No AWB in Senate Gun Bill

Does anyone have an answer as to were Montana's two democrat senators stand on the issue? I'm getting a run around.

Baucus is a no vote on any AWB. So is Tester. They may be in favor of something less...egregious. I can reach out for the official statements if anyone wants.
 
Tell Obama, that he can't sign an EO banning any type of gun. At least three of his EOs that he recently signed were unconstitutional, so who actually believes he won't attempt another end run around the Constitution? He can not be trusted, as has already been proven with his lies and deceptive policies. I believe he is not above attempting more of his standard criminal actions.
 
Baucus is a no vote on any AWB. So is Tester. They may be in favor of something less...egregious. I can reach out for the official statements if anyone wants.

Ben, I still haven't got a reply out of either of them on the issue after e mailing them. Not sure why? Will you see if there is an official statement on it? I want to be proactive in encouraging them that a no vote is the right thing to do.
 
Tell Obama, that he can't sign an EO banning any type of gun. At least three of his EOs that he recently signed were unconstitutional, so who actually believes he won't attempt another end run around the Constitution? He can not be trusted, as has already been proven with his lies and deceptive policies. I believe he is not above attempting more of his standard criminal actions.

Which of these orders are you talking about?
 
Of the 23 he signed, at least three were unconstitutional. Among them was the appointment without Senate approval of (if I remember correctly) the new head of the BATFE. The assignment of certain powers to the CDC, without Senate approval of a change in their mandate. And the third one was one I can't remember; but I listed it in a previous post at the time of the press conference where he signed them.

There have also been his signing of EOs when Congress wasn't in session, in a direct end run around the legislative process, which are also unconstitutional.
 
Of the 23 he signed, at least three were unconstitutional. Among them was the appointment without Senate approval of (if I remember correctly) the new head of the BATFE. The assignment of certain powers to the CDC, without Senate approval of a change in their mandate. And the third one was one I can't remember; but I listed it in a previous post at the time of the press conference where he signed them.

There have also been his signing of EOs when Congress wasn't in session, in a direct end run around the legislative process, which are also unconstitutional.

I remember there being a lot of misinformation about those so called executive orders being floated around so I looked into this. Obama has not made the appointment, but he has nominated one.

You may recall Lapierre called BATF a bunch of "Jack-Booted Thugs" prompting Bush I to cancel his membership. Part of NRA's attack on BATF was to get the requirement of Senate approval since 2006. The Senate can filibuster appointments so as a consequence the agency hasn't had a true director since then since. (It has acting directors which are different). You can bet anyone who confirmed an ATF director would be vilified by the NRA for empowering these "J-B Thugs" we call the BATF.

The BATF website does not show that a director has been appointed. In fact, this article indicates that the Senate intends to again block his current nominee.


The CDC thing seems to be a lifting of a 17-year ban on the research on the public health effects of gun violence. I'm not sure what exactly BHO did since Congress still needs to approve the money to conduct this research so it seems to be a meaningless gesture.
 
A little more info... there were calls (e.g. by Bloomberg) for Obama to make a recess appointment for dir. of BATF. Recess appointments bypass the need for Senate approval (Obama has used 32 of them, Bush used 171, Clinton used 139). Since the BATF is currently w/o a director, BHO obviously chose not to take this path. The appointment would only last until the end of the next Senate session.
 
Last edited:
Sweetnectar - here is the reply I got from Baucus in response to an email I sent him back in late January. I am sure it is a generic reply written by a staffer and although it sounds promising it doesn't really say how he would vote. I am sure that both of our senators know that if they want to get reelected, they can't sign any gun ban legislation.


Dear Travis:

Thank you for expressing your views with me regarding gun control. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

Like every other parent in America, my heart is broken by the tragic shooting in Connecticut. Mel and I continue to pray for the victims and their families. This and other recent tragedies have raised serious questions about the culture of violence in our society - questions that deserve careful reflection on everything from access to mental health care to the video games our children play.

Many folks have been contacting me with their concerns about various pieces of legislation that would hamper an individual's right to keep and bear arms. I support the constitutional rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners, and enforcing the laws on the books to protect people from violence. As I reflect, I am listening carefully to my bosses in Montana, and it is clear that any national discussion on gun control must also take into account the values Montanans expect me to protect.

In the past, I have supported commonsense efforts to curb violence when those efforts have not infringed upon the rights of the American people to keep and bear arms. Some of the proposals that I've supported include putting more police on the streets through the "COPS" program, and increasing funding for after-school programs and youth counseling. We must be careful that efforts to prevent crime do not infringe upon the constitutional rights of sportsmen and women, and other law-abiding gun owners to purchase and use firearms.

Thanks again for getting in touch. I also encourage you to visit my website at http://www.baucus.senate.gov for current information on what I'm doing both here in Washington and at home to help Montana. Please contact me with any additional comments or concerns.

Sincerely,
Max Baucus
 
Here is the response from Tester:

Dear Travis,



Thank you for contacting me about gun violence and gun control proposals.

Mass shootings are tragically becoming too common and as a U.S. Senator, it is my responsibility to address the growing issue of violence in America's schools and public places. In the coming weeks, I hope that our country will consider how we can help keep people - especially innocent children - safe while protecting our constitutional rights.

Moving forward, we must find careful, balanced solutions that do both. I have a long history of protecting the Second Amendment, and I will keep that value in mind as we consider these important issues. With input from Montanans, I look forward to rising to this important challenge. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if I can be of further assistance.


Sincerely,

Jon Tester
United States Senator
 
Ben, I still haven't got a reply out of either of them on the issue after e mailing them. Not sure why? Will you see if there is an official statement on it? I want to be proactive in encouraging them that a no vote is the right thing to do.

Working on it now.

Have calls in to folks back east.
 
Didn't you see their bold stances already articulated above? :D

As I read those e-mail replies to constituents I see excellent examples of fence straddling and saying nothing with lots of words. Double speak is alive and well.

My favorite fence straddling comment by any elected official, (former Senator, S.I. Hiyakawa), when asked about what the US should do with the Panama Canal when the treaty was up for renewal said, "We stole it fair and square, we should keep it". People for keeping the Canal as a US zone were happy, and people who thought we shouldn't keep it were placated with the comment about us "stealing" the zone in the first place.
 
You'r on.

Shumer's background check bill is too far over the line, IMO. No need to have background checks if I want to give a family member a heirloom firearm.
 
Still no response personally to me....must be short on staffers. Thanks for posting up what you did have, theat.
 
Rob, I remember now. The other one was his order for a direct violation of his own Affordable Health Care Act, that would authorize medical personnel to question people about gun ownership. This was directly addressed and prohibited in the Health Care Act, but overturned by the EO.
 
Rob, I remember now. The other one was his order for a direct violation of his own Affordable Health Care Act, that would authorize medical personnel to question people about gun ownership. This was directly addressed and prohibited in the Health Care Act, but overturned by the EO.

I actually looked into this a long time ago and, I'm sorry, but you got that wrong too. Obamacare originally allowed the doctors to ask about guns, but not report or record. I don't know why they would ask, but they always could.

Here is an old article (i.e. before CT shooting) critical of the law that even says doctors are still able to ask: http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolyn...er-rights-and-obamacare-yes-it-is-in-the-law/

In fact, according to the article prohibiting doctors from asking about gun ownership was found to be unconstitutional.
 
RobG---That article in your forbes link is about as slanted and biased as anything I've ever seen out there in print!!!
 

Forum statistics

Threads
110,805
Messages
1,935,072
Members
34,883
Latest member
clamwc
Back
Top