Why several pro gun Senators are refusing to participate in gun control filibuster

[Pullo]

They are salivating at the prospect of a gun bill coming to the Senate floor with an open amendment process.

“Republicans are eager to get into an open amendment process so that they can turn a responsible gun control bill into a round of NRA-backed amendments that only need 51 votes to approve,” warned one senior Democratic operative granted anonymity to speak candidly about strategy matters. “This could be a nightmare for Democrats that care about these issues.”

The thinking goes like this. There are very few “swing” Republican votes on guns. (Of the 14 Republican Senators/seats up in 2014, only Maine’s Susan Collins represents a state President Obama carried in 2012.) On the other hand, there are a number of “swing” Democratic votes on guns — with 5 Democratic incumbents running for re-election in states Mitt Romney won last November.

And, there are plenty of examples in the not-too-distant past of how much support gun rights legislation has had on the Senate floor.

In the fall of 2009, Senate Republicans offered an amendment to an appropriations bill funding transportation projects that would have allowed people to bring guns on to Amtrak trains. At the time, Democrats controlled 59 seats in the Senate while Republicans held 40. (Ted Kennedy had passed away but no replacement had yet been named.) The amendment got 68 “ayes”, meaning that 28 Democrats voted for it.

A few months earlier, in May 2009, Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn introduced an amendment that would have allowed guns to be carried in national parks. Democrats had 56 members voting (four seats were either vacant or the incumbent was too ill to vote) to 40 for Republicans. The bill got 67 “ayes” with 27 Democrats supporting it. (Twenty nine Democrats opposed it.)

Given that math, it’s easier to imagine amendments favored by gun rights advocates generating the 51 votes needed to be added to the main legislation than amendments on things like renewing the assault weapons ban or limiting (or outright banning) high capacity magazines.

Link

[Lurks Often]

1. I'm not sure I completely agree with the 4th & 5th paragraphs

the two amendments referred to were attached to non-firearms legislation and IIRC the National Parks amendment was attached to a bank related bill the President very much wanted to see passed.

I do agree that the Republicans have maneuvered this to the point that is very likely that the vulnerable Democratic Senators referred to in the 2nd paragraph will end up stuck between what their voters want and what their out of state campaign contributors want.

[virginia mountainman]

2. Pullo, your are spot on correct...

the Gun control advocates, may get their wish...A vote... But they better be ready to deal with the consequences of their "wish", as the PRO GUN majority in the senate, get to work, adding things that make THEIR constituents happy..

And YES, their is a pro gun majority in the US Senate.

I suspect their will be much gnashing of teeth and wails of despair in the "star chamber" that most Gun Control advocates seem prefer to open debate.

[kudzu22]

3. It'd be nice if they smoothed out some of the stupid laws

Like the NFA status of short-barreled rifles. Today, you can have a pistol. If you put a shoulder stock on it, it becomes a short-barreled rifle and you go to jail for 10 years if you don't have the tax stamp. If you take the stock off again, it does not go back to being a pistol. It's still a SBR and you still go to jail (though I'm not sure how they can tell whether it ever had a stock on it.)

[davepc]

4. Open up the class III registry

That'll make some heads spin.

[Jenoch]

5. Here's another mainstream media outlet

that does not understand the Amtrak gun issue. The legislation was about guns in luggage in the luggage compartment, just like it is ok to pack a gun in your checked luggage when you fly commercial.

[Eleanors38]

6. I believed Newt Gingrich used this strategy 20 yrs ago...

during the AWB debate. The bill could have been bottled (killed) in committee, but he got it to the floor so Democrats favoring the ban could be on record, and the vulnerable ones picked off in the ensuing congressional elections.