDA SICK HUH. MY FRIEND HAD THAT, ITS CALLED DEMENTIA!
We need to open the Second Amendment up to the FULL MEANING as Written…..Not Restrict is when the MUZZIE TERRORISTS ARE TRYING TO KILL US…
It appears that The Horn has been removing comments again… Am seriously wondering if The Horn is not really a left wing run publication….
It appears that even if the NRA beats back this attempt at further gun control, there will be a little longer wait time to get cleared after a firearms purchase. I wish the Horn would give a bit more coverage to Ted Cruz’ efforts to fight this in the US Senate. He’s just doing what the Texas voters elected him to do.
Cruz is money establishment owned! Check his finances and follow where he received all that money to fight Trump!! He had tons of money more than Trump and went east with the geese while Trump is the next president of these United States!!
In the mean time Mateem’s father met with Obama at the White House.
The mooslum obummer must be put in prison!!
this person who was our president of this great nation must be impeached before he runes this _ our country into the worst its ever been my father died in ww2 and proud of it what is he doing we must keep fighting and keep our country safe ? the people protecting our president have guns would we take them away god bless America george
ok I left my personal comment not one time but three different comments & all three never printed told me it was a duplicated statement this is not freedom of speech god bless America george