Someone please explain gun-control politics to me

[seamusTX]

U.S. House of Representatives, 112th Congress: 242 Republicans, 193 Democrats, Speaker John Boehner, Republican

U.S. Senate, 112th Congress: 47 Republicans, 51 Democrats, 2 other party affiliations voting with Democrats, President of the Senate, Vice President Joseph Biden, Democrat, voting only in case of a tie.

Now, my understanding of the way the House works is that the speaker controls the progress of all bills from committee to the floor and whether or not the bill comes up for a house vote.

Any representative can introduce a bill or offer amendments to an existing bill, but these actions can be sidelined at the will of the speaker.

Although the Democrats have a functioning majority in the Senate, they cannot override a filibuster.

Texas House, 82nd Legislature: 101 Republicans, 49 Democrats, Speaker Joe Strauss, Republican

Texas Senate, 82nd Legislature: 19 Republicans, 12 Democrats, Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, Republican

Again, the speaker of the Texas house can play the house like a concertina if he wants to. All the committee chairmen are Republicans and can quietly kill any legislation they don't like. The Texas House Democrats could all stay home without affecting legislation.

The Lieutenant Governor controls the progress of legislation in the Senate.

Where is new gun-control legislation supposed to come from? I just don't see it.

I have enough real concerns without losing sleep over bogeymen.

-Jim

[RoyGBiv]

All of these people are elected... If their constituents are demanding that their elected representatives "do something" about guns... Anything is possible...

I'd be surprised NOT to see some new legislation on magazine capacity, in the name of "doing something".

[seamusTX]

Who is demanding legislative action, other than the Brady Bunch and some other talking heads on TV?

I would very much like to see action in the other direction, such as repealing the federal law against carrying weapons on federally controlled property such as USACE waters.

Or (need I mention it?) campus carry and employee parking lots.

- Jim

[Oldgringo]

Who is demanding legislative action, other than the Brady Bunch and some other talking heads on TV?

I would very much like to see action in the other direction, such as repealing the federal law against carrying weapons on federally controlled property such as USACE waters.

Or (need I mention it?) campus carry and employee parking lots.

- Jim

The first priority of our elected representatives (state and federal) is to get re-elected. That help any?

[speedsix]

...knowing the mechanics used to be easy...but they've developed more sneaky tricks than used-car salesmen...how do we even know our Representatives will vote like they campaigned? we don't...we do have plenty to worry about...

[GrayGhost]

No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.

[tacticool]

U.S. House of Representatives, 112th Congress: 242 Republicans, 193 Democrats, Speaker John Boehner, Republican

U.S. Senate, 112th Congress: 47 Republicans, 51 Democrats, 2 other party affiliations voting with Democrats, President of the Senate, Vice President Joseph Biden, Democrat, voting only in case of a tie.

George Bush was a Republican President. His administration created a temporary import ban on ugly guns (so called assault weapons) and in May 1989, he made the import ban permanent. It's still in effect. President Bush also proposed a ban on 15+ round magazines.

[seamusTX]

George [H.W.] Bush was a Republican President. His administration created a temporary import ban on ugly guns (so called assault weapons) and in May 1989, he made the import ban permanent. It's still in effect.

That import ban was arguably a favor to domestic manufacturers. I dislike it on principle, but politics produces some ugly compromises.

I'm pretty sure you can buy anything manufactured domestically that that executive order prohibits importing (folding stocks, flash hiders, etc.).

I know that an (R) is no guarantee of rock-solid pro-RKBA positions.

As Governor, Ronald Reagan signed the bill that banned carrying loaded weapons in California, and later signed a federal bill that banned civilian non-LEO purchase of newly manufactured machine guns (FOPA 86—though that bill was overall a big improvement over the former set of laws for RKBA supporters).

George W. Bush said he would sign the "assault weapons ban" renewal if it got to his desk.

However, the current core Republican leadership seems pretty reliable on the RKBA; and there really isn't a lot of public anti-RKBA sentiment beyond some talking heads, political dinosaurs, and the Bradys.

- Jim

[tacticool]

I agree we shouldn't go chasing bogeymen. But we also shouldn't become complacent about the potential risks to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, and the current infringements thereof.

I would have more faith in the national Republicans if they passed a bill in the House (where they have the majority) to include CHL in LEOSA or roll back federal laws that infringe RKBA. Even if it fails in the Senate, it would be a signal of where the national Republican party stands on the issue of fundamental human rights.

I would have more faith in the Texas Republicans if they quickly pass the current pro-CHL bills and then introduce more sweeping rollbacks of Texas laws that infringe RKBA. With the overwhelming majorities they have in the Texas legislature, they can't blame the Democrats this time around.

They have the ball. It's up to them to run with it.

[seamusTX]

Eternal vigilance and all that, but the political environment in Texas is as good as it ever will be, IMHO. We also (as usual) have other states that have gone further in restoring the RKBA without the proverbial rivers of blood.

The federal situation pretty much assures that no manifestly anti-RKBA legislation will pass. I understand that a congressman can slip a nasty amendment into a bill with an innocuous title in the middle of the night.

I don't like the latter, but there is that pesky Constitution thing that is notoriously difficult to amend.

I don't want to argue about federally mandated CHL reciprocity, but I think it's (a) unlikely to happen and (b) not a good idea.

- Jim