Changes in the Senate?

Changes in the Senate?
 
Monday, January 10, 2011


First of all, our prayers go out to the families and victims of the horrific tragedy that took place in Tucson over the weekend.  We pray that God will bring comfort to them in this time of trial.

The political left is trying to pin this tragedy on gun owners and conservative talk radio.  Never mind the fact that this creep hated the Bible and the U.S. flag, loved the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf and, according to his friends, was a drug abusing lefty.

But why let the facts get in the way?

Already, we see the pattern we witnessed in Columbine, with liberal politicians flocking like vultures to pick political advantage from a tragedy.  Some have blamed people who, like us, are outraged at the unconstitutional, anti-gun contents of ObamaCare. 

And New York Congressman Carolyn McCarthy has already announced her intention to suck political benefit from the shootings by introducing anti-gun measures.  These apparently include a magazine ban and a gun show ban, notwithstanding the fact that Jared Loughner bought his firearm from a retailer and underwent a Brady Check.  (The Instant Check is an unconstitutional requirement in itself, which has failed to stop "gun violence," but that's an issue for another day.)

The calls for banning or restricting gun shows have also spread to the state level.  Over the weekend, Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell called for closing the so-called "gun show loophole" and then put GOA in her crosshairs.

"I think it is imperative that my constituents understand that the Virginia General Assembly is yielding on every gun issue to a fringe group called the Gun Owners of America. They make the NRA look reasonable," she said.

Thanks, Senator Howell, we'll take that as a compliment.

A week ago we would have predicted that congressional Democrats would be loath to try to ban firearms in the wake of the 2010 elections.  But we can no longer assume that an assault on the Second Amendment is not forthcoming.

Following the Columbine shooting, we utilized long-standing Senate rules to slow down and eventually defeat such an anti-gun assault.  But liberal Democrats in the Senate are currently pushing proposals to change the Senate rules to make it easier to ban guns.

Their proposals include:

* A measure to reduce the time for debate on nominations like Supreme Court nominees Sonya Sotomayor or Elena Kagan to two hours;

* A measure to block a Senator's ability to place a "hold" on anti-gun measures (a parliamentary procedure which allows Senators to slow down legislation); and,

* Several measures to restrict or entirely eliminate the filibuster.  But as we saw during the fight over the anti-gun ObamaCare bill, the filibuster can be our greatest weapon.  We only lost by one vote in the Senate -- and that's a vote that Harry Reid no longer has. 

If the filibuster survives these rules changes, then it may be because of a "compromise" which will guarantee Reid three vote-buying amendments at the end of a filibuster.  NOTE:  The compromise would actually be worse, and it would lock out pro-gun senators like Jim DeMint from the ability to offer any countering amendments.

ACTION: Contact your two Senators.  Insist that they oppose proposals to change the Senate rules that would open the floodgates on anti-gun legislation.   You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Senators the pre-written message below.


----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

Efforts by anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy to pluck political advantage from the Arizona tragedy highlight the importance of the Senate rules. 

Currently, liberal senators concerned that Harry Reid has not crammed enough unconstitutional legislation down the throats of the American people are pushing rules change proposals that include:

* A measure to reduce the time for debate on nominations like Supreme Court nominees Sonya Sotomayor or Elena Kagan to two hours;

* A measure to block a Senator's ability to place a "hold" on anti-gun measures; and,

* Several measures to restrict or entirely eliminate the filibuster. 

If the filibuster survives these rules changes, then it may be because of a "compromise" which will guarantee Harry Reid three vote-buying amendments at the end of a filibuster.  The compromise would actually be worse, and it would lock out pro-gun senators like Jim DeMint from the ability to offer any countering amendments.

Furthermore, all of this is being done via a procedure which, if carried to its logical conclusion, could allow a simple majority of the Senate to change the written rules at any time. 

Please oppose all these rules change proposals.

I am informed that the rules votes will be rated as "gun" votes by Gun Owners of America.

Sincerely,