Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Senate debating modifications to Filibuster rules today- a bad thing for gun rights?

  1. #1
    Member chriso's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Los Anchorage
    Posts
    810

    Default Senate debating modifications to Filibuster rules today- a bad thing for gun rights?

    Most of the organizations fighting to protect gun owners rights think this is a really bad deal. The current filibuster rules have been used or had their use threatened such that anti gun rights bills were not brought to the floor countless times in our lifetimes.

    Senator Begich fully supports these rules changes and thinks he can still successfully defend Alaskan gun owners rights with these changes in place.

    Senator Murkowski seems on the fence.

    The changes were put forth for consderation by Senator Harry Reid if that has any bearing on judging weather they are good or bad for gun owners.

    If you have any strong feelings about this issue, there is limited time to make your voice heard. Senator Begich's DC office number is: (202) 224-3004 Senator Murkowski's is: (202) 224-6665

    If the mods want to move this into the 2A subcatagory thats ok by me, I just thought with the timing and all it should show up as a specific topic for today anyway.

    Thanks

  2. #2
    Member big_dog60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    between wasilla and palmer
    Posts
    1,061

    Default

    What are these proposed changes? I haven't seen any thing?

  3. #3
    Member chriso's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Los Anchorage
    Posts
    810

    Default

    Senate Resolution 10... I'm not clear on all the details of the changes proposed, the staff at Sen Begich's office claim its merely a requirement that in order to insitiate a filibuster a senator must actually stand on the senate floor and verbalize their rationale for conducting a filibuster, I guess rather than threaten it and cause the majority to rethink the bill in the first place? I know filibuster, or the threat of it, has historically caused a lot of problems in getting legislation passed, but I believe it has been crucial to keeping some really bad legislation from passing so certainly want there to be some serious consideration given to making any changes which might take away the power of the filibuster... being a gun owner, and an alaskan, I know wat its like to be the "minority" and want my representatives to have a powerful a presence as possible down there in DC.

    This is what Senator Begich sent me back about the changes 5 days ago:

    Thank you for contacting me regarding rules reform and use of the filibuster in the Senate.



    Unfortunately, the misuse of these tactics has led to unprecedented obstructionism in recent years, which has prevented the Senate from doing the business required to move our country forward. Too often, the Senate has been unable to even begin debate or discussion on important legislation or nominations because of constant filibusters and secret holds. Because of these tactics, I am very supportive of changing the rules of the U.S. Senate.



    According to the U.S. Constitution: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings," and I have studied many proposals for updating the rules to encourage more debate and allow the Senate to work more efficiently on behalf of the American people.



    I support Senator Tom Udall's plan to reform Senate rules, which is comprised of five parts:



    o Allowing a clear path to debate by eliminating filibusters on Motions to Proceed;

    o Eliminating secret holds where Senators can anonymously hold up nominations and legislation;

    o Guaranteeing the consideration of amendments offered by both the majority and minority parties;

    o Requiring "talking filibusters" in which Senators opposed to proceeding to final passage must continue debate, rather than just stopping Senate action by announcing their opposition; and

    o Expediting presidential nominations by limiting debate time to two hours rather than thirty after cloture.



    I will encourage the Senate to adopt these changes when the members return from the state work period in the coming weeks. Thanks, again, for your comments on this subject.





    Sincerely,
    Mark Begich
    U.S. Senator

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In an easy chair in Cyberspace
    Posts
    2,316

    Default

    Boy Begich is a suckhole for the national democratic party. I cant wait till he runs for reelection, hopefully Miller wont be the opposing candidate LOL

  5. #5

    Default

    "which has prevented the Senate from doing the business required to move our country forward."

    I guess this is the key. What legislation does he consider would have "moved our country forward". As in fundamental transformation, progressive agenda? Gridlock can be a good thing.
    "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."

  6. #6
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,175

    Default

    Wonder how Baby face Begich would feel if the Repubs controlled the Senate? Betcha' he'd be against it. This is bad for business. After the last two years its definitely not time to give an inch.

    Tim

  7. #7
    Member BrettAKSCI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wildalaska View Post
    Boy Begich is a suckhole for the national democratic party. I cant wait till he runs for reelection
    I'll second that! One term what?

    Brett

  8. #8
    Member chriso's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Los Anchorage
    Posts
    810

    Default

    I just got this note from the CCKRB:

    Last night the U.S. Senate leaders agreed to adjourn the first legislative day of the 112th Congress, without a vote to change the rules to silence outspoken pro-gun advocates

    Looks like we get a breather anyway, no thanks to Mark. I wonder how Lisa participated?


    reckon the AK GOP can come up with a viable candidate they can all agree on for once?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •