The U.S. Senate failed to pass a laundry list of arbitrary and ineffective anti-gun laws.
1: depending on individual discretion and not fixed by law
2: a: not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority – b: marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power
1: not producing an intended effect :ineffectual
2: not capable of performing efficiently or as expected
Thanks to the rules of the Senate—60 yes votes were required for passage—the 2nd Amendment is safe . . . for now.
But should Constitution-loving Americans really celebrate this outcome? Should we take comfort in the fact that it took a procedural technicality in order to preserve one of the basic tenets of the Bill of Rights? A closer look at the votes would indicate that we should not assume our rights are now safe:
- The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and others. It expands background checks to gun shows and Internet sales. It also authorizes $400 million to upgrade the national background check database. It failed 54-46 under a requirement of 60 votes for adoption.
- A proposal by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to swap the background check provisions of the existing bill. It would target those who lie on background check applications and raise access to information about those who have been found mentally impaired by a court. It failed 52-48.
- The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and others. It would enable those who purchase guns for others to avoid a background check. It failed 58-42.
- Concealed-carry reciprocity from Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and others. It would treat state-sponsored concealed carry permits like driver’s licenses, making them valid across state lines. It failed 57-43
- The Assault Weapons Ban from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and others. It targets hundreds of types of weapons for a complete ban. It failed, 40 to 60.
- A plan from Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., to require a court order finding a person a danger to himself or herself or others before that person is banned from buying a gun. Failed 56-44.
- The Large-Capacity Magazine Feeding Devices Amendment from Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.. It bans devices holding more than 10 rounds but creates a special class of citizen – the off-duty police officer – for exemption. Failed 46-54.
Nearly every anti-gun measure considered had a majority in favor of passage, even garnering the support of a few
Conservative Republicans RINOs. *cough* John McCain *cough*
The very fact that there were ANY votes in favor of the infringement of our right to keep and bear arms, let alone a majority of votes, should give pause to any celebration. Particularly when you factor in the other branches of government.
Executive: In a 2001 radio interview, Barack Hussein Obama expressed his Orwellian belief that the Constitution was a charter of “negative liberties” full of “restraints” that kept government and the courts from creating the redistributive change he wanted to bring via the government. Throughout his Presidency: he has usurped the Constitution using “Executive Actions,” made unconstitutional recess appointments, and has suggested that we redefine liberty in America.
House of Representatives: While you would think that a solid Republican majority would serve as a safeguard against attempts by Progressives to pass unconstitutional legislation, we need only remember that John Boehner is no fan of the Hastert Rule, a rule that says he won’t pass legislation without majority support from his own party. In a recent interview on how he plans to handle his fellow Republicans when they consider upcoming gun control and immigration legislation, Boehner said: “Listen: It was never a rule to begin with. And certainly my prerogative – my intention is to always pass bills with strong Republican support.”
He has already demonstrated his willingness to abandon Conservatives three times so far: The Fiscal Cliff tax increases, the Hurricane Sandy
relief boondoggle, and the incorrectly named Violence Against Women Act. I have little confidence that he would do the right thing concerning gun control.
Judicial: The history of the courts is full of decisions made by activist judges. We need look no further than the most recent decision on Obamacare to know they can’t be trusted to uphold the Constitution.
The Second Amendment, for now, is safe. But the assault on it, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, will continue. Just today, Harry the Henchman (Reid) took gun control off the table for now with a pledge to come back to this bill.
“Make no mistake, this debate is not over,” Reid said. He acknowledged that he and President Obama had agreed to hit “pause” on the current package, but said the Senate would “come back to this bill” and take up expanded background checks.
In addition, Obama called yesterday’s vote “round one” of the fight.
press conference photo op, complete with recent victims of gun violence as props, Obama said that yesterday’s gun-control vote in the Senate was a “pretty shameful day for Washington.”
I agree with him completely.
It’s pretty shameful that a group of self-centered, in it for themselves, inside the beltway, constitutionally ignorant and indifferent Washington elitists actually considered, let alone voted on, laws aimed directly at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
This was posted on The Strident Conservative