Oh Shoot

  My reading is that departmental bureaucrats can spout all kinds of "policy"  but that doesn't make it so.   Somebody needs to run that by the TN AG, let him comment on just what basis in TN law that could actually be valid.   - OS

  The core bill is Schumer's background check bill, nothing to do with Feinstein's, which simply never hit the floor.   It is S 374, and eloquently called "Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013".   Here's the full text:   http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s374/text   As I understand it, the whole brouhaha to allow it on the floor was the first filibuster vote, where everybody called every Republican who voted for that a traitor, but it was allowed so that the Manchin-Toomey (and the other 6 or 7 amendments) could also be introduced. But with the special 60 vote threshold deal, all the subsequent votes were in actuality also votes to end filibuster on each of them. Still unclear to me if a yes vote would have also enacted them, but a moot point I guess, as if you can get 60 votes you can almost certainly get 51.   But given the filibuster status,as a couple of Dems were saying in consolation today, the original bill AND all the amendments remain on the Senate calendar thorough the rest of the 113th Congress, as they were not actually technically defeated as per rules, but only dropped due to lack of stopping filibuster. And can be brought up at any time they think the vote structure may have shifted, without being resubmitted and going through committee process and all that.   Then you've got Reid saying that rules call for needing a single dissenting vote from the majority in order to bring them up also, but dunno if that's written in stone, or a "courtesy protocol". At any rate, he's a lying dog to say that's why he "had" to vote no, as 4 other Dems voted no before he did on the roll call.   Very convoluted indeed, and just another reason we all hate the bastards up there, as the general public can't even understand how the damn loaded dice game is even actually played, since the "rules" are so very flexible.   - OS

I'm wondering if that's really really a "rule" or just "protocol".   At any rate, if absolutely a necessary thing, it was moot on Dingy Harry's part, as 4 other Dems also voted no before him, with the alphabetical roll call, so he may have just been hedging his bet with his electorate back home in case he runs yet again, can claim he didn't vote for the nasty ole thing.   On the other hand, I heard he did vote FOR the AWB and hi-cap mag amendment, but I so far can't find actual voting record on any of the other amendments. But main thing is, just like Obama himself, when Harry shows one hand, it's a feint, and you need to look for what the other is really doing.   At any rate, due to the special agreement of the 60 vote thing, this means it was officially a vote on filibuster too, and Schumer's original bill, and all the amendments, stay on the calendar through the end of the 113th Congress, do not have to be resubmitted though the committee process, and can indeed be brought back to the floor at any time.   - OS

  Ah, but there's one more quirk  to this saga I'm discovering.   The 60 vote deal was actually still technically also considered a vote to break filibuster on all the amendments to the original Schumer background check bill.   Which means both the original bill and all the amendments stay on the calendar and can be brought back up any time during the 113th Congress, without having to be resubmitted to committee and whatnot. Reid claims that somebody on the majority voting side had to vote contrary for this to happen, so I don't know about that, but he wasn't the only one as four others voted no before him, so that's kind of moot.   So if, for some alignment of reasons before the end of 2014, the Dems think they have the votes to carry any of those things voted on today, this same deal could crank up again on a moments notice.   I realize this certainly seems to be unlikely, but sometimes certain pols' "conscience" seems to change toward election year. In general, this has worked in our favor on gun rights in  the Republican world, and also of course a good bit in the Dem one also. Just hope those polls don't start convincing them otherwise closer to 2014.   - OS

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0     ;)

  Life is long, bro, and the progressives ain't going away. Start thinking about 2014, 'cause the GOP ain't taking back the Senate, and as much as we hate on them, they must keep the House.   - OS

  When did they close stores? No mention of any of that where they are most active on forums (arfcom), people report going to the brick and mortars all the time. (edit: Seems I do remember reading they closed the one that was attached to the warehouse for expansion or something, but they have two other locations - http://palmettostatearmory.com/index.php/palmetto-state-armory-store-locations)     Yes, they've been hard to get in touch with, but can be done. Keep calling, or emailing (or PM or post at arfcom) at:   http://www.ar15.com/forums/f_2/301_Palmetto_State_Armory.html   I've had about 8 orders from them over the last 10 months, 3 in the last month, last one arrived last week.   They've also called me twice and emailed me about 6 weeks ago regarding a glitch with transfer of a lower with Bill's in Alcoa (they had just moved, address didn't match FFL).   So, though their communication has been sketchy, they are most certainly in biz, and obviously raking it in hand over fist.   - OS

  Yes.   An unloaded firearm, not concealed on or about the person, is a legal defense to unlawful carry.   And unloaded means no ammo for it on your person either.   - OS

  Question raised already, no idea, never heard that one before.   - OS

  No way.   Bricks of cheapos were $16-22 pre panic.   - OS

  Oopsie. Skimmed rather than read.   Emily Litella, y'all.   - OS

  Well, to be fair, unfortunately I'm not for sure wrong until the end of the 113th, so still a better part of two years to go on my prediction.   Then of course, the midterms to determine what things look like in the 114th.   - OS

  Thanks, sonny.

  Good night to watch MSNBC, Mikey.   So far, Chris Matthews has had opening blurb on it, lower lip way down toward his tingly leg.   Too bad Boston has most of the headlines today or it would really be a lot more pity fest tonight on there.   - OS

  E) he may be right in the long run   In the meanwhile, I'm enjoying MSNBC so far tonight. Chris Matthews looks sooo crestfallen.   - OS

Oopsie. Disregard.

  Never mind, I see the 60 vote was a procedural deal so all amendments could be voted on one after another, without debate for each one. Conventional way would have only required 51 votes for each, but could have drug out for weeks.   I was wrong about it being "cloture" at this point. This explains it well for anyone else who didn't quite grok it:   http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/17/the-gun-amendments-need-60-votes-to-pass-but-why/   And as far as the whole background check thing apparently shot down, at least for the rest of this calendar year, let me say I've never been happier to have been wrong!!   - OS

  Yep. Whole reason he allowed the vote. He's been caught in the middle on all this anti-gun stuff.   - OS

So I've lost track. What's left of the original bill that all these were amendments to? As I understand it, it is much worse than the Manchin-Toomey amendment.   Was the whole bill also voted down along with the 60 vote agreement on the amendments?   - OS

  ???   Far from out of business, and still selling lowers as they dribble in. Though they don't make them, never did.   - OS

  Doubt if Reid will allow the cloture vote unless he thinks he has it which ever way he wants it. Today, tomorrow, whenever.   I forget the procedure for how long it's allowed to be hung before it's tabled again or whatever.   Then again, Dingy Harry has been pretty ambivalent about the whole "gun safety" stuff period, he's pretty much caught in the middle on this one.   - OS

Y'all realize that the 60 votes needed are for cloture on discussion of the Schumer background check bill and not the Manchin-Toomey amendment, right?   Meaning, if they get the 60 votes, then only takes 51 to pass the bill. Assuming they have the 51 for the Schumer bill, we'd better damn well hope they pass the Manchin-Toomey amendment to go along with it, and also none of the numerous other amendments that will be offered, which include the AWB and hicap mag bans too.   Maybe won't matter either way once passed to the House, but still not a good thing to have the most restrictive bill of all halfway to enactment.   - OS

Using the Edit My Profile button you can't change "Member Title" field? If not, then TartanPhantom must be right, that it takes 250 even for Benefactors. - OS

  Well, they statement says they only support the Manchin-Toomey bill because it negate Schumer's much more strict. They also mention the parts that if changed will make them withdraw support.   Don't get me wrong, for any "gun rights" org to support this bill pretty much sucks, but in no way do I think it's accurate to claim they are espousing universal checks.   Incidentally, they have the same glaring error I've seen stated here, that transfers between "friends" is allowed in the bill, which is simply wrong -- indeed the word itself is nowhere in it.   - OS

  In your Profile Settings, daddy-o. ;)   - OS