Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 11/19/2003 10:18:08 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 10:20:47 AM EDT
Kennedy: Senator Holding Plastic Gun Bill

WASHINGTON (AP)--A bill to ban plastic guns which terrorists could slip past airport metal detectors has been blocked in the Senate by an anonymous GOP senator, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. said Tuesday.

``That's unacceptable, and the Senate leadership has a responsibility to act,'' Kennedy said. ``The need for action before Congress adjourns is obvious. An undetectable Republican senator cannot be permitted to embarrass the entire Senate by blocking action'' on the bill.

Under Senate rules, any senator can stop a bill from being approved by placing a ``hold'' on the legislation without their name revealed.

Lawmakers want to reauthorize the Terrorist Firearm Detection Act of 1988, which bans the creation or possession of plastic firearms. Military and intelligence agencies are exempt.

Officials worry terrorists would get their hands on plastic weapons that wouldn't set off metal detectors at airports and other security checkpoints.

The bill was last reauthorized in 1998. It expires in December.

The House already passed the bill, and has been pushing the Senate to act.

``Unfortunately, to this point, while the House has acted, the Senate has offered only rhetoric and no action,'' House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., wrote in a letter to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 10:24:10 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 10:24:20 AM EDT
The whole thing is total bullshit. There is no gun in existance or feasable that can pass the standard of the so called "undetectable gun" that this law proposes to stop.

It's total crap. Just feel good horseshit to make the sheeple feel like their elected officials are actually doing something.

I say "bully!" for the Senator that stood up to stop this insanity of a law that bans something that doesn't exist.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 10:24:46 AM EDT
Why are military and intellengence agencies always exempt from this stuff?
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 10:26:38 AM EDT
I wish Kennedy would make the world a better place and have a brain aneurysm.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 10:28:41 AM EDT
Funny how they are worried about plastic guns being smuggled on planes. What good will it do? The minute anyone pulls out anything on a plane in a threatening manner, all hell will break lose!
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 10:28:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U:
Kennedy: Senator Holding Plastic Gun Bill

WASHINGTON (AP)--

...snip...

``That's unacceptable, and the Senate leadership has a responsibility to act,'' Kennedy said. ``The need for action before Congress adjourns is obvious...




So allow a vote on the judicial appointees, motherfucker.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 10:31:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By osprey21:
I wish Kennedy would make the world a better place and have a brain aneurysm.



Obviously the wrong person drowned at Chappaquidik.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 10:34:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Torf:

Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U:
Kennedy: Senator Holding Plastic Gun Bill

WASHINGTON (AP)--

...snip...

``That's unacceptable, and the Senate leadership has a responsibility to act,'' Kennedy said. ``The need for action before Congress adjourns is obvious...




So allow a vote on the judicial appointees, motherfucker.



This IS about screwing over T Kennedy for what he is doing about the judge nominations.

CRC
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 10:36:24 AM EDT

``Unfortunately, to this point, while the House has acted, the Senate has offered only rhetoric and no action,'' House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., wrote in a letter to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.


this butthead, my rep, is going to get a good letter about this. he's usually very good on guns. i wonder what's up his ass on this one.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 10:36:51 AM EDT
Poor Ted Kennedy!
The Dummycrats would never do something so terrible as block legislation.
Next they'll want to ban ceramic guns. Of course if the guns are banned the criminals and terrorists would never try to use them.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 10:37:58 AM EDT
can someone explain how this "hold" thing works?

what do they have to do to get around a "hold"
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 10:39:24 AM EDT
Kennedy has a set of brass fucking balls on him complaining about a use of an established senate rule, when his party has been filibustering judges left and right .

Fuck him.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 10:39:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By osprey21:
I wish Kennedy would make the world a better place and have a brain aneurysm.



Wouldn't you need to have a brain before you could have an aneurysm?
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 10:45:23 AM EDT
Hopefully this is the start of a new precedent--the nullification of useless, do-nothing laws. Keep writing, boys!
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 10:45:55 AM EDT
FYI



Would you please define the Senate's "hold" procedure and explain how it is used to kill a bill?


A "hold" describes a Senator's request to his party leader that a specific piece of legislation or a nomination not be considered on the Senate floor. A hold may be lodged as a bargaining chip so that the Senator is consulted as a measure proceeds, or it may be meant as an ultimate barrier to a bill.

Holds are not a part of the Senate's written rules or standing orders. They are an informal practice begun by the leadership of the past and honored -- to varying degrees -- by the leadership of the present. The status of holds as an informal practice means that Senate leaders have the discretion to honor holds for a short period of time, for an indefinite period, or not at all.

The underlying reasons for lodging a hold vary greatly. A Senator may lodge a hold to receive assurance that a bill or a nomination will not be called up in his/her absence. A hold may be lodged to gain time to gather information and prepare opposition to the pending matter. A hold may be lodged to gain entree into any negotiations the leaders conduct on the conditions for the consideration of the legislation, e.g. debate time and amendment procedures.

The more serious holds seek to kill a bill or nomination. These signal outright opposition combined with a willingness to use every procedural tactic possible to keep a measure from moving forward. Such holds are implicit threats to filibuster or to offer troublesome non-germane amendments to a measure, or to raise a series of objections to the many unanimous consent agreements which drive daily Senate floor action.

The leaders have several options in responding to a hold. (1) When an issue is of great political importance, the leader may ignore the implied threat and proceed to the measure or nomination's consideration. He must then confront the procedural consequences posed by the Senator with the hold. (2) The leader may wait to see if the reason for the hold dissipates with time and changing political events. (3) The leader may assess the hold as real and the Senator as determined to prevent the matter from proceeding. If the leader feels that significant Senate floor time will be wasted if the hold is confronted, he may decide to honor the hold and allow it to delay proceedings.

While the practice in the Senate has been to keep holds a secret between the leaders, the practice of strict secrecy ended in 1999. The Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott, and the Minority Leader, Tom Daschle, came to an agreement to revise the practice, and announced it to their colleagues in a March 3, 1999 letter. Senators now have to notify the sponsor of a measure and the leaders of the committee with jurisdiction over it, as well as the two party leaders, in writing, of their intent to issue a hold.

While the notifications are not published in the Congressional Record, with that many people in the know, it would be highly unlikely that the source of a hold would remain unknown for long. Depending on the issue, it is sometimes quite obvious which Senator has a hold, or someone leaks it, or the Senator with the hold reveals it. Once the identity of the Senator with the hold is known collegial pressure is often brought to bear on the Senator involved in an attempt to get him/her to lift it.

Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) are credited with bringing about the change in practice. In a bi-partisan 3-year effort, the two had offered resolutions to change the practice, made floor statements against it, lobbied the floor leaders, and offered an amendment on the Senate floor requiring that holds become public by having them printed in the Congressional Record. The amendment was adopted by voice vote in the Senate on September 30, 1997, but it was a rider to an appropriations bill and was later dropped in a conference with the House. They proposed another amendment to a defense authorization bill in 1998, which was also adopted by voice vote on June 25, 1998, and again dropped in conference.


Link Posted: 11/19/2003 10:48:13 AM EDT
As an aside folks, I'm hearing that Orin Hatch put the hold on this.

Now, we know Hatch is no great friend to gun owners, so its clear that he's using this to punish Kennedy over the judge filibusters.

That is BAD news, because it shows once again that our repugnicans are willing to use our gun rights as bargaining chips. That does not portend well for the future of the AWBan if the judicial filibusters continue.

Link Posted: 11/19/2003 10:52:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/19/2003 10:55:01 AM EDT by ScaryGuy]
SO, one of the intrepid few in Washington whose head hasn't put down roots in his ass suddenly decides that a ban on something that doesn't exist in the first place is stupid.

Well, bravo. Unfortunately, I'm sure it isn't for the right reasons.

Oh and, Kennedy spreads so much Horseshit he should be on the Senate Fertilizer Committee.

SG
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 1:22:49 PM EDT
Yeah, but it's a great scare tactic to the idiots of the world.

They could tac this on the awb renewel to puch it over the edge.

Just a thought.

TXL
Top Top