Toomey Folds - Joins Schumer, Manchin and Kirk on UBC Compromise

Status
Not open for further replies.
Queen_of_Thunder said:
Here is a list to call TODAY.

John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) Susan Collins (Maine), Pat Toomey (R-Pa)
Click to expand...

Call the everliving crap out of Toomey




Washington, D.C.

502 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Phone: (202) 224-4254

Fax: (202) 228-0284

Map: Get Directions



Philadelphia

8 Penn Center

1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.

Suite 1702

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Phone: (215) 241-1090

Fax: (215) 241-1095



Harrisburg

United States Federal Building

228 Walnut St.

Suite 1104

Harrisburg, PA 17101

Phone: (717) 782-3951

Fax: (717) 782-4920



Johnstown

Richland Square III, Suite 302

1397 Eisenhower Blvd

Johnstown, PA 15904

Phone: (814) 266-5970

Fax: (814) 266-5973



Pittsburgh

100 W. Station Square Dr.

Suite 225

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Phone: (412) 803-3501

Fax: (412) 803-3504



Erie

United States Federal Building

17 South Park Row

Suite B-120

Erie, PA 16501

Phone: (814) 453-3010

Fax: (814) 455-9925



Scranton

538 Spruce Street

Suite 302

Scranton, PA 18503

Phone: (570) 941-3540

Fax: (570) 941-3544



Allentown/Lehigh Valley

1150 S. Cedar Crest Blvd Suite 101

Allentown, PA 18103

Phone: (610) 434-1444

Toll-free phone (for callers in PA): 1-855-552-1831



http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=contact


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
 
The filibuster will not stop the bill from being voted on. One of the Senators that pledged to filibuster was interviewed yesterday and pointed out that there were 60 votes against and that the process would go through the normal rules to override the filibuster.

CALL the Senators and leave a clear concise message. They're just counting the number of people that call and support for or against.

The direct way to find a senators’ phone number, call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for your senators’ and/or representative’s office or you can use Bloomberg's own propaganda machine to contact them toll free - http://www.thehighroad.org/search.php?searchid=11492819

Remember that telephone calls are usually taken by a staff member, not the member of Congress. Ask to speak with the aide who handles the issue about which you wish to comment.

After identifying yourself, tell the aide you would like to leave a brief message. Don't leave a rambling 2A rant, it won't help and you're just taking up time that more of us can call with a simple "Please tell the Senator that I want him to vote NO on provisions of Senator Reid's bill requiring Universal Background Checks. I don't want legislation requiring me to drive 10 miles and stand around for a half hour just to pay some guy at a gun shop with an FFL to run a background check on someone I've known forever so I can give my best friend or father-in-law or mother-in-law my prized rifle/pistol for their birthday!".
 
Last edited:
If you care about this issue enough to post on THR you should CALL your Senator and leave a clear concise message that you do or don't support each provision of the bill. Don't leave a rambling 2A rant, it won't help and you're just taking up time that more of us can call with a simple "NO, I don't want the government telling me I have to drive 10 miles and stand around for a half hour, to pay some guy at a gun shop with an FFL to give my grandfather or grandson or uncle my prized XYZ".
Click to expand...

Except that doesn't seem to be in the bill.
 
There is a press conference at 10:30am Eastern today to explain this "deal.". The very little press I've seen on it says it will extend background checks to "gun shows" and "internet sales" though how those two are defined was not discussed. In the past we have seen "gun shows" defined so broadly they would catch most private sales.
 
Just to clarify, does that mean they will indeed debate the original parts as well
Click to expand...

They will probably debate the Firearms Trafficking and School Safety Provisions of S.649. Since Schumer has agreed to let the Toomey Amendment replace the UBC portion of S.649, that will probably not see much debate.

the term "filibuster", but what is a successful filibuster?

For it to stop a bill from moving forward, does it have to go on for a certain period of time or what?
Click to expand...

This isn't a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" type filibuster where a Senator delays a bill by speaking on the Senate floor continuously. This is a procedural filibuster. Everything the Senate does, they debate. They even debate when to begin the actual debate on a bill (the motion to proceed). If a Senator wants to block something, he can declare he still wants to continue debate (without actually doing it). In order to close debate, someone must file a motion for cloture, wait two days, and then a vote is had - if there are 60 votes, then that portion of the debate is closed. Sen. Reid filed his motion for cloture on the motion to proceed yesterday. So the vote to end debate on whether to start debating S.649 will happen Thursday. Reid is going to win that and then they will begin discussing the gun bills.

We will still have another opportunity to block the motion to end debate on the actual bills. Many Senators who are voting against us now don't actually support gun control, they just want to see their colleagues forced to go on record so they may support a filibuster after the votes. And if the amended bill is bad enough for one side or both, people who supported "moderate" gun control may decide to oppose it depending on what amendments are attached.
 
Last edited:
hso said:
The filibuster will not stop the bill from being voted on. One of the Senators that pledged to filibuster was interviewed yesterday and pointed out that there were 60 votes against and that the process would go through the normal rules to override the filibuster.

CALL the Senators and leave a clear concise message. They're just counting the number of people that call and support for or against.

The easiest way to find a senators’ phone number, call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for your senators’ and/or representative’s office.

Remember that telephone calls are usually taken by a staff member, not the member of Congress. Ask to speak with the aide who handles the issue about which you wish to comment.

After identifying yourself, tell the aide you would like to leave a brief message. Don't leave a rambling 2A rant, it won't help and you're just taking up time that more of us can call with a simple "Please tell the Senator that I want him to vote NO on provisions of Senator Reid's bill requiring Universal Background Checks. I don't want legislation requiring me to drive 10 miles and stand around for a half hour just to pay some guy at a gun shop with an FFL to run a background check on someone I've known forever so I can give my grandfather or grandson or uncle my prized rifle/pistol for their birthday!".
Click to expand...
Amend what HSO said to best friend instead of a family member.
 
I've tried Toomey's DC office a legit 5 times at 2-3 minute intervals and can't get a person.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
 
I've tried Toomey's DC office a legit 5 times at 2-3 minute intervals and can't get a person.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
 
hso said:
"Please tell the Senator that I want him to vote NO on provisions of Senator Reid's bill requiring Universal Background Checks. I don't want legislation requiring me to drive 10 miles and stand around for a half hour just to pay some guy at a gun shop with an FFL to run a background check on someone I've known forever so I can give my grandfather or grandson or uncle my prized rifle/pistol for their birthday!".
Click to expand...

Bubba613 said:
Except that doesn't seem to be in the bill.
Click to expand...

Except, that it is. Well, a transfer between grandparents/grandchildren is exempted, but not a transfer from uncle to nephew, or between cousins. It would also be illegal (without going through HSO's scenario) to gift a firearm to anybody who is not actually related (includes only: spouse, siblings, parents/grandparents, and children/grandchildren). Like, a life-long best friend and hunting partner that is turning 50 and is finally getting to go on that hunt of a lifetime with you. Or your "life partner", or whatever it's called these days. Also, it would be illegal to loan your buddy a hunting rifle any time before hunting season so he can get used to how it shoots.

And, one thing that I have yet to see mentioned, is that you would no longer be able to drop off your rifle at the local gunsmith to get the barrel re-crowned, have the trigger adjusted, or get some new sights installed without a background check. The section of US Code [18USC 922(s)] that specifically allows this type of "transfer" would be repealed, and such language is not included in this bill.
 
The details of S.649 can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/

The text of the bill is there for anyone to read. The details of the proposed Toomey Amendment to replace S.649 have still not been released. Press conference is at 11:00am Eastern today. Actual text will probably not be available for two-three days (i.e. after the debate on S.649 is well underway)
 
O:K I plan on giving my niece a firearm. I guess I can give it to my brother who can then give it to her. This is STUPID!!!!!! My brother in law and I swap gun frequently. I guess he can give them to his wife (my sister) who can them give them to me. STUPID!!!!!!!!
 
We are discussing multiple bills here. We know what is in S.649, which is the base gun control bill being brought up tomorrow and what ngnrd described.

The Toomey bill/amendment to S.649 hasn't been introduced yet. All we know about it is what Roll Call has reported (it will expand checks to "gun shows" and "internet sales"). Of course in the past, they have defined gun shows in such a way that it covered pretty much all private sales, so who knows? Toomey was NRA A-rated; but NRA hasn't endorsed his bill and Schumer has.
 
AWB is a Red Herring

The Democrats knew the AWB was d.o.a. before it was even introduced in the Senate. The real danger lies here;

Reid said that if the bill doesn’t get 60 votes to move to the floor, he would then move to hold votes on individual bills for several gun proposals, including the assault weapons ban, background checks and limits on high-capacity magazines.

With individual bills it will be easier to attach them as amendments to bills the Republicans support such as defense spending.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/gun-background-checks-deal-89856.html#ixzz2Q4LHTyxB
 
BTW

gopguy identified a toll free, handy, and very satisfying, way to reach your "pro" 2A Senators by using Boomberg's own MAIG propaganda machine to make your calls.:evil:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=711345

855-440-4800

Remember to key "1" as soon as they start talking if you're calling from a land line or put your zip code in after a few words of blather from them and then key.

MAIG has set up a system that you can call toll free and then forwards the call to your Senator's offices. So kind of them to provide this to us.

For all others use 202-224-3121 for the Senate switchboard.
 
Last edited:
Just watched it. Looks like a carrot and stick approach. In exchange for checks at gun shows and Internet sales, Toomey implied there would be some strengthening of FOPA.
 
rtroha said:
Just watched it. Looks like a carrot and stick approach. In exchange for checks at gun shows and Internet sales, Toomey implied there would be some strengthening of FOPA.
Click to expand...
Machine guns!...yeah I know but it would be awesome.
 
I came in 23 minutes late and missed the meat but Toomey claims bill will:

1. This time for sure we will really enforce FOPA protections for travelling gun owners
2. Servicemembers will be able to buy guns in their home state as well as where they are based.
3. Background checks extended to "gun shows" (term not defined) and "online sales" (term not defined).
 
Not that it much makes a difference for me in the short term being in CT now...but I'd be willing to have to undergo a background check to receive a firearm I ordered online if it meant new MG's would be legal again...I mean sure it would mean the massive change of going through an FFL when ordering online :rolleyes: instead of getting it straight to my door...but, I think the exchange would be worth it!

(No one tell any of them you already have to get it through an ffl!) :neener:
 
N003k said:
Not that it much makes a difference for me in the short term being in CT now...but I'd be willing to have to undergo a background check to receive a firearm I ordered online if it meant new MG's would be legal again...I mean sure it would mean the massive change of going through an FFL when ordering online :rolleyes: instead of getting it straight to my door...but, I think the exchange would be worth it!

(No one tell any of them you already have to get it through an ffl!) :neener:
Click to expand...
I have one for sale online now with no ffl if the buyer picks up at my home. So no you don't have to do a ffl sale online now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
S.649 Live Debate Thread - CSPAN2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
206
Views
11K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
G
  • Locked
Is Thursday the day the Senate votes on Gun Control?
Replies
8
Views
589
Bartholomew Roberts
B
B
  • Locked
Do you oppose Scumer-Toomey-Manchin amendment?
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
B
  • Locked
Reid pulls gun bill from Senate
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Bruno2
B
B
  • Locked
At least Rand, Cruz and Lee get it!
Replies
13
Views
837
pat701
P
Back
Top