Maybe the details are vague, but this one seems silly. Is it a change to the Senate rules? If so, they can change the rules back with 51 votes, as Reid has already demonstrated. Is it meant to be a budget rider to restrict the administration? Then why does it have to come back to the Senate for a 2/3rds vote? Is it supposed to require Senate authorization by individual vote to spend money on gun control projects that aren't already authorized by legislation? This is already the case. And if it's already authorized by legislation, it's not new... this proposal seems like a confused mess to me. Maybe I need more details.
Useful for people whose guns contain ivory, which is maybe a few thousand people with very expensive firearms. Not a bad idea, given that the administration is in fact cracking down on ivory in all sorts of stuff, but not exactly a sweeping rejection of gun control. I suspect Lamar Alexander has a rich donor with an antique ivory gun collection.
This is more like it, except the part about barring a national firearms registry should already be part of federal law. Did someone slip a change through when we weren't looking?
The latter part refers to Operation Choke Point, and would actually be very helpful. But important questions to ask: Does it have a penalty clause? Can private individuals or corporations sue the government for damages resulting from Operation Choke Point, especially punitive damages?
This entry was published Mon Mar 30 12:19:08 CDT 2015 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2015-03-30 12:19:08.0.