Contender
02-22-2004, 02:55 PM
Feb. 22 Neal Knox Update - The three days of debate tentatively scheduledto begin March 3 on S. 695, the gun industry liability protection act,will almost certainly move up to THIS WEEK.
NRA-ILA and the Republican leadership know that every day of delay willbring more editorials condemning the bill - and demanding that it become a"Christmas Tree" of anti-gun amendments, leading off with extending and expanding the Clinton "Assault Weapon" ban, and Sen. John McCain's gun
show destroyer bill.
We've been getting reports, and seeing signs - from both sides - of an earlier debate and vote for many days. Handgun Control Inc., the "Brady Campaign," popped a full page Washington Post ad over a week ago. NRA-ILA sent out postcards urging members to call on even the most doubtful
Senators to support S. 659 and block amendments.
And even with hard information as to what was in the works I saw no reason to give the anti-gun readers confirmation of what they had suspected. After all, you folks have already been talking to your Senators. Haven't you?
If not, now's the time.
This past week, HCI's "StopTheNRA.com" shouted that the vote is coming up this week - and the latest ILA report agrees, so the non-secret is no longer a secret.
Interestingly, most of the editorials and articles from around the country are claiming there are 59 co-sponsors of S. 659, which is wrong. That means the reporters and editorial writers are getting their info from the same anti-gun sources. So what else is new?
According to the official Senate report on bills - at Thomas.loc.gov - the count is still Chief Sponsor Larry Craig plus 54. The most-recent official co-sponsor was Minority Leader Tom Daschle back in September.
But unofficially, we have 60 votes for the bill and against the filibuster.
-------------------
We've also been seeing an increase in hysterical speculation on the internet - stated as fact - that NRA and "the Republicans" have cut a deal to sell out gunowners.
It ain't so.
I worried out loud back in 2002 that there would be efforts to combine NRA's "No. 1 Priority" - S. 659 - with the Clinton gun ban reenactment. In January 2003 I buttonholed some people who would know. As I reported at the time, they flatly denied any deal had been made, or would be made
"because as important as 659 is, it's not worth a gun ban."
In April, at the annual meetings at Orlando, all the NRA brass, from President Kayne Robinson and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre on down, at every opportunity, put equal emphasis on passing S. 659 and preventing reenactment of the ban. (I was delighted to see they were even using my description, "reenactment" - which is what a new law would be.)
Last September, again as I reported, I obtained a memo from turncoat Robert Ricker to his anti-gun handlers excitedly describing the enthusiasm of a "moderate" Republican Senator's staffer for combining S. 659 with an "assault weapon" reenactment.
The Senator himself said "No deal."
This week, after the hysterical reports of a sellout started bouncing around the internet, I had a chat with someone in NRA who knows: "We seek to pass S. 659 as a clean bill and will not accept a Clinton gun ban extension - for ten years or ten minutes -- or the McCain-Reed 'gun show loophole' as the price for its passage."
I am confident that there is no deal, and won't be one - not from NRA at least.
I am equally confident that given the makeup of the Senate, both those provisions are likely to be added to S. 659, and maybe more. Old friend Larry Craig (with whom I haven't always agreed) acknowledged as much in a face-to-face chat last month, but expressed confidence that the anti-gun
riders will be knocked off in conference.
The only way to get the bill to conference will be for Larry and
pro-gunners, along with the squishes, to vote for final passage of S. 659. Most anti-gunners will be voting against it on final, even if it has the ban and other things they want on it.
Although NRA-ILA intends to do all they can to enact a clean S. 659, I have doubts that they - and staunch friends like House Majority Leader Tom DeLay - can completely clean it up in conference, which would mean forcing some votes to strike the anti-gun amendments on the House floor.
If the House-Senate Conference and the House does approve even a reasonably clean S. 659, it's my best guess - based on almost 40 years of fighting this battle - that we won't be able to hold 60 votes in the Senate to block the certain filibuster.
Result: There will be no S. 659 until our position in the Senate is improved - hopefully in this fall's elections.
But there will be no reenactment of the semi-auto ban either. Not on this legislation, and hopefully not on anything else.
-----------------------------------
Back in October, "Americans for Gun Safety" - a sham organization set up by Monster.Com billionaire Andrew McKelvey - sponsored an Atlanta forum with the Democratic Leadership Conference, telling how Democrats could
"win the gun vote."
I hadn't seen details of that hypocritical plan, and the artfully biased polls on which it was based, until a brother in North Carolina steered me to www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=119 - the "New Democrats On Line" web page.
The results of the poll are interesting, even if you do have to carefully read the questions that were asked - such as support for "common sense gun laws" (high because the phrase is undefined ) and "making it easier for people to carry" concealed handguns (which is low because there is no
mention of licensing, background checks and training - not that those features make any real improvement in public safety).
Basically, the AGS plan calls for Democrats to don camouflage "By becoming both pro safety and pro gun rights." Define "becoming."
---------------
President Bush's recess appointment Friday of filibustered Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor to Atlanta's 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has the left in a tizzy - mainly because he is an unquestioned conservative. The Washington Post huffed the appointment was "another provocation" - as if filibustering six appellate judge nominees isn't.
It's a plus for gun owners - although this appointment will last only until the end of 2005 - for Attorney General Pryor put Alabama on the side of the Second Amendment as an individual right during the 5th Circuit hearing in the Emerson case.
Leading Democrat Presidential contender John Kerry said this judicial appointment is a reminder of what this fall's election is really about. For once, Kerry is absolutely, unequivocally right. It's about keeping his appointments off the courts.
And the next President will appoint at least three Supreme Court Justices, probably including the Chief Justice.
That will decide the future of the Second Amendment.
######
_______________________________________________
This is the Firearms Coalition's Alerts list. It is never sent unsolicited. It comes from an unmonitored address, so please do not reply. This is not a chat list, so please don't attempt to post to it. Send list administration questions to fcalerts-admin@nealknox.com.
http://www.nealknox.com/mailman/listinfo/fcalerts-list
NRA-ILA and the Republican leadership know that every day of delay willbring more editorials condemning the bill - and demanding that it become a"Christmas Tree" of anti-gun amendments, leading off with extending and expanding the Clinton "Assault Weapon" ban, and Sen. John McCain's gun
show destroyer bill.
We've been getting reports, and seeing signs - from both sides - of an earlier debate and vote for many days. Handgun Control Inc., the "Brady Campaign," popped a full page Washington Post ad over a week ago. NRA-ILA sent out postcards urging members to call on even the most doubtful
Senators to support S. 659 and block amendments.
And even with hard information as to what was in the works I saw no reason to give the anti-gun readers confirmation of what they had suspected. After all, you folks have already been talking to your Senators. Haven't you?
If not, now's the time.
This past week, HCI's "StopTheNRA.com" shouted that the vote is coming up this week - and the latest ILA report agrees, so the non-secret is no longer a secret.
Interestingly, most of the editorials and articles from around the country are claiming there are 59 co-sponsors of S. 659, which is wrong. That means the reporters and editorial writers are getting their info from the same anti-gun sources. So what else is new?
According to the official Senate report on bills - at Thomas.loc.gov - the count is still Chief Sponsor Larry Craig plus 54. The most-recent official co-sponsor was Minority Leader Tom Daschle back in September.
But unofficially, we have 60 votes for the bill and against the filibuster.
-------------------
We've also been seeing an increase in hysterical speculation on the internet - stated as fact - that NRA and "the Republicans" have cut a deal to sell out gunowners.
It ain't so.
I worried out loud back in 2002 that there would be efforts to combine NRA's "No. 1 Priority" - S. 659 - with the Clinton gun ban reenactment. In January 2003 I buttonholed some people who would know. As I reported at the time, they flatly denied any deal had been made, or would be made
"because as important as 659 is, it's not worth a gun ban."
In April, at the annual meetings at Orlando, all the NRA brass, from President Kayne Robinson and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre on down, at every opportunity, put equal emphasis on passing S. 659 and preventing reenactment of the ban. (I was delighted to see they were even using my description, "reenactment" - which is what a new law would be.)
Last September, again as I reported, I obtained a memo from turncoat Robert Ricker to his anti-gun handlers excitedly describing the enthusiasm of a "moderate" Republican Senator's staffer for combining S. 659 with an "assault weapon" reenactment.
The Senator himself said "No deal."
This week, after the hysterical reports of a sellout started bouncing around the internet, I had a chat with someone in NRA who knows: "We seek to pass S. 659 as a clean bill and will not accept a Clinton gun ban extension - for ten years or ten minutes -- or the McCain-Reed 'gun show loophole' as the price for its passage."
I am confident that there is no deal, and won't be one - not from NRA at least.
I am equally confident that given the makeup of the Senate, both those provisions are likely to be added to S. 659, and maybe more. Old friend Larry Craig (with whom I haven't always agreed) acknowledged as much in a face-to-face chat last month, but expressed confidence that the anti-gun
riders will be knocked off in conference.
The only way to get the bill to conference will be for Larry and
pro-gunners, along with the squishes, to vote for final passage of S. 659. Most anti-gunners will be voting against it on final, even if it has the ban and other things they want on it.
Although NRA-ILA intends to do all they can to enact a clean S. 659, I have doubts that they - and staunch friends like House Majority Leader Tom DeLay - can completely clean it up in conference, which would mean forcing some votes to strike the anti-gun amendments on the House floor.
If the House-Senate Conference and the House does approve even a reasonably clean S. 659, it's my best guess - based on almost 40 years of fighting this battle - that we won't be able to hold 60 votes in the Senate to block the certain filibuster.
Result: There will be no S. 659 until our position in the Senate is improved - hopefully in this fall's elections.
But there will be no reenactment of the semi-auto ban either. Not on this legislation, and hopefully not on anything else.
-----------------------------------
Back in October, "Americans for Gun Safety" - a sham organization set up by Monster.Com billionaire Andrew McKelvey - sponsored an Atlanta forum with the Democratic Leadership Conference, telling how Democrats could
"win the gun vote."
I hadn't seen details of that hypocritical plan, and the artfully biased polls on which it was based, until a brother in North Carolina steered me to www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=119 - the "New Democrats On Line" web page.
The results of the poll are interesting, even if you do have to carefully read the questions that were asked - such as support for "common sense gun laws" (high because the phrase is undefined ) and "making it easier for people to carry" concealed handguns (which is low because there is no
mention of licensing, background checks and training - not that those features make any real improvement in public safety).
Basically, the AGS plan calls for Democrats to don camouflage "By becoming both pro safety and pro gun rights." Define "becoming."
---------------
President Bush's recess appointment Friday of filibustered Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor to Atlanta's 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has the left in a tizzy - mainly because he is an unquestioned conservative. The Washington Post huffed the appointment was "another provocation" - as if filibustering six appellate judge nominees isn't.
It's a plus for gun owners - although this appointment will last only until the end of 2005 - for Attorney General Pryor put Alabama on the side of the Second Amendment as an individual right during the 5th Circuit hearing in the Emerson case.
Leading Democrat Presidential contender John Kerry said this judicial appointment is a reminder of what this fall's election is really about. For once, Kerry is absolutely, unequivocally right. It's about keeping his appointments off the courts.
And the next President will appoint at least three Supreme Court Justices, probably including the Chief Justice.
That will decide the future of the Second Amendment.
######
_______________________________________________
This is the Firearms Coalition's Alerts list. It is never sent unsolicited. It comes from an unmonitored address, so please do not reply. This is not a chat list, so please don't attempt to post to it. Send list administration questions to fcalerts-admin@nealknox.com.
http://www.nealknox.com/mailman/listinfo/fcalerts-list