PDA

View Full Version : Feinstein signals attempt to filibuster National Right to Carry legislation


tankarian
05-02-2012, 6:30 AM
..Feinstein wrote, "These dangerous bills ... would undermine states' rights by forcing nearly every state to accept the concealed carry permits issued by other states, even if the permit holder could not qualify for a permit in the state to which he is traveling." More here (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8325)

Oh, so it's all about the states' rights now...
Not so many states' rights when she was the champion of Obamacare. :rolleyes:

dantodd
05-02-2012, 6:36 AM
I hope she does this and every news outlet covers it BIG TIME. Guns are a third rail nationally and anyone who joins her in the filibuster will pay a huge price. I know it's hard to believe living in CA but there are NOT 40 seats in the senate that will join her and outside of NY, NJ, CA, IL, and HI it is political suicide. So, please senator spend as much political capital as you have on this endeavor and bring down any anti-gun politician willing to stand with you, we are better off without them in the Senate.

vantec08
05-02-2012, 6:36 AM
Really difi? Is it possible that "the state to which he is traveling" is having to be sued to acknowledge a civil right guaranteed by COTUS?

nahhhh, couldnt be

glockman19
05-02-2012, 6:42 AM
Hmmmm...wonder if that same logic holds for drivers licenses?

"would undermine states' rights by forcing nearly every state to accept the concealed carry permits drivers licenses issued by other states, even if the permit holder Driver could not qualify for a permit drivers licenses in the state to which he is traveling."

Her logic sucks.

dantodd
05-02-2012, 6:47 AM
Hmmmm...wonder if that same logic holds for drivers licenses?

"would undermine states' rights by forcing nearly every state to accept the concealed carry permits drivers licenses issued by other states, even if the permit holder Driver could not qualify for a permit drivers licenses in the state to which he is traveling."

Her logic sucks.

Or marriage certificates.

glockman19
05-02-2012, 6:48 AM
Or marriage certificates.

You don't need to qualify for a marriage certificate.

glockman19
05-02-2012, 6:51 AM
More FUD...

...""Imagine that a man who has been convicted of a domestic violence crime against a woman he had been dating seeks — and obtains — a permit to carry a concealed firearm from his state of residence," she wrote. "Under the concealed carry reciprocity bills, he could legally travel across state lines and confront his former girlfriend ..."

IMPOSSIBLE...Found Guilty of Domestic Violence makes him prohibited...NO CWP.

Again...Her argument misrepresents the way the law works.

dbo31
05-02-2012, 6:53 AM
Couldn't this same thing be applied to ANY federal law? Essentially ANY federal law is being imposed by the federal government which might infringe on a state? Some shaky logic she has there

dantodd
05-02-2012, 6:57 AM
You don't need to qualify for a marriage certificate.

Of course you do. Try to get one for two men or two women. You won't qualify in most states.

speedrrracer
05-02-2012, 6:58 AM
I hope she does this and every news outlet covers it BIG TIME. Guns are a third rail nationally and anyone who joins her in the filibuster will pay a huge price. I know it's hard to believe living in CA but there are NOT 40 seats in the senate that will join her and outside of NY, NJ, CA, IL, and HI it is political suicide. So, please senator spend as much political capital as you have on this endeavor and bring down any anti-gun politician willing to stand with you, we are better off without them in the Senate.

You don't get it -- it's not political suicide for her, because she is placed in office by the retards of the state of California. Remember the state we live in? Stupid people by the millions? Moronic gun laws? Yeah, that one.

Like it or not, she is a good representative in this area, because the majority of this state are morons like her, and don't believe in 2A rights. She represents them well and faithfully in this area, so they re-elect her.

It's the exact opposite of political suicide.

dbo31
05-02-2012, 6:58 AM
Of course you do. Try to get one for two men or two women. You won't qualify in most states.

Or for brother and sister(some southern states excluded)

Lives_In_Fresno
05-02-2012, 7:08 AM
I hope she does this and every news outlet covers it BIG TIME. Guns are a third rail nationally and anyone who joins her in the filibuster will pay a huge price. I know it's hard to believe living in CA but there are NOT 40 seats in the senate that will join her and outside of NY, NJ, CA, IL, and HI it is political suicide. So, please senator spend as much political capital as you have on this endeavor and bring down any anti-gun politician willing to stand with you, we are better off without them in the Senate.

Perhaps you disagree, but this is the type of behavior that the folks who elected her really love. I have longed for her losing an election, but the nutcases here keep putting her back in.

All she cares about is getting reelected, and this won't make her reelection less likely. Rather, it is more likely to help her stay in office.

BobB35
05-02-2012, 7:24 AM
Hmmmm...wonder if that same logic holds for drivers licenses?

"would undermine states' rights by forcing nearly every state to accept the concealed carry permits drivers licenses issued by other states, even if the permit holder Driver could not qualify for a permit drivers licenses in the state to which he is traveling."

Her logic sucks.


Using logic to describe the thinking process of a Progressive is an oxymoron at best....

Smokeybehr
05-02-2012, 7:44 AM
Hmmmm...wonder if that same logic holds for drivers licenses?

"would undermine states' rights by forcing nearly every state to accept the concealed carry permits drivers licenses issued by other states, even if the permit holder Driver could not qualify for a permit drivers licenses in the state to which he is traveling."

Her logic sucks.

The difference is that driving is a privilege, whereas RKBA is a right enumerated in the Constitution.

The difference with Marriage Licenses is that not all states honor each others' licenses, especially when it comes to same-sex couples.

Speedrracer is correct. Feinstein is playing to the electorate that put her into office. As long as she keeps giving them what they want, and spouting the party line, the donations will continue to roll in. She's a dyed-in-the-wool San Francisco Liberal, and nothing's going to change anytime soon.

Untamed1972
05-02-2012, 7:49 AM
So lemme get this straight DiFi:

It's a violation of state's rights for the federal gov't to enforce against the states a specifically constitutionally enumerated and incorporated individual right.......but it's not a state's rights issue for the federal gov't to force obamacare on the nation for which there is no constitutional authority?

Whatever! :rolleyes:

CBruce
05-02-2012, 7:51 AM
Hmmmm...wonder if that same logic holds for drivers licenses?

"would undermine states' rights by forcing nearly every state to accept the concealed carry permits drivers licenses issued by other states, even if the permit holder Driver could not qualify for a permit drivers licenses in the state to which he is traveling."

Her logic sucks.

I seem to recall having to get a CA license when I moved here. They wouldn't let me keep using my TX one. Written test and everything.

But then a license to operate an automobile isn't exactly the same thing as a consitutionally defined right. While I understand the intent behind this, it makes about as much sense as trying to pass a bill that would allow states to issue 'permits to worship'.

tankarian
05-02-2012, 8:01 AM
You don't get it -- it's not political suicide for her, because she is placed in office by the retards of the state of California. Remember the state we live in? Stupid people by the millions?


We have plenty of those right here on Calguns - people who continue to support liberal gun grabbers like Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Eric Holder or Barak Obama. I won't name names since everyone here knows who they are (http://scriptedlibations.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/backstabber.jpg?w=500).

Clownpuncher
05-02-2012, 8:07 AM
I hope she does this and every news outlet covers it BIG TIME. Guns are a third rail nationally and anyone who joins her in the filibuster will pay a huge price. I know it's hard to believe living in CA but there are NOT 40 seats in the senate that will join her and outside of NY, NJ, CA, IL, and HI it is political suicide. So, please senator spend as much political capital as you have on this endeavor and bring down any anti-gun politician willing to stand with you, we are better off without them in the Senate.

Not political suicide for her or anyone else from the states you list. While it would be wildly unpopular in certain areas of the country, the morons in those states will continue to elect these representatives.
If it was truly political suicide for her to have that opinion or suicide for her to oppress 2A rights then she would have been gone long ago. The liberals in California who believe the hype continue to elect her and that other moron Boxer despite what they do to undermine common sense.

SilverTauron
05-02-2012, 8:08 AM
Its hard to compute,but in some parts of 'America' the best way to get re-elected is to be a one-rep activist against the Constitution.Feinstein would be right at home in Illinois,representing liberal minded Chicago voters.

In such progressive districts right is wrong and wrong is right,and so the politicians act accordingly.

X231
05-02-2012, 8:12 AM
In such progressive districts right is wrong and wrong is right,and so the politicians act accordingly.

Or to put it another way, "The new smart is the old stupid"

vantec08
05-02-2012, 8:15 AM
I use DiFi as a reverse barometer for reality - - if she says such-and-such is true or legal, it probably isnt and vice versa. Amazingly accurate.

taperxz
05-02-2012, 8:19 AM
LOL at those who think this move is not political suicide!

Even though DIFI is elected by CA, what you don't seem to understand is that being a US Senator is more about how you get a long with the other senators, especially of your own party. By filibustering, she puts other Dems on the spot politically. When other bills pop up lets see how many dems will stick their necks out for her.

When you filibuster, you better have the backing of ALL "your friends" or it will not bode well for you politically in the US Senate.

X231
05-02-2012, 8:23 AM
LOL at those who think this move is not political suicide!

Even though DIFI is elected by CA, what you don't seem to understand is that being a US Senator is more about how you get a long with the other senators, especially of your own party. By filibustering, she puts other Dems on the spot politically. When other bills pop up lets see how many dems will stick their necks out for her.

When you filibuster, you better have the backing of ALL "your friends" or it will not bode well for you politically in the US Senate.

While you might be right about that I think Boxer and DiFi are arrogant enough to just not care.

taperxz
05-02-2012, 8:28 AM
While you might be right about that I think Boxer and DiFi are arrogant enough to just not care.

BB is living proof of political suicide. YES we keep putting her in office but she generally is not well thought of in the senate.

DiFi, on the other hand has played politics well over the years. IMHO she will "stick to her guns" on this and then if she doesn't get the support she will use this to get something else that she may want. Its called politics;)

dustoff31
05-02-2012, 8:30 AM
I hope she does this and every news outlet covers it BIG TIME. Guns are a third rail nationally and anyone who joins her in the filibuster will pay a huge price. I know it's hard to believe living in CA but there are NOT 40 seats in the senate that will join her and outside of NY, NJ, CA, IL, and HI it is political suicide. So, please senator spend as much political capital as you have on this endeavor and bring down any anti-gun politician willing to stand with you, we are better off without them in the Senate.

This is why she is trying to get Reid and Leahy to not schedule a vote. She knows that it very well may pass. But she doesn't need 40 seats to oppose it, only 2, Reid and Leahy.

Will they put Obama in the hot seat by allowing a bill to pass that would require him to either sign it upsetting his base, or veto it upsetting the rest of the country? Especially with an election coming up? Don't think so.

taperxz
05-02-2012, 8:34 AM
This is why she is trying to get Reid and Leahy to not schedule a vote. She knows that it very well may pass. But she doesn't need 40 seats to oppose it, only 2, Reid and Leahy.

Will they put Obama in the hot seat by allowing a bill to pass that would require him to either sign it upsetting his base, or veto it upsetting the rest of the country? Especially with an election coming up? Don't think so.

So whats going to happen when Senators Leahy, (VERMONT) and REID (NEVADA) go back to their states and tell their Dem and REPUB, constituents that they don't wont them carrying in other states? We are talking Vermont and Nevada here.

NoJoke
05-02-2012, 8:37 AM
Hmmmm...wonder if that same logic holds for drivers licenses?

"would undermine states' rights by forcing nearly every state to accept the concealed carry permits air breather issued by other states, even if the permit holder human could not qualify for a permit oxygen in the state to which he is traveling."

Her logic sucks.

...or breathing air. I mean, really? She's nuts.

dustoff31
05-02-2012, 8:39 AM
So whats going to happen when Senators Leahy, (VERMONT) and REID (NEVADA) go back to their states and tell their Dem and REPUB, constituents that they don't wont them carrying in other states? We are talking Vermont and Nevada here.

The same thing that has happened to them for the past six years or so, when similar reciprocity bills have died for one reason or another. Nothing.

They won't tell the people they don't want them carrying, they will tell the D's that it's the R's fault, and tell the R's it's the D's fault and then they will get re-elected.

IrishPirate
05-02-2012, 8:43 AM
DiFi is a dangerous person....she's very good at making people believe things that aren't true long enough to pass legislation that is nearly impossible to overturn...

jb7706
05-02-2012, 8:47 AM
More here (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8325)

Oh, so it's all about the states' rights now...
Not so many states' rights when she was the champion of Obamacare. :rolleyes:

Received this from our friend Carolyn "shoulder thing that goes up" McCarthy today:

The gun lobby's at it again. They won't stop forcing their radical values on the rest of us.
Right now, they're trying to ram the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act through the Senate. This outrageous bill would require states to recognize a concealed carry permit from any other state.
It would undermine our safety, effectively allowing Florida to decide what happens in New York. We can't let armed vigilantes take the law into their own hands.
We've seen the deadly, tragic consequences. We can't let them spread.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein has just placed a hold on this bill, stopping it for now. We have to help her keep up the resistance. With each voice, the defense of our rights and protections will grow stronger.
Join us.
Click here to say no to the radical gun lobby and help us stop this bill in the Senate.
The extreme Tea Party pushed this bill through the House back in November. Right now, we have to implore the Senate to stop it.
We have to help Sen. Feinstein.
After what we saw happen in Florida, I know I don't want another state deciding what goes on in ours.
On any other issue, even the far-right would agree. But when it comes to the gun lobby, the right bends over backwards to appease.
Currently, every state can make its own decisions on granting concealed weapons permits. They can institute different requirements -- age minimums, firearms training or lack of a criminal record -- all decided through a democratic process.
This new bill does nothing but tear down walls of protection. It's unwarranted and dangerous.
Sen. Feinstein and I are making a stand, but we need everyone to join us if we're going to stop the gun lobby from ramming its bill through the Senate.
Demand that senators stand up to the gun lobby and stop this bill, now.
Radical lawmakers in other states shouldn't decide who can carry a gun in your community. But the gun lobby believes otherwise and, more importantly, they don't believe anyone will stand up to them.
Let's show them they're wrong.
Thank you,

Carolyn

Uxi
05-02-2012, 8:50 AM
BB is living proof of political suicide. YES we keep putting her in office but she generally is not well thought of in the senate.

DiFi, on the other hand has played politics well over the years. IMHO she will "stick to her guns" on this and then if she doesn't get the support she will use this to get something else that she may want. Its called politics

Theoretically Feinstein will probably trade the filibuster for a political favor at another time. Boxer's dumb *** would do it regardless.

Realistically, they don't ever actually carry out the filibuster anymore. That's a shame. Could make for some good C-Span to see some of these guys doing 3-day long speeches, etc.

emcon5
05-02-2012, 8:54 AM
I seem to recall having to get a CA license when I moved here. They wouldn't let me keep using my TX one. Written test and everything.

The bill isn't talking about moving. You get a Texas Permit and move to California your Texas permit is no longer valid, just like a Drivers License.

The bill is about traveling. You live in Texas, have a Texas permit, you can travel to CA and carry.

taperxz
05-02-2012, 8:56 AM
Theoretically Feinstein will probably trade the filibuster for a political favor at another time. Boxer's dumb *** would do it regardless.

Realistically, they don't ever actually carry out the filibuster anymore. That's a shame. Could make for some good C-Span to see some of these guys doing 3-day long speeches, etc.


I agree! A true filibuster is what SHOULD be brought back to the senate!

Blah blah blah blah and the sky is falling and the grass is green and oh where was I? Lol

IVC
05-02-2012, 8:56 AM
To pull off a filibuster in the Senate one needs 40 votes. DIFI doesn't risk anything personally by pushing for it, but there aren't *additional* 19 states (2 Senators each) where such a dramatic position wouldn't result in the dire political consequences. Finding enough support is where the filibuster will fail.

The best bet would be for Reid simply not to bring it up for vote (like he has done with numerous politically unpopular bills), or to have Obama veto it. I don't think Democrats want to put Obama in that position, so if this is to get blocked, look for Reid to ignore it.

Obama cannot afford to alienate gun owners. He has already touted his signing of the bill allowing carrying in the national forests (even though it was a piggy back) as the sign that he is not against 2A. A veto *this year* would be very damaging for him.

taperxz
05-02-2012, 8:58 AM
The same thing that has happened to them for the past six years or so, when similar reciprocity bills have died for one reason or another. Nothing.

They won't tell the people they don't want them carrying, they will tell the D's that it's the R's fault, and tell the R's it's the D's fault and then they will get re-elected.

It's an election year though. Politics and stuff like this make for good poll results to see where the citizens stand politically.;)

GMANtt
05-02-2012, 9:02 AM
Argued with an anti gun liberal about "Feinsteins letter" and he kept bringing up "would you be comfortable if a hick from Tennessee that had a history of domestic violence came to california and concealed carry?"

I love fallacies.

Uxi
05-02-2012, 9:05 AM
I agree! A true filibuster is what SHOULD be brought back to the senate!

Blah blah blah blah and the sky is falling and the grass is green and oh where was I? Lol

Right. I mean the point is a test of willpower, if not endurance. The minority desiring to obstruct legislation either give up or the majority pushing it give up and move on, or suitable amendments are offered, etc. Put their money (and time) where their mouths are, so to speak.

dfletcher
05-02-2012, 9:08 AM
You don't get it -- it's not political suicide for her, because she is placed in office by the retards of the state of California. Remember the state we live in? Stupid people by the millions? Moronic gun laws? Yeah, that one.

Like it or not, she is a good representative in this area, because the majority of this state are morons like her, and don't believe in 2A rights. She represents them well and faithfully in this area, so they re-elect her.

It's the exact opposite of political suicide.

I read the "political suicide" comment as not applying to Feinstein or Senators from those few states listed, but rather applying to Senators in the other 40 or so states that are pro-gun. This fall there are 33 seats up for election, about 22 of them are currently held by Democrats. I think it would be "political suicide" for a Democrats in many of those states (FL, MT, MI, MO, NM, ND, VA, WV, etc) to support gun control. Feinstein is safe, but she ought to know she is spending political capital on a cause no one will touch.

dustoff31
05-02-2012, 9:14 AM
It's an election year though. Politics and stuff like this make for good poll results to see where the citizens stand politically.;)

They already know where the citizens stand on this. They know it, they just won't admit it. And again, I maintain that they will not willingly put their boss in such an awkward position with an election coming up.

haole_50
05-02-2012, 9:14 AM
You don't need to qualify for a marriage certificate.

Beg to differ - but a blood test is required to "qualify". Maybe you can marry your sister in the hills but not here!

taperxz
05-02-2012, 9:17 AM
Beg to differ - but a blood test is required to "qualify". Maybe you can marry your sister in the hills but not here!

You can certainly marry a cousin in this state!

Fate
05-02-2012, 9:29 AM
You can certainly marry a cousin in this state!

Ah yes, gotta love the high desert. :D

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4506447742109032&id=f4f04021b66deb34aaf531160a4c2282&url=http%3a%2f%2fimages.sodahead.com%2fprofiles%2f 0%2f0%2f1%2f7%2f1%2f2%2f9%2f9%2f3%2fTwin-Bros-23717015375.jpeg

BlindRacer
05-02-2012, 10:06 AM
I've seen it mentioned a few times in this thread, that DiFi could just get Reid to not bring the bill up for a vote. Can someone please explain to me how/why this is possible? It seems like it is something that shouldn't even be legal, let alone something that happens with any frequency. The house passed the friggin' bill for goodness sakes. So after that, the senate can then just ignore it, like it doesn't even exist? And it's not even like it's brought up as a vote, to take a vote. It's done by one person...basically vetoing the bill before it can be voted on. Seems like Reid has way too much power.

The way I understood things to work, was that the house voted, the senate voted, and the president voted. With Reid ignoring it, he isn't allowing the senate to have a vote. He could theoretically do that to every single bill that came to the senate, giving Reid ultimate control of one of the branches of government.

Someone please explain this to me, as I am extremely confused by all this.

yakmon
05-02-2012, 10:10 AM
they can do exactly what they're doing now. the bill is sitting in committee and will likley rot there until late November.

dantodd
05-02-2012, 10:21 AM
I hope she does this and every news outlet covers it BIG TIME. Guns are a third rail nationally and anyone who joins her in the filibuster will pay a huge price. I know it's hard to believe living in CA but there are NOT 40 seats in the senate that will join her and outside of NY, NJ, CA, IL, and HI it is political suicide.


I don't know what is wrong with reading comprehension on the forum today.
I DID NOT say that DiFi would pay a huge cost for trying to stop this bill. I said that those who join her will pay and pay dearly.

If you don't believe me maybe you'll believe Bill Clinton when he says that anti-gun bills are bad juju for democrats in MOST states.

http://www.gunshopfinder.com/legislativenews/clinton8_1_04.html


AGAIN. DiFi spending what political capital she has on this issue can only help us. There is NO WAY Reid will stop a vote based on what happened in his last re-election bid. Leahy may be a different story. If she can keep this from coming to a vote in committee that would be bad but trying to filibuster will out anti-gun politicians who we can work to defeat in the next election cycle. I welcome her invitation to such democrats to play Russian roulette with their careers.

dustoff31
05-02-2012, 10:29 AM
I've seen it mentioned a few times in this thread, that DiFi could just get Reid to not bring the bill up for a vote. Can someone please explain to me how/why this is possible? It seems like it is something that shouldn't even be legal, let alone something that happens with any frequency. The house passed the friggin' bill for goodness sakes. So after that, the senate can then just ignore it, like it doesn't even exist? And it's not even like it's brought up as a vote, to take a vote. It's done by one person...basically vetoing the bill before it can be voted on. Seems like Reid has way too much power.

The way I understood things to work, was that the house voted, the senate voted, and the president voted. With Reid ignoring it, he isn't allowing the senate to have a vote. He could theoretically do that to every single bill that came to the senate, giving Reid ultimate control of one of the branches of government.

Someone please explain this to me, as I am extremely confused by all this.


The majority leaders in either chamber are responsible for bringing up bills to be voted on. If they want to vote on something it happens, if they don't, it doesn't happen. They set the agenda.

Not scheduling votes happens all the time. Another common tactic to avoid a vote is is to keep a bill tied up in the various committees. It has to pass through them before it can even be scheduled for debate and after debate then a floor vote.

A fillibuster is where a vote does come to the floor, and an opponent/s just talks and delays, extending the "debate" until there is simply no time left to vote.

Wherryj
05-02-2012, 11:01 AM
More here (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8325)

Oh, so it's all about the states' rights now...
Not so many states' rights when she was the champion of Obamacare. :rolleyes:

Maybe we should just "Pass it to see what's in there."?

Wherryj
05-02-2012, 11:05 AM
Hmmmm...wonder if that same logic holds for drivers licenses?

"would undermine states' rights by forcing nearly every state to accept the concealed carry permits drivers licenses issued by other states, even if the permit holder Driver could not qualify for a permit drivers licenses in the state to which he is traveling."

Her logic sucks.

Yes, although if this had occurred to her she wouldn't have made the connection. CA has the lowest standards for most things-vaccination opt out, driver's licenses, etc. Half of CA's drivers wouldn't qualify in other states-they probably wouldn't even qualify to be in that state due to lack of citizenship/legal immigration status.

Thus, CA lawmakers would never even consider a driver being "unqualified" in CA

NorCal Mtn Flyer
05-02-2012, 11:07 AM
I've seen it mentioned a few times in this thread, that DiFi could just get Reid to not bring the bill up for a vote. Can someone please explain to me how/why this is possible? It seems like it is something that shouldn't even be legal, let alone something that happens with any frequency. The house passed the friggin' bill for goodness sakes. So after that, the senate can then just ignore it, like it doesn't even exist? And it's not even like it's brought up as a vote, to take a vote. It's done by one person...basically vetoing the bill before it can be voted on. Seems like Reid has way too much power.

The way I understood things to work, was that the house voted, the senate voted, and the president voted. With Reid ignoring it, he isn't allowing the senate to have a vote. He could theoretically do that to every single bill that came to the senate, giving Reid ultimate control of one of the branches of government.

Someone please explain this to me, as I am extremely confused by all this.


By burying a bill in committee, it can languish there till oblivion, or until that Congress is terminally recessed at the end of it's term (at which point any unprocessed legislation is null and void). Why do you think the Senate has not voted on any of the 3 budgets that Paul Ryan has submitted and had passed by the HoR? If Reid doesn't allow it out of committee or schedule it for a debate/vote, then it'll never see the light of day.

So, yes. It does make Reid a very powerful person.... and that's a large part of the problem with government!

Drivedabizness
05-02-2012, 12:47 PM
The Constitution allows each chamber to set its own rules.

Revenue bills must originate in the House.

Other bills can originate in the Senate (though that is not the "normal" process).

Anyone remember "Schoolhouse Rock"?

"I'm just a Bill, yes I'm only a Bill and I'm stuck up hear on Capitol Hill"

That one and "Verb" were my two favorites.

The real tragedy here is that there was a time when even her own party would not let her derail legislation by herself (we miss you, guys like Scoop Jackson and Zell Miller!). They should attach this to some "must pass" piece of legislation not subject to a 60-vote majority. They're gonna hit the debt limit before the election....

bandook
05-02-2012, 12:57 PM
Beg to differ - but a blood test is required to "qualify". Maybe you can marry your sister in the hills but not here!

Whereabouts do you live? Is there a prevalence of such marriage activity in your area :confused:

(Just Kidding!!! The CA blood test requirement was removed about 15 years ago)

HBrebel
05-02-2012, 1:57 PM
CAN WE AT LEAST TRY TO RETIRE THIS HAG COME NOVEMBER?

stix213
05-02-2012, 2:30 PM
To pull off a filibuster in the Senate one needs 40 votes. DIFI doesn't risk anything personally by pushing for it, but there aren't *additional* 19 states (2 Senators each) where such a dramatic position wouldn't result in the dire political consequences. Finding enough support is where the filibuster will fail.

The best bet would be for Reid simply not to bring it up for vote (like he has done with numerous politically unpopular bills), or to have Obama veto it. I don't think Democrats want to put Obama in that position, so if this is to get blocked, look for Reid to ignore it.

Obama cannot afford to alienate gun owners. He has already touted his signing of the bill allowing carrying in the national forests (even though it was a piggy back) as the sign that he is not against 2A. A veto *this year* would be very damaging for him.

I agree. I think an Obama veto might actually seal his defeat in Nov. I think if it gets to his desk it gets signed. If this bill is stopped it will be Reid keeping it from the floor, or a successful filibuster. I doubt a filibuster would work, but I wouldn't be surprised if Reid was about to put it off to keep Obama from having to make a tough call before the election.

glockman19
05-02-2012, 2:34 PM
The Constitution allows each chamber to set its own rules.

Revenue bills must originate in the House.

Other bills can originate in the Senate (though that is not the "normal" process).

Anyone remember "Schoolhouse Rock"?

"I'm just a Bill, yes I'm only a Bill and I'm stuck up hear on Capitol Hill"

That one and "Verb" were my two favorites.
The real tragedy here is that there was a time when even her own party would not let her derail legislation by herself (we miss you, guys like Scoop Jackson and Zell Miller!). They should attach this to some "must pass" piece of legislation not subject to a 60-vote majority. They're gonna hit the debt limit before the election....

Let's not forget "Conjunction Junction"...what's your function....:)

ODGA7ssL-6g

H-eYBZFEzf8

US8mGU1MzYw

Gotta love youtube

kcbrown
05-02-2012, 2:43 PM
You don't get it -- it's not political suicide for her, because she is placed in office by the retards of the state of California. Remember the state we live in? Stupid people by the millions? Moronic gun laws? Yeah, that one.

Like it or not, she is a good representative in this area, because the majority of this state are morons like her, and don't believe in 2A rights. She represents them well and faithfully in this area, so they re-elect her.


You wouldn't know it by the responses to that CBS hit piece on the bullet button (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=566306)...

fpeel
05-02-2012, 2:50 PM
Argued with an anti gun liberal about "Feinsteins letter" and he kept bringing up "would you be comfortable if a hick from Tennessee that had a history of domestic violence came to california and concealed carry?"

I love fallacies.

It would have been hard to not answer, "I wouldn't care as long as he and I weren't dating..." :43:

RazzB7
05-02-2012, 2:52 PM
You wouldn't know it by the responses to that CBS hit piece on the bullet button (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=566306)...

You're comparing the responses of an openly pro-gun, pro-2A forum and thinking that the majority of the voting public think that way? REALLY?

kcbrown
05-02-2012, 3:18 PM
You're comparing the responses of an openly pro-gun, pro-2A forum and thinking that the majority of the voting public think that way? REALLY?

Um, no. Read the responses to CBS' own page on the story (you'll be able to find the link to it in the thread). Read the responses to it on CBS' own Facebook page. They are very nearly 100% in support of RKBA.

RazzB7
05-02-2012, 3:19 PM
Um, no. Read the responses to CBS' own page on the story (you'll be able to find the link to it in the thread). Read the responses to it on CBS' own Facebook page. They are very nearly 100% in support of RKBA.

OK, but that's not what you linked to.

The Original Godfather
05-02-2012, 3:33 PM
You don't need to qualify for a marriage certificate.

Yes you do, at least in CA.

You have to be heterosexual marriage to get one, right?

bwiese
05-02-2012, 3:36 PM
CAN WE AT LEAST TRY TO RETIRE THIS HAG COME NOVEMBER?

No, because the CA Republican party is more worried about who's doing what in the bedroom than on real substantive issues like taxes, business and guns.

The CA GOP has continually demonstrated they don't have the skill or IQ to get elected, and they even pay good money to lose elections they could win.

bwiese
05-02-2012, 3:38 PM
Yes you do, at least in CA.

You have to be heterosexual marriage to get one, right?

Not for long. The Prop 8 people are getting kicked to the curb, both in popular sentiment and quality of lawyering.

OleCuss
05-02-2012, 3:54 PM
CAN WE AT LEAST TRY TO RETIRE THIS HAG COME NOVEMBER?

You and I can try, but it is not at all likely to happen. She is well regarded in the state and the most you can do is to groom someone for the run against Boxer in 2016.

If lots of money were invested you might beat DiFi with someone like Emken in November. But that money is not likely to materialize unless a whole bunch of us win the lottery.

But still, I have this little bit of me which wonders if there might be a SuperPac out there somewhere accumulating a huge war chest of funds they plan to devote to politically destroying DiFi - but the Loch Ness monster turning up in my bathtub seems more likely.

GMG
05-02-2012, 4:24 PM
Being that DiFi is almost 80 yrs. old she might not make it to the end of a filibuster !

Wrangler John
05-02-2012, 4:57 PM
Yet another one of my flights of fancy. Imagine if a Constitutional Amendment could be adopted wherein:

The Speaker of the House became a separate nationally elected office, a non-partisan office to boot. In as much as this position effects the business of the People's House, and has national implications in the Presidential Succession, a house member elected from a single gerrymandered district should not be invested with that much power. The position would be established as a four year term with a two term limit, and a qualification that the candidate be a recognized authority on Constitutional law. Pelosi and Boehner are examples of fail under the current system.

On the Senate side the amendment would strip the Majority Leader of all power to schedule bills and assign committee hearings. These would pass to the President of the Senate, the Vice President of the united States, already a nationally elected officer. The leaders, majority and minority, would become cheerleaders for their caucuses.

Maximize the pain, curtail the power, throw multiple monkey wrenches into the cogs, bring it all down, man. :)

radioman
05-02-2012, 5:22 PM
I love DiFi, the woman with the boy friend that might hert her, she should not have a gun to defend herself. Difi Can't Understand Normal Thinking.

scoobyj
05-02-2012, 5:36 PM
If you have seen DiFi lately, you know she will not be around much longer!:)

kcbrown
05-02-2012, 6:30 PM
OK, but that's not what you linked to.

Yeah, sorry for the confusion. I was walking out the door and didn't have time to chase down the relevant links. Figured anyone reading would get my meaning.

Anyway, the response on the net has been overwhelmingly on our side, which I found surprising and refreshing.

lilro
05-02-2012, 7:28 PM
Um, no. Read the responses to CBS' own page on the story (you'll be able to find the link to it in the thread). Read the responses to it on CBS' own Facebook page. They are very nearly 100% in support of RKBA.

I'd say most of those comments are from calguns and other gun forums where the story was posted. Most people in CA have no clue what the gun laws are. I know people that have lived here 15+ years that think you need a license/permit to OWN a gun. And that they are all registered. I'd be willing to bet most of the comments on their facebook already knew about bullet buttons and the law necessatating them.

mag360
05-02-2012, 7:31 PM
so when is Darrel Issa going to run for senate?

goodlookin1
05-02-2012, 9:05 PM
Doesnt matter if the senate passes this or not. The current president will not sign the bill if it passed. It would only work if either Obama is not re-elected and the bill is passed next year, OR if it is attached to a really important bill that he could not possibly turn down.

kcbrown
05-02-2012, 10:02 PM
I'd say most of those comments are from calguns and other gun forums where the story was posted. Most people in CA have no clue what the gun laws are. I know people that have lived here 15+ years that think you need a license/permit to OWN a gun. And that they are all registered. I'd be willing to bet most of the comments on their facebook already knew about bullet buttons and the law necessatating them.

Well, that's what I would think too. Except that many of the messages are about how the piece is obviously biased, anti-gun, etc., and how they're obviously pushing for further restrictions on law-abiding people. Even that wouldn't pique my interest. What does pique my interest is that there is no anti-gun rebuttal. I've not seen one message supporting CBS here.

That is what I find refreshing.

Librarian
05-02-2012, 10:08 PM
I'd say most of those comments are from calguns and other gun forums where the story was posted. Most people in CA have no clue what the gun laws are. I know people that have lived here 15+ years that think you need a license/permit to OWN a gun. And that they are all registered. I'd be willing to bet most of the comments on their facebook already knew about bullet buttons and the law necessatating them.
I've been trying to work up a true/false test of gun laws that one could use to weight responses to surveys.

Say there are 5 knowledge questions; if the respondent gets 5 correct, their responses to the real survey questions count as 1.0 x 1. If they get just 3 correct, then their responses count as 0.6, and so on.

For example

I'm going to ask you some general knowledge questions about the laws governing firearms. Each question should be answered 'true' or 'false'; answer to the best of your ability.

1) True or false: all guns must be registered.

2) True or false: assault weapons are machine guns.

3) True or false: a person convicted of a crime of domestic is forbidden from owning guns.

4) True or false: anyone can buy a handgun by mail.

5) True or false: in California, a person buying a gun at a gun store must wait ten days before he or she can take the gun home. ... or something along that line. [ Answers are F F T F T, by the way. ]

SilverTauron
05-02-2012, 10:31 PM
I've been trying to work up a true/false test of gun laws that one could use to weight responses to surveys.

Say there are 5 knowledge questions; if the respondent gets 5 correct, their responses to the real survey questions count as 1.0 x 1. If they get just 3 correct, then their responses count as 0.6, and so on.

For example

I'm going to ask you some general knowledge questions about the laws governing firearms. Each question should be answered 'true' or 'false'; answer to the best of your ability.

1) True or false: all guns must be registered.

2) True or false: assault weapons are machine guns.

3) True or false: a person convicted of a crime of domestic is forbidden from owning guns.

4) True or false: anyone can buy a handgun by mail.

5) True or false: in California, a person buying a gun at a gun store must wait ten days before he or she can take the gun home. ... or something along that line. [ Answers are F F T F T, by the way. ]

If you intend on making this survey national, I doubt there is a way to accomplish your goal via a survey.

Someone who answers T to question one might be a New Jersey resident who knows all LEGAL guns in their state must be registered to the NJSP via the Pistol Permit Process( 60 days and a full background check are required in parts of NJ to get a permit to merely buy & own a handgun).


Question 4 can also get ambiguous interpretations. Someone who has ordered a firearm online may interpret that question to encompass "via mail" in terms of Gunsamerica and Budsgunshop.com orders. Only difference between ordering something on Amazon and Buds is that the gun is delivered to an FFL instead of their doorstep.

Given the crazy things ive heard in gunstores quantifying true knowledge of laws will be impossible with any kind of precision, outside of a multi-million dollar academic study.

press1280
05-02-2012, 11:31 PM
Not sure why she's even bringing this up right now, HR 822 passed the House months ago and other than companion bills introduced in the Senate, there's been zero movement on either. All she's doing is reminding people which political party is holding up this popular legislation(outside of CA,NY,exc.)

Librarian
05-03-2012, 1:06 AM
If you intend on making this survey national, I doubt there is a way to accomplish your goal via a survey.

Someone who answers T to question one might be a New Jersey resident who knows all LEGAL guns in their state must be registered to the NJSP via the Pistol Permit Process( 60 days and a full background check are required in parts of NJ to get a permit to merely buy & own a handgun).


Question 4 can also get ambiguous interpretations. Someone who has ordered a firearm online may interpret that question to encompass "via mail" in terms of Gunsamerica and Budsgunshop.com orders. Only difference between ordering something on Amazon and Buds is that the gun is delivered to an FFL instead of their doorstep.

Given the crazy things ive heard in gunstores quantifying true knowledge of laws will be impossible with any kind of precision, outside of a multi-million dollar academic study.
I would expect a lot of gun store employees to have their survey responses rather lightly weighted.

Since I'm not a professional survey-creator, I'm not dismayed by a need for improvement.

But anyone who would confuse 'ordering from Bud's and having the gun delivered to an FFL' with the pre-1968 'postman dropping off a package containing a gun at one's house' should not be allowed shoes with laces...

I really want one of two things: a way to make random-selection surveys to have some greater value, or to finally dismiss many of them because the respondents seem to have been picked from Jaywalking.

stix213
05-03-2012, 1:42 AM
Yet another one of my flights of fancy. Imagine if a Constitutional Amendment could be adopted wherein:

The Speaker of the House became a separate nationally elected office, a non-partisan office to boot. In as much as this position effects the business of the People's House, and has national implications in the Presidential Succession, a house member elected from a single gerrymandered district should not be invested with that much power. The position would be established as a four year term with a two term limit, and a qualification that the candidate be a recognized authority on Constitutional law. Pelosi and Boehner are examples of fail under the current system.

On the Senate side the amendment would strip the Majority Leader of all power to schedule bills and assign committee hearings. These would pass to the President of the Senate, the Vice President of the united States, already a nationally elected officer. The leaders, majority and minority, would become cheerleaders for their caucuses.

Maximize the pain, curtail the power, throw multiple monkey wrenches into the cogs, bring it all down, man. :)

I don't think I like the idea of increasing the power of the executive branch (Vice President) over the legislative (Senate). We have separate branches of government for a good reason.

Dreaded Claymore
05-03-2012, 2:06 AM
The difference similarity with Marriage Licenses is that not all states honor each others' licenses, especially when it comes to same-sex couples.

Fixed.

OleCuss
05-03-2012, 3:36 AM
Not sure why she's even bringing this up right now, HR 822 passed the House months ago and other than companion bills introduced in the Senate, there's been zero movement on either. All she's doing is reminding people which political party is holding up this popular legislation(outside of CA,NY,exc.)

I don't think this is the first time she has talked filibuster on reciprocity. I consider it to be kind of old news.

Realistically, it is both about denying us liberty and about Obama getting re-elected (OK, mostly about Obama getting re-elected).

If Obama signs reciprocity his base will revolt. If Obama vetoes reciprocity it will further shift a small portion of his party away from him and shift independents further away.

It's a no-win for Obama so it is necessary to kill reciprocity in committee or on the floor.

If you kill reciprocity on the floor of the Senate through a "no" vote, it could kill re-election for some Democrat senators so that is not desirable. A filibuster is a marginally better option for the Democrats but not voting for cloture is still politically problematic so it's still not acceptable.

So you kill it in the committee with a chair who is at no political risk.

But Reid is going to take at least something of a hit at home if he lets it die in committee so he needs some cover on this issue. That's where DiFi comes in.

DiFi will get re-elected almost no matter what she does - she could probably put a video on YouTube of her eating a small baby and still get re-elected. So DiFi mentions that she might filibuster and that means that she gets re-elected and that there is no point in Reid pushing to get reciprocity to the floor because it'll be filibustered anyway.

So Reid is protected. Almost all the Democrat senators are protected (except for a few who need no protection), and Obama is protected.

It's crafty politics nicely played. It'll be interesting to see if the NRA has something up its sleeve to push the legislation despite the Democrat political interests, but at this time I doubt it.

kimber_ss
05-03-2012, 3:40 AM
There wouldn't be enough "wind" in the lungs of potential filibuster candidates to pull it off. Unless they are allowed to "pass gas" in place of quality pro RKBA legislation, like they usually do. lol

ccmc
05-03-2012, 4:59 AM
Or for brother and sister(some southern states excluded)

Which southern states are those exactly? Or are you just stereotyping?

ccmc
05-03-2012, 5:00 AM
You can certainly marry a cousin in this state!

And at least 30 others IIRC.

GM4spd
05-03-2012, 5:42 AM
With or without Feinstein the bill isn't going to be passed anytime soon. Pete

Left Coast Conservative
05-03-2012, 6:05 AM
CAN WE AT LEAST TRY TO RETIRE THIS HAG COME NOVEMBER?

There is not a chance of this. DiFi is so strong in this state that the national Republican organization is not spending much money to support Republican challengers because for the cost of one Senate race in California, they can support 5 Senate candidates in other states. Without massive amounts of money, nobody has a chance. See this story (http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_20445770/sen-dianne-feinstein-puts-re-election-campaign-cruise) in the San Jose Mercury News where they quoted Thad Kousser:


The power brokers at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, he said, "could target four or five other Senate seats for the cost of running one campaign in California."


DiFi is simply not going to be voted out of office, at least not this year. I think she is safe until she decides to retire, or she dies in office.

I hear that for her age that she is in excellent health.

sdfire
05-03-2012, 7:49 AM
Could she be recalled , if we could get a enough signatures on a petition?
I think somebody should start one!

Wherryj
05-03-2012, 7:56 AM
Beg to differ - but a blood test is required to "qualify". Maybe you can marry your sister in the hills but not here!

Sorry, but I beg to differ. The requirement for blood tests hasn't existed for at least ten years. The only requirement seems to be the money to apply for the certificate.

Wrangler John
05-03-2012, 10:54 AM
I don't think I like the idea of increasing the power of the executive branch (Vice President) over the legislative (Senate). We have separate branches of government for a good reason.

Good point, but it was just a fantasy exercise. How about a President of the Senate elected by a majority of the state legislatures? Somehow I really like the idea of repealing the 17th Amendment.

Did I earn my :TFH: yet?

Neil McCauley
05-03-2012, 11:33 AM
There is not a chance of this. DiFi is so strong in this state that the national Republican organization is not spending much money to support Republican challengers because for the cost of one Senate race in California, they can support 5 Senate candidates in other states. Without massive amounts of money, nobody has a chance. See this story (http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_20445770/sen-dianne-feinstein-puts-re-election-campaign-cruise) in the San Jose Mercury News where they quoted Thad Kousser:



DiFi is simply not going to be voted out of office, at least not this year. I think she is safe until she decides to retire, or she dies in office.

I hear that for her age that she is in excellent health.

I trip out on people like her and Pelosi who are live so long and appear to be so strong at that age, especially ones that enjoy trampling on rights that they hold no value to.

ccmc
05-04-2012, 8:49 AM
No, because the CA Republican party is more worried about who's doing what in the bedroom than on real substantive issues like taxes, business and guns.

The CA GOP has continually demonstrated they don't have the skill or IQ to get elected, and they even pay good money to lose elections they could win.



Pure hyperbole. Republicans in California may be opposed to gay marriage like republicans nationwide, but that's a far cry from being "worried about who's doing what in the bedroom". Hyperbolic statements like this are typically used by the anti RKBA crowd to support their own agenda.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Personally I have no problem with gay marriage, but in the real world the politicians that tend to oppose it are more likely to be pro RKBA than those that suport it. That's just as true in California as it is in every single state. I have no quarrel with anyone for whom gay marriage is the litmus test for voting. It's just not mine as (to quote the NRA) I believe RKBA is America's First Freedom, the freedom from which all other rights flow.

Gray Peterson
05-04-2012, 9:25 AM
Pure hyperbole.

It's not. The only Republican Governor candidate who's been able to win since 1994 was the pro marriage equality one (Arnie).

Uxi
05-04-2012, 9:46 AM
It is hyperbole. Redonkulous anti-Republican statement typical of bwiese. The Libertarians in California are even more gimped than the Republicans. They have ZERO influence despite not caring who marries who or how that furthers the degradation of social mores.

The politics of winning governors in this State is a lame strawman. Who was the last Governor friendly to RTBA? If that's the litmus, this site is a lost cause. While being initially agreeable to conservatives on public employee unions and the budget, the governator grabbed his ankles on those, too. The public employee unions own State gubmint and they're not friendly to the RTKBA.

dustoff31
05-04-2012, 9:57 AM
So what are we saying here? That if Republicans behaved more like Democrats, they would then be electable in CA? Well, duh.

As Uxi has pointed out, some have tried that and it hasn't worked out very well at all. Not for any particular interest group, or the state overall.

Uxi
05-04-2012, 10:01 AM
Right. Noone pretends that ALL Republicans are our friends. Most are, but many aren't. NO Democrats are our friends in this State on our primary issue at this site.

Gray Peterson
05-04-2012, 10:05 AM
Right. Noone pretends that ALL Republicans are our friends. Most are, but many aren't. NO Democrats are our friends in this State on our primary issue at this site.

Senator Wright. Senator Lou Correa.

njineermike
05-04-2012, 10:06 AM
Right. Let's not pretend that ALL Republicans are our friends. Most are, but many aren't. NO Democrats are our friends in this State on our primary issue at this site.

1000000% correct! There aren't enough blue dog democrats in California. They overwhelmingly vote lockstep against us on the ENTIRE REASON WE ARE ON THIS SITE AND IT EXISTS!!!!

Next time you vote 'D' on a state election, then get another civil right trampled, shut up and take it, because what just happened is what you asked to happen. No amount of "They support my favorite social cause" bs apology is going to change that fact. You vote democrat in California, you lose gun rights. That's pretty simple to figure out, but some people still can't seem to grasp it.

Uxi
05-04-2012, 10:16 AM
Senator Wright. Senator Lou Correa.

Should I look forward to them having any influence in their caucus? Or just trying to hold the line against the majority that defeats them standing with all the Republicans?

ccmc
05-04-2012, 11:58 AM
It's not. The only Republican Governor candidate who's been able to win since 1994 was the pro marriage equality one (Arnie).

It is. Saying that people (in this case California republicans) who oppose gay marriage are "worried about who's doing what in the bedroom" is just like saying (like NYC Mayor Bloomberg) those who support Stand Your Ground laws support having a "license to kill".

IVC
05-04-2012, 3:05 PM
The only Republican Governor candidate who's been able to win since 1994 was the pro marriage equality one (Arnie).

Hardly Republican. Hollywood and Kenedies run strong with that one...

HBrebel
05-04-2012, 3:42 PM
No, because the CA Republican party is more worried about who's doing what in the bedroom than on real substantive issues like taxes, business and guns.

The CA GOP has continually demonstrated they don't have the skill or IQ to get elected, and they even pay good money to lose elections they could win.



but is there at least a pro-gun dem running?

radioman
05-04-2012, 3:44 PM
A rat is a rat, whatever you call it. republicans have f'ed us out of our gun rights, democRATS have f'ed us out of our gun rights. lets just face it, were f'ed in this state.....

oni.dori
05-14-2012, 11:44 AM
...The Libertarians in California are even more gimped than the RepublicansThey have ZERO influence despite not caring who marries who or how...

That's mainly because most liberals (especially in this state) are grossly misinformed on what Libertarianism is, ad just write them off as "extremist" Republicans.