Senator Lee to Offer Amendment Tonight to Ban Most Gun Control in the Senate.

This is from Military Arms Channel’s Facebook page. Thoughts?

Senator Lee to Offer Amendment Tonight to Ban Most Gun Control in the Senate.

We realize it’s short notice, but we wanted to alert you that, later tonight, Senator Mike Lee of Utah intends to offer an amendment to the budget resolution that would prohibit any gun control legislation which does not have a 2/3 vote in the Senate.

We know, we know. We would prefer to prohibit any and all gun control, even if it had 100 votes.

But if the Lee amendment is passed, the practical effect will be that gun control can never again pass the Senate.

Given the Armageddon-like fight which we are now engaged in in the Senate, achieving a gun-control peace for the rest of our lifetimes would be a good thing.

ACTION: Contact your Senators. Ask them to vote for the Lee amendment which would require a 2/3 vote for the Senate to impose any gun control.

You may Click here to use The Action Center, or you can call your Senators since time is short. The number for the Senate is 202-224-3121.

What would keep them from just voting to repeal the amendment?

Not only is it a long shot, it is also unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies that the VP has the power to break tie votes on bills in the Senate to pass a bill. This is a constitutional lock on a simple majority as the threshold to pass a bill.

The fact that Senator Lee does not understand this is a little scary.

Can’t bind the acts of a future Congress. The SC has already established that.

It would take an Amendment to do what he is proposing.

As noble as it is, it is unconstutional unless you do it with an Amendment.

Hmm so his point is moot.

Moot and foolish. Bills like this are nothing more than pandering to the constituents.

True much like state laws saying they will arrest federal agents trying to enforce federal laws. Supremacy clause kicks in. Basically these are not laws they are statements.
Pat

Utah is guilty of the above as well.

If the republicans had any balls, they would offer a repeal of the Hughes amendment or the import ban as an amendment to UBC.

Tell that to Sheriff Tony Demeo. Watch this 3 part video interview of him explaining his position and threatening to use force against Federal agents. http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/10/19/nevada-sheriff-tony-demeo-stops-federal-agents-feds-engaging-in-illegal-confiscation-of-cattle-and-water-rights-of-county-property-owner/

Are you aware of the County Sheriff Project? If so, what are your thoughts? http://www.countysheriffproject.org/

What about the CSPOA? http://cspoa.org/

He can say what he wants but in the end he would lose that battle if he pushed it and wind up dead or in the federal pen.
My thoughts are to fight this battle legally and it appears we are winning on that front at least nationally. I also believe the courts will be where we need to spend most of our time and efforts.
Pat

He did win the battle. You didn’t watch the videos. I think you’d find it pretty interesting if you took the time to educate yourself about what happened rather than just sticking to your 1 dimensional argument.

He can’t win the battle and no I did not watch it. I know the law and there is no way around it other than by breaking it. Basically declaring war on the US government which will not end well.
Pat

Yep, did not end well at all in 1865…

Several other Sheriff’s have taken some interesting stands against the Feds including Wyoming Sheriff Dave Mattis and New Mexico Sheriff Benny House.

Refusing to enforce federal laws is very doable but saying you will use force against federal agents not so doable. How many men does the Sheriff have that are willing to do federal time or be killed? I support Sheriffs, Chiefs etc saying they will not enforce federal law but using force against Federal agents that is simply lunacy and blustering talk.
Pat

What you are talking about is a State’s Rights issue. This is a far cry from the notion of a Super Congress which is what Sen. Lee is proposing.

My posts weren’t relating to Senator Lee and his proposal, they were directed at Pat and his assertion:

I don’t believe that it’s unconstitutional, seeing as how gun control is unconstitutional.

However this is a very thin line. But I’d rather have laws that make it harder for congress to pass laws, than laws that make it easier.

Federalism will never be the same thanks to the civil war. State rights on gun control will not stump federal law