PDA

View Full Version : 2013 Federal S 649 Reid Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013


GayGuns
03-25-2013, 4:36 PM
Sen. Reid Beefs up "Base Bill" to Destroy Gun Ownership (http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=62542476)

It's the part where he says: "the bill is a lot worse than even we anticipated." is where it GETS me!!!

-------------------------------------------------

Snippet:

Sen. Reid Beefs up "Base Bill" to Destroy Gun Ownership
"Unholy alliances" could become a concern

We now know a lot more about what's going to happen with gun control legislation than we did a few days ago.

First, the number of the bill we are fighting is S. 649. Harry Reid introduced it on Thursday and brought it directly onto the Senate calendar. This means the bill can now come up at any time — probably soon after the Easter recess is over.

Second, the bill is a lot worse than even we anticipated.

We expected it to contain the Veterans Gun Ban, which would mean that you would sell, gift, or raffle a gun in America at the risk of a 15-year prison sentence because of something you didn't know about the veteran/buyer.

tuolumnejim
03-25-2013, 4:40 PM
It's not going anywhere. :43: Link but no text yet (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s649?utm_campaign=govtrack_feed&utm_source=govtrack/feed&utm_medium=rss)

Librarian
03-25-2013, 5:20 PM
And the Thomas link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:s649:

This is now the Official Bill Thread.

SanPedroShooter
03-25-2013, 5:23 PM
No text?

bwiese
03-25-2013, 5:47 PM
Some of this stuff is coming from GOA /NAGR goons since they are anti-Harry Reid - because he is a Dem, not because of actual gun matters.

Librarian
03-25-2013, 7:21 PM
No text?

Takes a couple of days to get text back from Government Printing Office.

mrdd
03-25-2013, 7:26 PM
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s649pcs/pdf/BILLS-113s649pcs.pdf

mrdd
03-25-2013, 8:50 PM
The top items that got my attention:

Implements CA style PPT nationwide.

Failure to report a lost or stolen firearm within 24 hrs to the AG and the LLE is a felony punishable by 5 years in federal prison.

No more 30 day loans of firearms.

Libertarian71
04-12-2013, 12:27 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/gun-control-how-senators-voted-89950.html?hp=l3

http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-sixteen-republicans-who-voted-against-cloture-today-must-be-challenged-and-defeated/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dunwqQkS3lM

Here is the list of the 16 Republican senators who voted to proceed on the gun control legislation in the United States Senate. Each one of them is an enemy of the Bill of Rights, and deserves a primary challenge if they run for re-election. Lindsey Graham, that means you.

Lamar Alexander of Tennessee;
Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire;
Richard Burr of North Carolina;
Saxby Chambliss of Georgia;
Tom Coburn of Oklahoma;
Susan Collins of Maine;
Bob Corker of Tennessee;
Jeff Flake of Arizona;
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina;
John Hoeven of North Dakota;
Johnny Isakson of Georgia;
Dean Heller of Nevada;
Mark Kirk of Illinois;
John McCain of Arizona;
Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania;
Roger Wicker of Mississippi

ll-Rafael-ll
04-12-2013, 12:50 AM
I'm still shocked that BOTH senators from Arizona voted for the bill. Wtf mates?

safewaysecurity
04-12-2013, 12:54 AM
I'm still shocked that BOTH senators from Arizona voted for the bill. Wtf mates?

I was a little surprised about Jeff Flake but everyone knows that John McCain is an anti at heart. He's supported universal background checks in the past and an assault weapons ban kinda sorta. He also said on the news show that he thinks the filibuster on the gun stuff is dumb. Republicans like Lindsey Graham and John McCain need to be primaried. There's a woman in South Carolina that might run to primary Graham and she's AWESOME on 2A issues.

safewaysecurity
04-12-2013, 12:58 AM
Also Saxby Chambliss was already facing a certain primary defeat in 2014 and he's already announced a few months ago that he's going to retire so he doesn't care about re-election so his true colors come out.

tuna quesadilla
04-12-2013, 1:02 AM
I'm still shocked that BOTH senators from Arizona voted for the bill. Wtf mates?

Flake and McCain are both morons, elected by morons. They're RINO -- Republican In Name Only.

X-NewYawker
04-12-2013, 1:44 AM
They just voted to debate the bills., They had the ****ing parents from Newtown watching them from the Gallery -- jesus what did you think they'd do?

safewaysecurity
04-12-2013, 1:47 AM
They just voted to debate the bills., They had the ****ing parents from Newtown watching them from the Gallery -- jesus what did you think they'd do?

So what? Those parents know damn well that a background check would have done nothing to stop sandy hook. The mother was a law abiding citizen and obtained her guns legally. The kid stole the gun and killed the mom. How would a background check law stop that? Shooter in Aurora went through a background check, shooter in Tuscon went through a background check, Virginia tech shooter went through a background check. None of them got their guns from private transfers, it's ridiculous. Our civil rights are NOT up for a vote.

kimber_ss
04-12-2013, 2:46 AM
I was a little surprised about Jeff Flake but everyone knows that John McCain is an anti at heart. He's supported universal background checks in the past and an assault weapons ban kinda sorta. He also said on the news show that he thinks the filibuster on the gun stuff is dumb. Republicans like Lindsey Graham and John McCain need to be primaried. There's a woman in South Carolina that might run to primary Graham and she's AWESOME on 2A issues.

^^This^^ I had to back-pedal on my earlier support for Graham. He's quite the chameleon. RINO!

zoid52
04-12-2013, 5:42 AM
McCain is a turncoat & a moron.

Ford8N
04-12-2013, 5:55 AM
Every politician is a liar. Always remember that.

9mmdude
04-12-2013, 6:02 AM
They just voted to debate the bills., They had the ****ing parents from Newtown watching them from the Gallery -- jesus what did you think they'd do?

Grow a pair of balls and vote to protect the rights of Americans.

ja308
04-12-2013, 8:16 AM
Some of these guys have been strong 2a supporter s
It is a mistake to label each as mccains !

Why not call or post links on their positions !
It is possible public opinion demands action.
Let them hear from you .

Posting on cal gun is not enough ,they need your input !

Novator
04-12-2013, 8:26 AM
Again, this vote was only to open debate on the bill. Several of those seantors you mentioned have already stated that they will not vote for the bill. This means there will be a vote ON THE RECORD for this. Senators from both parties will be forced to make an actual decision for their constituents to see.

ja308
04-12-2013, 8:28 AM
Flake and McCain are both morons, elected by morons. They're RINO -- Republican In Name Only.


Flake is A rated by GOA! Many others are A rated too. It is suggested our friends get the benefit of a doubt before condemning them

http://gunowners.org/113srat.htm

dr16o49
04-12-2013, 8:31 AM
Always always remeber, the .gov is not about us, its about them. How best to line their pockets and protect their future. This is not america.

ChrisC
04-12-2013, 8:54 AM
Republicans are more dangerous then democrats, at least with democrats you know they are against gun rights. But with republicans you never know when they are going to change. So many gun laws have been signed into law thanks to republicans in California.

1681
04-12-2013, 9:09 AM
what do you expect from career politicians? not play politics? not making sausage?

Glock22Fan
04-12-2013, 9:12 AM
We - and I don't just mean gun owners, I mean any Republican that has worries about the Democratic leanings shown by too many of them - really must make every effort to show our disgust at any primaries that come up. Once the primary is settled, then the choice becomes harder. Primaries are the way to go and conservative republicans must be encouraged to stand and supported to the hilt. Even if the Rino gets the nomination, the more support for the real republican, the more worried the rino will be about leaning too far left (I hope.)

We need a strong grass roots support so that on the final election day, our choice is not the lesser of two evils.

Some Reps and many Dems are worried about the Tea Party. They should be. Supporting the Tea Party might just be the way to shake up the current miserable situation.

LeftHand-Fu
04-12-2013, 9:16 AM
Here is the actual Manchin-Toomy bill in PDF. Does it say the same thing as the press releases and news reports you've seen?

http://www.targetmaven.net/docs/Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.pdf

totus44
04-12-2013, 9:28 AM
They just voted to debate the bills., They had the ****ing parents from Newtown watching them from the Gallery -- jesus what did you think they'd do?

Parents? The parents of the tragedy are back in Newtown. Those folks in the gallery are anti-gun lobbyists paid for by Obama with your tax dollars. Political stunts are no way to honor the dead.

I'm sure those people in the gallery mattered little to these politicians, where their concern was focused was on the money Bloomberg was spending on ads to their constituents.

nastyhabts26
04-12-2013, 9:46 AM
Retribution should be at hand.
These people need to be on the unemployment line after the next election.
Maybe recalled before the next election as domestic terrorists that have attempted to overthrow the constitution of the united states that they swore to defend.

RuskieShooter
04-12-2013, 9:51 AM
Again, this vote was only to open debate on the bill. Several of those seantors you mentioned have already stated that they will not vote for the bill. This means there will be a vote ON THE RECORD for this. Senators from both parties will be forced to make an actual decision for their constituents to see.

Pretty sure it's this. Some R's think it will hurt the purple state D's next election cycle if they have to give a vote (yes = mad conservatives an no = mad/disenfranchised base voters). They are betting on the fact that the law won't pass when it comes to a vote, and if it does pass, it will be stopped in the House.

It's a bit of a gamble, but it could help the R's regain control of the Senate (or so the logic goes...).

-Ruskie

mrdd
04-12-2013, 9:52 AM
Again, this vote was only to open debate on the bill. Several of those seantors you mentioned have already stated that they will not vote for the bill. This means there will be a vote ON THE RECORD for this. Senators from both parties will be forced to make an actual decision for their constituents to see.

No. Cloture is to end debate.

prometa
04-12-2013, 9:53 AM
Voting to open debate on legislation is not the same as voting on it. They still have to get 60 votes a second time to end debate and allow a final vote. If you understand politics, you will see many ways voting to allow debate actually gives a tactical advantage to defeat the bill and prevent more of them from appearing later.

Seriously guys, we're supposed to be playing chess, not checkers. Sometimes it seems like some of you are pissed we're not playing candyland by your rules. If you turn on everyone who has even the tiniest amount of perspective difference, you will slowly find yourself ignored, isolated, and powerless.

mrdd-the vote for cloture was a vote to end debate on whether to consider the legislation. Now they are considering it and will have to vote for cloture a second time to end consideration and vote on it.

mrdd
04-12-2013, 9:54 AM
The transcript of the floor discussion is available in the congressional record. It begins on the first page.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2013-04-11/pdf/CREC-2013-04-11-senate.pdf

ant21b
04-12-2013, 10:11 AM
As already stated this is just a vote to proceed to debate the bill. It is only background checks not an aw or magazine ban. The aw and magazine ban will be an amendment that's the important vote and they are not expected to pass. I am looking at who votes for the aw amendment that is if any red state democrats vote for it. Besides it won't pass in the house if the aw or magazine ban is in the bill in any case.

misfit.toy
04-12-2013, 10:13 AM
2A considerations aside, it was the smart move politically. Republicans couldn't risk filibustering and hurting their chances of winning back the Senate in 2014. Most of those who voted to allow debate are fairly safe, retiring, or not up for re-election next year. Plus they know that the worst gun control measures will never make it into the final bill. They will either be killed as amendments or struck in conference with the House bill which will most likely be just the bare minimum to quiet the debate and move on (i.e. no registration, no mag limits, no AWB). The worst thing that will probably make it into law is requiring background checks for FTF PPT which we already have here anyway.

BHPFan
04-12-2013, 10:46 AM
McCain is a turncoat & a moron.

No surprise there. He's always been an anti and a statist.

Every politician is a liar. Always remember that.
True dat.

not-fishing
04-12-2013, 10:49 AM
What happened to Tennessee?

Is it the Al Gore Effect?

Rumline
04-12-2013, 10:56 AM
Really sucks that this is not searchable. From my quick read:

Transfers between family members are exempt from background checks
Transfers between private parties who both reside within a state are subject to any transfer laws of that state
Transporting guns through non-permissive environments (non-BB'd "AWs" thru CA, for example) is allowed if done in a motor vehicle and if the gun is unloaded and not accessible to the people in the vehicle.
"Nothing in this title, or any amendment made by this title, shall be construed-- [...] (2) to allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a Federal firearms registry."


I know I'm going to muddy the waters a little here by jumping from discussion of federal law to state laws, but bear with me. I listen to Tom Gresham and Michael Bane's podcasts on my way to work, and both gentlemen have been talking about how the new gun laws in CO, CT, etc say that background checks are required for all "transfers" but do not define what a "transfer" is. As such it could be interpreted to mean that anytime you hand someone a gun (or even a magazine, in the case of CO) for any reason, that "transfer" would require a background check.

While neither the Manchin-Toomy bill nor 18 USC 922 explicitly define "transfer," the bill does say the following: "Nothing in [Subtitle B, (relating to BG checks)] or an amendment made by this subtitle, shall be construed-- [...] (2) to extend background check requirements to temporary transfers for purposes including lawful hunting or sporting or to temporary possession of a firearm for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee."

That seems to wrap up a major concern that I had, which was that they would (at the federal level) try to re-define what a "transfer" was to surreptitiously expand what events require a background check.

fortdick
04-12-2013, 11:18 AM
I think the vote to bring the bill to the senate for debate and a vote is a wonderful thing. I want Red State democrats to have to go on the record regarding gun control. They will either have to buck the party elite, or have to face the voters in next year's election. The House should do the same. Make them go on the record.

oepirate
04-12-2013, 11:23 AM
How is voting to debate being anti?

madsend81
04-12-2013, 11:28 AM
I haven't made up my mind yet about the Manchin-Toomey amendment. There are quite a few things that I like, but also, I ask myself, is this necessary? I think the regulations that limit the government (such as protecting temporary interstate transportation of firearms and the prohibition of a federal firearms registry) are good. I do have to admit that it is a lot more palatable than the original bill that came out of the judiciary committee. Now we'll just have to see what other amendments end up being added on as well before the final thing is voted on.

I guess in the end, if it was to pass as is w/o any changes, not much would change in CA and I probably wouldn't be too disappointed, but I'd still rather not see it pass.

Raystonn
04-12-2013, 11:30 AM
The things you claim to like are already the reality today. We don't need this bill to get them. So why accept the negatives to get no additional benefit?

lasbrg
04-12-2013, 11:38 AM
Here is the actual Manchin-Toomy bill in PDF. Does it say the same thing as the press releases and news reports you've seen?

http://www.targetmaven.net/docs/Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.pdf

Scanning through this, it looks like the parts of interest start on page 21.

If you buy a gun at an event ("gun show") or via an advertisement ("the Internet"), the transfer has to go through an FFL. If you negotiate to buy a gun cash and carry with someone you met at the gun range, then that is allowed. Also friends, family, neighbors, etc. transfers allowed.

I am just reading this now, so that is just my first take of what this says.

goodlookin1
04-12-2013, 11:50 AM
It's so stupid....how will they know if you made a post on a website to sell to a private party? That's not "commercial". There's no way to track it.

madsend81
04-12-2013, 11:52 AM
There currently is no protection for interstate travelers possessing firearms through non-permissive states. Just look at the recent nightmare stories coming out of JFK airport for travelers w/ firearms.

lasbrg
04-12-2013, 11:54 AM
Here is a scanable full-text version (http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968).

Some of the language is pretty laughable, e.g.

(C) the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law; ...

filospinato
04-12-2013, 11:56 AM
Looked for a duplicate, didn't see one.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:s.0649:

Click on Amendments to see the surprise!

madsend81
04-12-2013, 11:56 AM
Of course, Raystonn (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/member.php?u=19098), your argument is one of the reasons why I haven't fully made up my mind about this bill. While we would gain at least 1 protection, is it worth everything else in the bill?

Stirlee
04-12-2013, 11:57 AM
List File is not available (2a)

armygunsmith
04-12-2013, 12:03 PM
Here's a OCR'd version of the PDF.

https://mega.co.nz/#!f8BGxZTT!KFMzigG1i-aoACuPD0yUEEnCToctUu6jnCPHOB3ynM4

madsend81
04-12-2013, 12:03 PM
Can't say I'm surprised

deebix
04-12-2013, 12:03 PM
This is a mockery of justice and liberty. Taking a chisel to our freedoms and leaving a dust pile behind.

Bsandoc40
04-12-2013, 12:04 PM
She sure is predictable. Now, lets see if the republican senators who voted for open debates can redeem themselves...

Jarrod
04-12-2013, 12:04 PM
Senator Manchin? What am I missing?

penguin0123
04-12-2013, 12:06 PM
is it worth everything else in the bill selling out the rights of every free person in this Union?

FIFY

penguin0123
04-12-2013, 12:08 PM
But, but, but Obama doesn't want our guns... whaaaaa

madsend81
04-12-2013, 12:08 PM
DiFi has proposed 2 amendments but they look the same: l (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d113:./temp/~bdamPHi:1)ink (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d113:./temp/~bdamPHi:1[1-5]%28Amendments_For_S.649%29&./temp/~bdDWCe)

Maltese Falcon
04-12-2013, 12:10 PM
All these do is make it impossible to pass... amend all you want ****heads.

.

madsend81
04-12-2013, 12:13 PM
So, how many votes does an amendment need to be added on to a bill in the Senate?

penguin0123
04-12-2013, 12:21 PM
At this point, I am convinced this is all political smokescreen to setup for 2014.

From a strategic stand point, the victim-disarmament-advocates are piling on so many things that makes the original BG-check stuff unpalatable. So when election rolls around, they can decry "GOP blocked even the most common sense legislation." And because most low-info voters won't understand that it was the amendments that poisoned any chance, the victim-disarmament-advocates successfully shifted blame to others when in fact, the support wasn't there to begin with.

randomBytes
04-12-2013, 12:22 PM
Is she looking for a blank check?

Didymus
04-12-2013, 12:25 PM
COSPONSORS(22):

Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 4/11/2013
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] - 4/11/2013
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 4/11/2013
Sen Klobuchar, Amy [MN] - 4/11/2013
Sen Franken, Al [MN] - 4/11/2013
Sen Blumenthal, Richard [CT] - 4/11/2013
Sen Levin, Carl [MI] - 4/11/2013
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 4/11/2013
Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV [WV] - 4/11/2013
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 4/11/2013
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 4/11/2013
Sen Reed, Jack [RI] - 4/11/2013
Sen Carper, Thomas R. [DE] - 4/11/2013
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 4/11/2013
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 4/11/2013
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 4/11/2013
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] - 4/11/2013
Sen Schatz, Brian [HI] - 4/11/2013
Sen Murphy, Christopher S. [CT] - 4/11/2013
Sen Hirono, Mazie K. [HI] - 4/11/2013
Sen Warren, Elizabeth [MA] - 4/11/2013
Sen Cowan, William M. "Mo" [MA] - 4/11/2013

Text of Amendment Contents:

Link to First Page: Assault Weapons Ban (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r113:1:./temp/~r1130sHkCh:e0:)

Page: S2598
TITLE IV--ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
Page: S2599
Page: S2600
``APPENDIX A--FIREARMS EXEMPTED BY THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN OF 2013
``Centerfire Rifles--Autoloaders
``Centerfire Rifles--Lever & Slide
Page: S2601
``Centerfire Rifles--Bolt Action
Page: S2602
``Centerfire Rifles--Single Shot
Page: S2603
``Drillings, Combination Guns, Double Rifles
``Rimfire Rifles--Autoloaders
``Rimfire Rifles--Lever & Slide Action
``Rimfire Rifles--Bolt Actions & Single Shots
Page: S2604
``Competition Rifles--Centerfire & Rimfire
``Shotguns--Autoloaders
Page: S2605
``Shotguns--Slide Actions
Page: S2606
``Shotguns--Over/Unders
Page: S2607
Page: S2608
``Shotguns--Side by Sides
Page: S2609
``Shotguns--Bolt Actions & Single Shots
Page: S2610
Page: S2611
TITLE II--STOP ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS ACT OF 2013
Page: S2612
TITLE IV--LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES
Page: S2613
TITLE I--PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT
Subtitle A--Ensuring That All Individuals Who Should Be Prohibited From Buying...
Page: S2614
Page: S2615
Subtitle B--Providing a Responsible and Consistent Background Check Process
Page: S2616
Page: S2617
Subtitle C--National Commission on Mass Violence
Page: S2618

lasbrg
04-12-2013, 12:35 PM
Looked for a duplicate, didn't see one.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:s.0649:

Click on Amendments to see the surprise!

This was announced a long time ago. Feinstein couldn't get her AWB added to the body of the bill, so she was forced to wait and offer it as an amendment, which she is now doing.

She can offer it all she wants, she doesn't have the votes since most other Dems have moved on. Even those that might support it otherwise are convinced it's a loser.

There will be tons of amendments from both sides. This has a much chance of passing now as the sequester replacement (none).

13withinfinity
04-12-2013, 12:37 PM
There seems to be 3 different versions of the same bill in there, from Feinstein, Leahy and Lautenberg.

Hoooper
04-12-2013, 12:44 PM
shows 4 amendments from her now. To be honest, I hope they get added to the bill. The more toxic it becomes the better. I wouldnt mind another video of her peeing her pants and throwing a hissy fit

Librarian
04-12-2013, 12:55 PM
Bump - please use this one for the Toomey/Manchin amendment discussions.

speedrrracer
04-12-2013, 12:58 PM
who cares
the senate is controlled by Dems, they'll do all kinds of stupid crap.

As long as the House says no, none of this matters one bit. Stay on your Reps!

Libertarian71
04-12-2013, 1:03 PM
How is voting to debate being anti?

You have it backwards. Voting for cloture is voting to END debate.

I do not understand the people on this thread who are giving the 16 Republican senators a pass. See the third link of my original post, where Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America said that each of these senators deserves a primary challenge.

lasbrg
04-12-2013, 1:05 PM
This thing is one big fiesta of FUD. It makes references to changes in other laws that can only be understood by reading those laws as well. For example, this section:

(2) CONSOLIDATED AND FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012.-Section 511 of title V of division B of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by striking "subsection 922(t)" and inserting "subsection (s) or (t) of section 922" each place it appears.
SEC. 123. PENALTIES.
Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
"(8) Whoever makes or attempts to make a transfer of a firearm in violation of section 922(t) to a person not licensed under this chapter who is prohibited from receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 or State law, to a law enforcement officer, or to a person acting at the direction of, or with the approval of, a law enforcement officer authorized to investigate or prosecute violations of section 922(t), shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
"(q) Improper Use of Storage of Records.-Any person who knowingly violates section 923(m) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.".

:(

tight0023
04-12-2013, 1:06 PM
I love when people argue about being republican or democrat. I always tell them they're two sides of the same coin (most of them). They need the two party system to keep us fighting each other while they rob us blind...

Libertarian71
04-12-2013, 1:11 PM
I'm still shocked that BOTH senators from Arizona voted for the bill. Wtf mates?

I am shocked that Jeff Flake voted for cloture. He has styled himself as a libertarian. Even Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who is a RINO, voted against cloture, stating that Alaskans "would not tolerate" background checks for person-to-person sales. http://www.alaskapublic.org/2013/04/11/alaskas-senators-fail-to-block-gun-debate/

chris
04-12-2013, 1:12 PM
Come on none of us should be surprised by this.

lasbrg
04-12-2013, 1:16 PM
shows 4 amendments from her now. To be honest, I hope they get added to the bill. The more toxic it becomes the better. I wouldnt mind another video of her peeing her pants and throwing a hissy fit

+1 :D

Rumline
04-12-2013, 1:19 PM
Anybody want to volunteer to write up what the new version of 18 USC 922-924 would look like once all the cross-outs and additions are rolled in, if this bill were to pass in its current form? Like how they do with the CA bills. Or does anybody know of a version like that already?

I'll do it next week if nobody else has already.

Hoooper
04-12-2013, 1:25 PM
so it doesnt outlaw a registry, just doesnt make this bill into a registry? So much for prohibiting a registry...

Glock22Fan
04-12-2013, 1:33 PM
shows 4 amendments from her now. To be honest, I hope they get added to the bill. The more toxic it becomes the better. I wouldnt mind another video of her peeing her pants and throwing a hissy fit

Thowing a hissy fit is one thing. I don't even want to think about the rest of your suggestion.

tallic68
04-12-2013, 1:37 PM
Did I read it wrong or dose it say something about a 48 hour wait period?
Page 20 line 3,4,10

hardlyworking
04-12-2013, 1:37 PM
From the amendment, just like we suspected:
SEC. 117. CLARIFICATION THAT SUBMISSION OF MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.

Information collected under section 102(c)(3) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) to assist the Attorney General in enforcing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, shall not be subject to the regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 note).

Waffleobill
04-12-2013, 1:44 PM
No surprise here.

nothinghere2c
04-12-2013, 1:45 PM
that lizard feinstein needs to have a heart attack already and be done with it. Unfortunately the blood of babies sustains her.

wazdat
04-12-2013, 1:45 PM
Meh. I suspect there are a couple of traitors in the group but the vast majority voted to allow it to come up for debate knowing it will never survive the amendment process.

lasbrg
04-12-2013, 1:50 PM
Did I read it wrong or dose it say something about a 48 hour wait period?
Page 20 line 3,4,10

Another one of those, "so and so law is amended to read ..." sections.

No, I believe that these lines are referring to the proposed rule that gun show background have to complete with 48 hours (as if you were going to spend the night or something), or else the transfer is automatically authorized.

Raystonn
04-12-2013, 2:04 PM
The AWB appears to be mostly the same as what we have in California, but with a greatly expanded list of named firearms. There is one difference though. "Semi-automatic assault weapons" are banned. Full automatics are not covered by *this* amendment/bill.

Libertarian71
04-12-2013, 2:17 PM
http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2013/04/12/special-front-sight-blog-flog-these-traitors/

Here is a link to contact information for each of the Senators.

lasbrg
04-12-2013, 2:25 PM
So, how many votes does an amendment need to be added on to a bill in the Senate?

Very good question. I was looking for an answer for this myself. Apparently it could be either a simple majority (51) or 60 votes. The best explanation I found was here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11/gun-bill-republicans-filibuster_n_3064133.html):


Many Republicans who are at least somewhat supportive of new gun laws have said they would only go along if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) permits what they described as a full and open amendment process. That means plenty of opportunities to offer tweaks to the legislation and line up votes.

But the memo warned that some senators among the dozen who have vowed to filibuster gun legislation are threatening to maintain their opposition not just to the overall bill, but to every amendment along the way. They could do that, said the aide's memo, by demanding 60-member cloture votes at every step of the process, potentially burning through four days for every single amendment.

"Sen. Reid has said repeatedly that he wants to facilitate an open amendment process on the gun violence bill," the memo said. "But a small minority of Republicans (you can guess who) are threatening to force us to spend up to four days to set up each amendment vote."

Usually in the Senate when there are numerous amendments, both sides negotiate a "unanimous consent" agreement, or U.C., and hold a "vote-a-rama" on a string of them, one after the other, as they did last month in passing a budget resolution.

"But if we are unable to secure a U.C., we have to file cloture on each individual amendment," the note said, explaining how the slowdown would work. "That would take up to four days per amendment vote: we file cloture on Amendment X on Monday. Tuesday is the intervening day, and a cloture vote on the motion to end debate on the amendment occurs Wednesday morning (60-vote threshold). If cloture is invoked, there are another 30 hours of debate, pushing the final passage vote into Thursday evening."

A Republican leadership aide, speaking anonymously to be frank, said the memo was one of "stupidest things" he'd ever heard, and said the scenario was mythical. The aide argued that any legislative insider should know that the Senate does not even make an amendment part of the pending business unless there's a consent agreement first, and neither side makes an agreement if the other will stall for four days.

"I'm embarrassed for whoever thought that up," the GOP aide said, adding that the more realistic scenario would be a failure of the sides to agree on what they would allow to become pending.

Either way, a standoff over gun bill amendments could sink new filibuster rules the Senate agreed to in January -- a deal that many reformers decried as too weak. If the deal had eliminated the 30-hour periods or required talking filibusters, for instance, the threat of four-day amendments would be moot.

Under rules that were passed, leaders can squash filibusters on motions to get on to bills and speed up the process -- but only by giving each side two amendments, each with simple majority votes.

It would be risky for Democrats to try that with the gun bill, because Republicans may be able to find 51 votes for measures that most Democrats would find toxic, such as allowing concealed-carry permits to be valid anywhere in America.

LoadedM333
04-12-2013, 2:42 PM
that lizard feinstein needs to have a heart attack already and be done with it. Unfortunately the blood of babies sustains her.
LOL....

RonnieP
04-12-2013, 2:44 PM
Wow I could just die from the shock. Who would have thought this was going to happen!?

Oh, yeah, the Founding Fathers did.

readysetgo
04-12-2013, 2:47 PM
You have it backwards. Voting for cloture is voting to END debate.

It's not voting in favor of the bill either now, is it?


I do not understand the people on this thread who are giving the 16 Republican senators a pass. See the third link of my original post, where Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America said that each of these senators deserves a primary challenge.

You really don't understand the confusion and why some don't just jump right on the bandwagon? Seriously?

You're thread title, 1st post and links are all leading. It's not like you were looking for discussion on this single incident, more like "burn 'em all to hell".

And to prove that, look no further then the 2nd post which reads:

I'm still shocked that BOTH senators from Arizona voted for the bill. Wtf mates?

It's pretty misleading to act like a vote of cloture = support of the bill IMO.

J.D.Allen
04-12-2013, 3:04 PM
All these do is make it impossible to pass... amend all you want ****heads.

.

This. If they don't amend they might at least get their "expanded background checks"...

Raystonn
04-12-2013, 3:09 PM
I'm too used to California, where any gun control bill making it out of committee becomes law. I want to believe the rest of the nation is more sane. But I'll believe it when I see it.

readysetgo
04-12-2013, 3:10 PM
For all the intellectually dishonest users of anectdotal information:

A quick scan of John McCain on votesmart.org (don't know much about the site but seemed all factual, little opinion) filtered for issue of GUNS shows he's probably voted correctly re the 2a issue for the last 20 years. One bad item standing out was the lock/storage law he probably shouldn't have supported.

http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/53270/john-mccain-iii/37/guns#about_kv

National Key Votes

Date/ Bill No./ Bill Title/ Outcome Vote

March 23, 2013 S Amdt 139 Prohibits the United States From Entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty Amendment Adopted - Senate
(53 - 46) Yea

Dec. 22, 2009 S Amdt 3276 Senate Health Care Bill Amendments Amendment Adopted - Senate
(60 - 39) Nay

July 22, 2009 S Amdt 1618 Authorizing Concealed Firearms Across State Lines Amendment Rejected - Senate
(58 - 39) Yea

May 12, 2009 S Amdt 1067 Allowing Loaded Guns in National Parks Amendment Adopted - Senate
(67 - 29) Yea

Feb. 25, 2008 S Amdt 4070 Prohibiting Funds in the Bill S 1200 from Being Used to Decrease Gun Ownership Amendment Adopted - Senate
(78 - 11) Did Not Vote

July 13, 2006 S Amdt 4615 Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment Amendment Adopted - Senate
(84 - 16) Yea

July 29, 2005 S 397 Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill Bill Passed - Senate
(65 - 31) Yea

July 28, 2005 S AMDT 1626 Child Safety Lock Amendment Amendment Adopted - Senate
(70 - 30) Yea

March 2, 2004 S 1805 Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill Bill Failed - Senate
(8 - 90) Yea

May 20, 1999 S Amdt 362 Gun Show Sale Regulation Amendment Amendment Adopted - Senate
(51 - 50) Nay

July 21, 1998 S Amdt 3230 Gun Lock Requirement Amendment Amendment Tabled - Senate
(61 - 39) Yea

Nov. 20, 1993 HR 1025 Brady Handgun Bill Bill Passed - Senate
(63 - 36) Nay

Nov. 17, 1993 S Amdt 1152 Prohibiting the Possession of Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons Amendment Adopted - Senate
(56 - 43) Nay

Nov. 5, 1993 S Amdt 1117 Charging Teens as Adults for Crimes Involving a Firearm Amendment Adopted - Senate
(64 - 23) Did Not Vote

Should we still string 'em up or what? Oh, you can't be bothered to look into all these silly factual details? Or he just doesn't suit your fancy and you'll find any reason to bash him?

eta: who combined threads? It makes no sense to combine into this OP. Nevermind, I see now.

lasbrg
04-12-2013, 4:19 PM
Meh. I suspect there are a couple of traitors in the group but the vast majority voted to allow it to come up for debate knowing it will never survive the amendment process.

I think this is correct. Just Republicans playing John Kerry's old game of "I voted for it before I voted against it".

RomanDad
04-12-2013, 4:42 PM
It's so stupid....how will they know if you made a post on a website to sell to a private party? That's not "commercial". There's no way to track it.

They wont.... Unless the guy behind the other party's screenname is an undercover atf agent....

Kingofthehill
04-12-2013, 4:47 PM
You all need to quit playing their game. It is NOT the "Manchin-Toomy" bill... it is the "SCHUMER-Kirk-Manchin-Toomy" bill.

They are purposely leaving "Schumer" off it because everyone knows how bad everything he puts out is!

Here is the actual Manchin-Toomy bill in PDF. Does it say the same thing as the press releases and news reports you've seen?

http://www.targetmaven.net/docs/Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.pdf

dustoff31
04-12-2013, 4:50 PM
I think this is correct. Just Republicans playing John Kerry's old game of "I voted for it before I voted against it".

We also have to consider that there may well be some strategy involved here.

Which is ultimately better for gunnies? Squashing the bill, and allowing the anti's to continue to whine about how the R's are obstructionist and want kids to be murdered en masse, or...

Let it come to a vote where it will fail, either in the senate or the house, and being able to tell Obama and the anti's, "there you had your vote. You lost. Suck on it."

randian
04-12-2013, 5:04 PM
Let it come to a vote where it will fail, either in the senate or the house, and being able to tell Obama and the anti's, "there you had your vote. You lost. Suck on it."
The only problem with that is

1) The "Republicans are obstructionist baby-killers" bit is still going to be parroted by the mainstream media.
2) The Republicans won't have the guts to say that in public.

lasbrg
04-12-2013, 5:35 PM
We also have to consider that there may well be some strategy involved here.

Which is ultimately better for gunnies? Squashing the bill, and allowing the anti's to continue to whine about how the R's are obstructionist and want kids to be murdered en masse, or...

Let it come to a vote where it will fail, either in the senate or the house, and being able to tell Obama and the anti's, "there you had your vote. You lost. Suck on it."

The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal agrees: The GOP's Gun Control Misfire (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324050304578412853068170888.html?K EYWORDS=filibuster)

Enter a faction of Republicans led by Mike Lee of Utah and Ted Cruz of Texas, who late last month said they'll use the filibuster to prevent the Reid bill from coming to the floor. On Tuesday Minority Leader Mitch McConnell endorsed the gambit, and the Heritage Action for America PAC says it plans to "score" the filibuster as a key vote for election purposes.

In an instant, these GOP wizards have taken the onus off Senate Democrats and made Republicans the media's gun-control focus. Mr. Reid is now bellowing about Republicans blocking a vote, and Democrats such as Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana) and Mark Begich (Alaska) don't have to declare themselves on provisions that might be unpopular at home.

...

If conservatives want to prove their gun-control bona fides, the way to do it is to debate the merits and vote on the floor. They can always filibuster the final bill if they want to, but it makes no sense to paint themselves into a political box canyon before even knowing what they're voting on.

YubaRiver
04-12-2013, 6:13 PM
So transporting a bullet will require a locked container if on foot or in car.

lasbrg
04-12-2013, 7:09 PM
The AG will create a distributed (not centralized) database. Hello Gun Registration Torrent.

Right? According to the wording of this law, the AG could authorize the creation of a Google-style Hadoop/map-reduce database that would be completely decentralized. Whenever they wanted to investigate someone, they would just "google" them and up would pop a list of all their firearm purchase records.

They might as well have banned records from being stored on "mainframes".

Excelsior
04-12-2013, 8:28 PM
2A considerations aside, it was the smart move politically. Republicans couldn't risk filibustering and hurting their chances of winning back the Senate in 2014. Most of those who voted to allow debate are fairly safe, retiring, or not up for re-election next year. Plus they know that the worst gun control measures will never make it into the final bill. They will either be killed as amendments or struck in conference with the House bill which will most likely be just the bare minimum to quiet the debate and move on (i.e. no registration, no mag limits, no AWB). The worst thing that will probably make it into law is requiring background checks for FTF PPT which we already have here anyway.

I suspect you're right. I also suspect that a win through an actual vote rather than via filibuster will mean a great deal more to the American people.

***IF*** the proposed skeleton should fail via a vote, Obama is in a world of hurt... If it was filibustered, the game would only increase in intensity.

ssaction
04-12-2013, 9:13 PM
How is voting to debate being anti?

At least they are going to debate it, unlike the NY SAFE act.

David L Smith
04-12-2013, 9:29 PM
Again, this vote was only to open debate on the bill. Several of those seantors you mentioned have already stated that they will not vote for the bill. This means there will be a vote ON THE RECORD for this. Senators from both parties will be forced to make an actual decision for their constituents to see.

^^^^^
This

Libertarian71
04-12-2013, 10:03 PM
It's not voting in favor of the bill either now, is it? ... It's pretty misleading to act like a vote of cloture = support of the bill IMO.

Who said that voting for cloture was voting in favor of the bill? That's a red herring. The fact is that the 16 RINOs you are defending voted to let the proposed legislation proceed instead of blocking it right now, in its tracks. Why is this so confusing to you?

You can keep defending the John McCains and Lindsey Grahams of the world. I'll side with constitutionalists -- Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee.

I also find it ironic that you have an "NRA - Stand and Fight" logo in your signature line. The NRA was against a vote for cloture.

Libertarian71
04-12-2013, 10:14 PM
For all the intellectually dishonest users of anectdotal information:

A quick scan of John McCain on votesmart.org (don't know much about the site but seemed all factual, little opinion) filtered for issue of GUNS shows he's probably voted correctly re the 2a issue for the last 20 years. One bad item standing out was the lock/storage law he probably shouldn't have supported.

http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/53270/john-mccain-iii/37/guns#about_kv

Should we still string 'em up or what? Oh, you can't be bothered to look into all these silly factual details? Or he just doesn't suit your fancy and you'll find any reason to bash him?

eta: who combined threads? It makes no sense to combine into this OP. Nevermind, I see now.

It's hard to believe somebody is on Calguns defending Senator McCain's record on the Second Amendment. To be sure, he is not Diane Feinstein. But he's not exactly a friend of the Second Amendment, either. I refer everyone to this link on Senator McCain from the Gun Owners of America, which is a no nonsense, no compromise gun rights organization:

http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

Here is a little taste:

John McCain sponsored an amendment to S. 1805 on March 2, 2004 that would outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows. According to GOA, the provision would effectively eliminate gun shows, because every member of an organization sponsoring a gun show could be imprisoned if the organization fails to notify each and every "person who attends the special firearms event of the requirements [under the Brady Law]."

readysetgo
04-12-2013, 10:19 PM
Who said that voting for cloture was voting in favor of the bill? That's a red herring. The fact is that the 16 RINOs you are defending voted to let the proposed legislation proceed instead of blocking it right now, in its tracks. Why is this so confusing to you?

You can keep defending the John McCains and Lindsey Grahams of the world. I'll side with constitutionalists -- Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee.

I also find it ironic that you have an "NRA - Stand and Fight" logo in your signature line. The NRA was against a vote for cloture.

Not confused and the only thing ironic is your use of the term red herring. It's clear we won't get far w/ honest discussion, so...

You hold on to the confusion, I'll defend the truth best I can. Just a sheep w/ a different coat is what this position resembles.

Libertarian71
04-12-2013, 10:23 PM
Not confused and the only thing ironic is your use of the term red herring. It's clear we won't get far w/ honest discussion, so...

You hold on to the confusion, I'll defend the truth best I can. Just a sheep w/ a different coat is what this position resembles.

Who is not being honest? The legislation would have been stopped cold in its tracks had there been 60 votes against cloture, yes or no? The NRA was against a vote for cloture, yes or no?

readysetgo
04-12-2013, 10:24 PM
It's hard to believe somebody is on Calguns defending Senator McCain's record on the Second Amendment. To be sure, he is not Diane Feinstein. But he's not exactly a friend of the Second Amendment, either. I refer everyone to this link on Senator McCain from the Gun Owners of America, which is a no nonsense, no compromise gun rights organization:

http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

Here is a little taste:

Red herring much? I showed a factual account of the senators record that in my opinion is positive and you come up w/ something "according to GOA". GTFOH w/ that weak sauce!

Libertarian71
04-12-2013, 10:28 PM
Red herring much? I showed a factual account of the senators record that in my opinion is positive and you come up w/ something "according to GOA". GTFOH w/ that weak sauce!

With all due respect, Sir, if your claim is that John McCain is more of a friend to the Second Amendment than the Gun Owners of America, then you are delusional.

readysetgo
04-12-2013, 10:37 PM
Who is not being honest? The legislation would have been stopped cold in its tracks had there been 60 votes against cloture, yes or no? The NRA was against a vote for cloture, yes or no?

I'll say, yes and IDK but I'll take your word on that.

Now your turn. Are there possible political consequences to using the filibuster or not?

Re NRA: Back it with all I've got but they're not my God and they aren't always right, see Heller vs. etc

See my point was never to really "defend" this action but to suggest that the way you presented it was misleading and not the only side of the coin. I mean look you started your thread and are still trying to bullheadedly force my opinion.

Not going to work that way with me man, and trying to call me out as a red head step child calgunner, oh hell no, it's on! ;)

Libertarian71
04-12-2013, 10:41 PM
And here's some "straight talk" from Senator McCain on "gun show loopholes":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1c4Ko2KvEw

Librarian
04-12-2013, 11:43 PM
Tempers are rising here, and this is not a 2-person thread.

Kindly give this a rest.

guntntteacher
04-13-2013, 12:22 AM
For all the intellectually dishonest users of anectdotal information:

A quick scan of John McCain on votesmart.org (don't know much about the site but seemed all factual, little opinion) filtered for issue of GUNS shows he's probably voted correctly re the 2a issue for the last 20 years. One bad item standing out was the lock/storage law he probably shouldn't have supported.

http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/53270/john-mccain-iii/37/guns#about_kv



Should we still string 'em up or what? Oh, you can't be bothered to look into all these silly factual details? Or he just doesn't suit your fancy and you'll find any reason to bash him?

eta: who combined threads? It makes no sense to combine into this OP. Nevermind, I see now.

If i think about speeding for years but never do it, am I a speeder when I speed for that first time. YES Any Commie in an Elephant suit voting against the constitution should be strung up and thrown out of office. :43:

rm1911
04-13-2013, 2:46 AM
I think the vote to bring the bill to the senate for debate and a vote is a wonderful thing. I want Red State democrats to have to go on the record regarding gun control. They will either have to buck the party elite, or have to face the voters in next year's election. The House should do the same. Make them go on the record.

^^^^^!!!!!

Make them squirm.

zoid52
04-13-2013, 6:54 AM
that lizard feinstein needs to have a heart attack already and be done with it. Unfortunately the blood of babies sustains her.

She will be greeted with open arms by Satan in the end!

Marthor
04-13-2013, 7:46 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/13/manchin-toomey-deal-could-allow-gun-owners-seller-to-carry-sell-across-state/

Foxnews top story is that national reciprocity is part of the Manchin-Toomey compromise!

lasbrg
04-13-2013, 7:55 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/13/manchin-toomey-deal-could-allow-gun-owners-seller-to-carry-sell-across-state/

Foxnews top story is that national reciprocity is part of the Manchin-Toomey compromise!

I just did a Ctrl-F in the text version of Manchin-Toomey for "reciprocity" and "conceal" and neither are mentioned. There was speculation that reciprocity would be offered as an amendment, but I think this is bad reporting on Fox's part.

randian
04-13-2013, 8:09 PM
I just did a Ctrl-F in the text version of Manchin-Toomey for "reciprocity" and "conceal" and neither are mentioned. There was speculation that reciprocity would be offered as an amendment, but I think this is bad reporting on Fox's part.
It only offers the right to transport an unloaded, boxed gun through states where that would otherwise be illegal. No CCW reciprocity at all.

meaty-btz
04-13-2013, 8:15 PM
It only offers the right to transport an unloaded, boxed gun through states where that would otherwise be illegal. No CCW reciprocity at all.

Yup it was instantly removed. It was a pure smoke and mirrors on that one.

Marthor
04-13-2013, 8:20 PM
Their amendment hasn't been introduced yet. We've only been looking at a floated draft.

Word was that Toomeyz-Manchin had it in there before. They probably considered taking it out, but since someone else is guaranteed to introduce the national reciprocity anyway, they might as well put it back in themselves since that was part of their deal before anyway.

meaty-btz
04-13-2013, 8:58 PM
Their amendment hasn't been introduced yet. We've only been looking at a floated draft.

Word was that Toomeyz-Manchin had it in there before. They probably considered taking it out, but since someone else is guaranteed to introduce the national reciprocity anyway, they might as well put it back in themselves since that was part of their deal before anyway.

Want to put money down on that? $100 to the Foundation says that reciprocity is not part of the deal.

Marthor
04-13-2013, 9:48 PM
Want to put money down on that? $100 to the Foundation says that reciprocity is not part of the deal.

It may not be part of the initial amendment, but they or someone else will introduce it as a separate amendment.

I'd bet reciprocity is part of any total deal passed or no deal will be passed in the end.

mrdd
04-13-2013, 10:45 PM
Their amendment hasn't been introduced yet. We've only been looking at a floated draft.

Word was that Toomeyz-Manchin had it in there before. They probably considered taking it out, but since someone else is guaranteed to introduce the national reciprocity anyway, they might as well put it back in themselves since that was part of their deal before anyway.

The amendments to S.649 have been officially introduced in the Senate.

MANCHIN - TOOMEY is SA 715, beginning on page S2613 in the 4/11 Senate Congressional Record. Others amendments immediately precede it. Even the AW amendment is there.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2013-04-11/pdf/CREC-2013-04-11-senate.pdf

lasbrg
04-15-2013, 10:19 AM
bump