Gun control measures fail to clear Senate hurdle

A series of dueling gun control measures in the Senate were defeated Monday evening in the first proposed legislation in the wake of the Orlando terror attack.

The four amendments all failed on procedural votes.

The first vote was on the amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to enhance funding for an existing gun background check system which needed 60 votes to pass. The final vote tally was 53 to 47.

The second vote was on a measure by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., to expand gun background checks and close the so-called gun show loophole where firearm purchases are not tracked. The final vote tally was 44 to 56.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas pushed a measure that would allow the government to delay a gun sale to a suspected terrorrist for 72 hours, but require prosecutors to go to court to show probable cause to block the sale permanently. The National Rifle Associated backed the legislation, but it failed in a final vote of 53 to 47.

The fourth and final vote involved a measure by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to keep people on a government terrorism watch list or other suspected terrorists from buying guns. The Justice Department endorsed her legislation, but it also failed with a final vote count of 47 to 53.

The votes came after Murphy filibustered for almost 15 hours last week seeking action in response to the killing of 49 people in the gay nightclub Pulse by Omar Mateen, a Florida man who pledged his loyalty to ISIS in the midst of the rampage.

Since lawmakers were unable to come together on a piece of compromise legislation, the individual bills faced long odds. Democrats helped block two Republican amendments, arguing that they fall short in controlling the sales of firearms. In turn, Republicans were able to block two Democratic amendments, contending they threaten the constitutional rights of gun owners.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the Orlando attack shows the best way to prevent attacks by extremists is to defeat such groups overseas.

“Look, no one wants terrorists to be able to buy guns or explosives,” McConnell said. He suggested that Democrats were using the day’s votes “as an opportunity to push a partisan agenda or craft the next 30-second campaign ad,” while Republicans wanted “real solutions.”

Cornyn said after the votes that he thinks there may be other votes on terrorism or guns later this week.

Murphy said Sunday on ABC’s “The Week” that the passage of the measures was unlikely and focused on the response to the filibuster.

“It wasn’t just that 40 senators came to the floor and supported my effort to get these votes but there were millions of people all across the country who rose up and who joined our effort,” he said.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch told “Fox News Sunday” that she also supported Cornyn’s proposal. Lynch said such an amendment would give the federal government the ability to stop a sale to somebody on the terror watch list.

However, she argued the federal government needs flexibility and the authority to protect the classified information used in denying a sale, if potential buyers exercise the constitutional rights to file an appeal.

“The American people deserve for us to take the greatest amount of time,” Lynch said.

The Pulse Orlando nightclub shooter was added to a government watch list of individuals known or suspected of being involved in terrorist activities in 2013, when he was investigated for inflammatory statements to co-workers. But he was pulled from that database when that investigation was closed 10 months later.

Both the Feinstein and Cornyn amendments would have tried to ensure that individuals like Mateen who had been a subject of a terrorism investigation within the last five years are flagged. Grassley’s would have required that law enforcement be notified if a person had been investigated in the last five years and attempted to purchase a gun.

Last week, presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump tweeted that he would meet with the NRA about “not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.” Exactly what he would support was unclear.

Separately, moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is working with other Republicans, as well as talking to Democrats, on a bill that would prevent people on the no-fly list — a smaller universe than targeted by Democrats — from getting guns. But her bill had not been blessed by GOP leaders and it was unclear if it would get a vote.

In the GOP-controlled House, Republicans had no plans to act on guns and Democrats were unable to force any action, given House rules less favorable to the minority party than in the Senate.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram, Mike Emanuel and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

Support For Galvin And McGaha

After reading yesterday’s article “Baker and Polito Make Endorsement In Westford GOP State Committee Race” I was inspired to write a short letter to Westford CAT News.
It’s no secret I’ve been cautious over Baker after he was endorsed by Michael Bloomberg.

With that in mind, the last thing I want to do is vote for the person endorsed by Baker whose job it is, in part, to keep an eye on Baker. I want someone who is OUR representative, not Beacon Hill’s.

Our district has the opportunity to elect two of our own to represent republicans in this area on the Republican State Committee on March 1st.

For the woman’s seat I support Georjann McGaha and for the man’s seat I support Dennis Galvin.

 

Cori Ryan

Westford

McGaha and Galvin lead the Westford Republican Town Committee in opposing the Board of Selectmen’s attempt to ban guns in Westford.  Galvin, a retired state trooper, and McGaha, an NRA member, fought and successfully defeated the gun grab. Ryan refers to Bloomberg’s attempt to ban certain types of guns. 

Scalia and the 2nd Amendment

Second-Amendment--270x156Right to gun ownership is individual, not collective.

Justice Scalia wrote the Court’s decision on District of Columbia v. Heller on Jun 26, 2008:

Overturning DC’s handgun ban, the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to own a gun for private use–not only in connection with service in a militia. The 5-to-4 decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, left unanswered questions, but also much room for continued gun regulation, short of an absolute ban.

HELD: Delivered by Scalia; joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

2nd Amendment Opinion

Second-Amendment--270x156

As he always does in tragic situations such as this, the president never lets a crisis go to waste. Less than 24 hours after lecturing us at our thanksgiving dinners that the “Syrian refugees” were no different than the Pilgrims, he does not give comfort and solace to the family and friends of the hero dead officer who selflessly ran toward danger to confront evil, but he again blames what he refers to as Swasey to the weapons of war. This domestic terrorist would have killed with whatever he could because that was his mission. It is not the gun that will face trial by jury; it is Robert Lewis Dear, the arrested perp, who, in our judicial system is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The president, however, is on a mission to destroy the 2nd Amendment before January 20, 2017, again uses the tragedy to vilify the gun, an inanimate object that can do nothing without a real person loading, aiming and pulling the trigger to shoot the target chosen by the person, not the target chosen by the gun, which has neither brain or free will.

 

We pray for officer Swasey and all the victims dead and wounded. We also pray for the United States of America, that we may survive as a Constitutional Republic for the next, perilous fourteen months.

 

Thomas Gildroy

Hillary Clinton Supports Australia-style Gun Confiscation

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2015

It’s one thing to support gun control.

It’s another to make it the centerpiece of a floundering presidential primary campaign.

But Hillary Clinton wasn’t finished when she latched onto the idea of opposing the NRA as a means of diverting the nation from the humiliating scandals and poll results plaguing her own bid to succeed Barack Obama.

First, she announced to her wealthy supporters that “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment,” which demonstrates her opposition to the individual right to keep and bear firearms, including handguns, for self-defense.

Now, however, she’s gone even further and echoed President Obama’s references to Australian and British style gun control. “The Australian example,” she said, “that was a buyback program.” She went on to explain that the Australian government “offered a good price” for “buying hundreds of thousands of guns, and then they basically clamped down going forward … .”  They were thus able, she explained, “to curtail the supply” of guns and “to set a different standard for gun purchases in the future.”    

Today, at a town hall meeting in Keene, New Hampshire, Clinton was questioned by an audience member who noted that Australia “managed to … take away … millions of handguns, and in one year, they were all gone.” He then asked her, “Can we do that?”

She immediately responded that not just Australia but also the U.K. is “a good example” of a country responding to a “mass killing.”

 “The Australian example,” she said, “that was a buyback program.” She went on to explain that the Australian government “offered a good price” for “buying hundreds of thousands of guns, and then they basically clamped down going forward … .”  They were thus able, she explained, “to curtail the supply” of guns and “to set a different standard for gun purchases in the future.”

Here in America, she went on, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged.” She compared the Australian and U.K. regimes to local gun “buybacks” and to Obama’s own “cash for clunkers” program, in which Americans were offered tax credits for trading older, gas-guzzling vehicles for newer, fuel-efficient models. “So I think that’s worth considering,” Clinton said. “I don’t know enough details to tell you … how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at.”

The more details you know about Australia and Great Britain, however, the more extreme Hillary’s views become.

The misnamed “buybacks” of Australia and Great Britain were nothing like the failed “cash for clunkers” program, which simply sought to update the cars Americans drove, not to ban them. They weren’t even comparable to local gun buybacks, which attempt to incentivize the voluntary surrender of guns that their owners are free in most cases to replace as they see fit. The Australian and U.K. “buybacks” were merely an attempt to mollify firearm owners whose property had been declared contraband and subject to seizure. They were, to paraphrase Vito Corleone, an offer gun owners could not refuse. 

No, the Australian and U.K. “buybacks” were merely an attempt to mollify firearm owners whose property had been declared contraband and subject to seizure. They were, to paraphrase Vito Corleone, an offer gun owners could not refuse. The owners had the “choice” to accept the money and turn the guns they had previously been forced to register (supposedly so they could keep them under grandfather provisions), or they could risk the government forcibly confiscating the guns and being sent to prison for possessing them (supposing, of course, that they survived the confiscation attempt itself).

If you own a gun now, take heed. President Obama and now Hillary Clinton finally made clear what they’re really after – national gun confiscation.

To hear Hillary’s remarks for yourself, see the video at this link: http://freebeacon.com/issues/clinton-australian-style-gun-control-worth-considering-for-u-s/.

The stakes in 2016 could not be higher when it comes to our fundamental freedom and the future of our nation.