Pro-gun legislation in the Senate budget

The HillFor instance, an amendment from Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) would block “any legislation that would place further restrictions on the right of law-abiding Americans to own a firearm,” according to the senator’s office.

The amendment would block gun control measures seeking to ban semi-automatic weapons and magazines, and create a national gun registry, unless they have support from two-thirds of senators.

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.

The HillMeanwhile, Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Steve Daines (R-Mont.) are offering an amendment that would stop the Fish and Wildlife Service from cracking down on antique guns containing ivory.

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.

The HillInhofe is also offering other pro-gun amendments prohibiting the Obama administration from establishing a national firearms registry and barring the government from pressuring banks to close gun shops' bank accounts.

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. [Tweet]

comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe to Atom Feed

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice.

This site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.

This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.