Neal Knox on the US Senate voting on S. 1805

[F4GIB]

March 1, 2004
Neal Knox Update --

The anti-gun crowd’s sole focus right now is killing S. 1805, the renumbered S. 659 gun industry liability protection bill.

So why on Earth are so many panicky gun rights defenders (or people
claiming to be) doing everything they can to help the enemy?

Yes, S. 1805 is in danger of being loaded up with anti-gun amendments in the Senate. But anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that the Senate is overloaded with anti-gunners and has been for several years.

The only way to get the bill passed is to get it back to the House, where it can be cleaned up or killed.

The identical House version, H.R. 1036, passed last April 285-140.

The Senate bill has 55 co-sponsors -- five more than necessary for
passage. Last week the Schumer-Lautenberg, et al, filibuster failed by 75 votes -- fifteen more votes than the two-thirds necessary to bring it to the floor.

The day the voting started, the White House sent Congress a Statement of Administration Policy calling for a "clean bill" -- one without amendments. That's what President Bush has said he will sign -- which greatly improves the chances of a cleaned Conference Committee bill getting through the Senate.

Sen. Schumer fumed the Bush position will cost 10 or eleven Republican votes against his and Dianne Feinstein's amendments. Let's hope he's right, but I doubt it. Three or four might be enough.

With everything stacked against them, the only way the anti-gunners can kill the bill is to load it down with a bunch of killer amendments -- causing the gun rights people to do what the anti-gun crowd can't do. Kill it -- like our Nervous Nellies are already clamoring to do.

Schumer's "useful idiots" -- some of our people -- are in a panic because Sen. Larry Craig and other pro-gunners signed a "Unanimous Consent Agreement" allowing a series of anti-gun (and pro-gun) amendments to be considered without a string of filibusters.

That's the only way the Senate ever can consider a controversial bill -- but many of those screaming about "Unanimous Consent" think it means the pro-gun side has consented to evil amendments. They haven't.

Sen. Barbara Boxer added an amendment requiring all dealer-sold handguns to be delivered with a safety lock, as most already are.

The Internet is being flooded with emails from people I never heard of -- forwarded by people who should know better -- demanding that S. 1805 be killed because it "contains gun control."

Let me assure you: S. 1805 WILL CONTAIN A LOT MORE GUN CONTROL --
probably including the Feinstein "Assault Weapon" ban and the McCain gun show-killer bill -- before the Senate's final vote.

But I want the Senate to hold their noses and send it back to the House, warts and all.

The letters going out right now from misled gun owners to their Senators, telling them to vote against S. 1805, were probably drafted in the offices of "Americans for Gun Safety" and Handgun Control Inc.

If not, they might as well have been.

As most of you know, I have been personally involved in every Federal gun rights battle since 1966 -- as founding editor of Gun Week, editor of Handloader and Rifle, Executive Director of NRA-ILA, legislative columnist for Guns & Ammo, Shotgun News and other publications, and Vice President of NRA for three years, until Charlton Heston beat me 38-34.

In short, I've been around this block twice. I have never seen such a well-orchestrated campaign to kill a pro-gun bill.

Every Senator who voted FOR the Boxer/Schumer/Feinstein/Kennedy
amendments will vote AGAINST the bill. I want to see every Senator who voted AGAINST those amendments to vote FOR an anti-gun bill, and we should let them know that we'll never hold that vote against them.

Because that's the only way we can get the bill to the House, where those amendments can be stripped -- so the United States Arms Industry can survive, and prices on the guns they produce won't continue to skyrocket.

Am I absolutely certain that every anti-gun amendment can be stripped off in the House-Senate Conference? Or else knocked off in House votes?

No, I'm not.

But I AM certain that if they aren't WE CAN KILL THE BILL IN THE HOUSE.

And from what I've been personally told, NRA will lead the effort to kill their own bill if the corruption remains.

Yes, it's dangerous. Passing legislation when the Senate is against us is always dangerous -- and it's difficult, but with the House and White House on our side, it's doable.

Let's show a little courage, friends.

 

[Yanus]

I disagree with Knox on one point. I don't think either of the two remaining amendments will pass tomorrow. Remember, this is an election year and the last thing a politician wants to do is piss off his base this close to an election. I believe the votes will be close, but thankfully the bad guys have to have a majority to prevail.............

Keep the faith.....................

Yanus

 

[Brett Bellmore]

The day the voting started, the White House sent Congress a Statement of Administration Policy calling for a "clean bill" -- one without amendments. That's what President Bush has said he will sign -- which greatly improves the chances of a cleaned Conference Committee bill getting through the Senate.

Completely meaningless, IMO, since at this point everyone knows that Bush signs everything that reaches his desk, without any exception. Slip your grocery list onto his desk, and he'll sign it. Remember the Campaign finance deform act? He said he'd veto that mess, too.

Schumer's "useful idiots" -- some of our people -- are in a panic because Sen. Larry Craig and other pro-gunners signed a "Unanimous Consent Agreement" allowing a series of anti-gun (and pro-gun) amendments to be considered without a string of filibusters.

That's the only way the Senate ever can consider a controversial bill -- but many of those screaming about "Unanimous Consent" think it means the pro-gun side has consented to evil amendments. They haven't.

From the US Senate reference index,

"Cloture

The cloture rule–Rule 22–is the only formal procedure that Senate rules provide for breaking a filibuster. A filibuster is an attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter. Under cloture, the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours of debate."

My respect for Neal Knox just took a nose dive; By winning the cloture vote earlier that day, the possibility of a filibuster had already been ruled out.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Brett, no offense but I would be surprised if Mr. Knox did not know the subtleties of Senate procedure better than either of us. Maybe someone can drop him a letter asking him to clarify that point and ask WHY we needed such a deal since the cloture vote had been held earlier that day?

 

[Jeff White]

I normally agree with Neal Knox and he knows more about how things work on the Hill then I can ever hope to, but I personally think that we should not let any gun control law be passed in either chamber. The sooner both parties realize that gun control is the electrified fence on the other side of the political tracks from the third rail that they refer to social security as, the better.

We need to target the weakest of the supporters of renewing the AWB and put them into the private sector during their next election. The antis felt our wrath in the past few elections, but they seem to be viewing the AWB as mainstream and popular. We need to somehow convince them that support for renewal will have consequences. If you read the articles, other members and myself have posted in other threads, both parties seem to thing there are no consequences to be paid for renewing the AWB. We need to convince them otherwise.

Jeff

 

[Brett Bellmore]

I suspect Knox's answer would have to do with one of those unsavory aspects of the way the Senate runs; It's entirely possible that the reason the cloture vote passed by such a wide margin, is that the Senate leaders had agreed in advance to render the vote moot afterwards by the "unanimous" consent agreement. Thus allowing those members whose states are pro-gun, but who are themselves anti-gun, to get a nominally pro-gun vote on the record, to brag about while campaigning, with the assurance that it wouldn't really mean anything.

Which is no excuse, since obtaining the "unanimous consent" of an empty chamber is a gross violation of the Constitution's quorum clause. I'm not inclined to EVER cut members of Congress slack for violating the Constitution, even if they think it's in a good cause. There's no "good clause" exemption to their oaths of office.

The one good thing about this whole mess is that it's exposing a lot of anti-gunners who've been laying low.

 

[Standing Wolf]

If the Republicans in the Senate had even a shred of courage, they'd let the representatives of the Democratic (sic) party know in no uncertain terms it's time to sit down, shut up, and behave themselves, or there won't be any more pork for their states—period.

Frankly, I can't tell the Republicrats from the Democans even with a score card. It's clear the Republicans don't want my vote this November.

 

[bfieldburt]

Mr. Knox makes some excellent points here.....he, unlike some people claiming to be "pro-gun", is a proven champion of our cause. However....

don't take this to mean that all is well (which Mr. Knox, I'm sure, does not mean). Continue to call your senators today and tell them to support the bill but fight the anti-freedom/anti-gun amendments.

Yes, this is the way the senate works....AND....it also works best for us when we KEEP UP THE PRESSURE.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Concur...

Mr. Knox might know of some mojo that will correct a flawed bill,

But there is no way in hell I will ever tell any Congressperson that it's OK to vote for any gun control measure ever.

Therefore, this does not change my stance one whit.

I know what we want:

-AWB Dies
-Lawsuit pre-emption is nice if we can get it.

And that's what I demand of my representatives.

 

[TheBluesMan]

I have *ZERO* trust for any politician in Washington that isn't a member of the Liberty Caucus. Do people really forget so quickly? Bush signed the Campaign Finance Reform bill hoping the SCOTUS would strike it down. Instead, they carved it in stone! The Senate had a chance to kill that bill, the House had a chance to kill it, and the President could have vetoed it. None of them adhered to their oath of office and we now have a gutted First Amendment.

If there are *any* anti-gun amendments added to S.659/S.1806 the bill *must* be killed. Period. No compromise. I simply do not trust the members of any House Conference Committee to remove the anti-freedom amendments that will undoubtedly be added to this bill. I also don't trust the President to veto a bill that has anti-freedom amendments.

There is currently total Republican control of both houses of congress - and we still have to fight like we're going up against a bunch of anti-freedom Democrats. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that none of them have our interests in mind.