Advertisements
Home

How West Virginia Is Leading the Charge Against Obama’s Environmental ‘Power Grab’

1 Comment

This is from The Daily Signal. 

This law is one of many to punish Red States.

CHARLESTON, W.Va.—The Mountain State has its back against the wall, and time is running out. Leading a coalition of more than two dozen coal states, West Virginia is asking the Supreme Court for an emergency stay of President Obama’s new regulations governing the coal industry.

West Virginia and 26 other states argue that the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its authority by circumventing Congress to unilaterally implement the package of rules.

The EPA calls it the Clean Power Plan. The states call the move an unconstitutional “power grab” and complain that it will bankrupt their local coal industries.

But while they’re confident the law is on their side, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey says time is not. That’s why the states have asked the Supreme Court for an emergency stay to temporarily freeze the Clean Power Plan as the case moves through the legal system.

At issue is whether the EPA will be allowed to become “a central energy planning authority,” Morrisey said.

The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals last week agreed to hear the case on an expedited basis but declined to halt the EPA from implementing the new rules. And while oral arguments are set to begin in June, the battle likely will drag on into next year.

That’s the perfect scenario for the EPA to run out the clock, Morrisey says.

“The EPA’s goal is to obtain compliance,” he tells The Daily Signal, “whether or not the regulation is upheld in court.”

In an unusual legal play at this stage of the litigation process, the states asked Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to grant the freeze in the rules. The court has invited the Obama administration to file a rebuttal by Feb. 4 and likely will hand down a decision the following week.

Morrissey says he is cautiously optimistic that the high court will grant a stay.

“The EPA has consistently run roughshod over the rule of law and West Virginia,” Morrisey says.

And he says he is confident a temporary freeze is justified since the Clean Power Plan “is causing irreversible harm.”

States are scrambling to comply with the plan, which is considered a key component of Obama’s broader effort to achieve climate change goals negotiated in Paris last year.

The president calls the Clean Power Plan “a tremendously important step in the fight against global climate change.” Vetoing a bill from Congress that would have derailed the plan last month, Obama wrote that the measure “gives states the time and flexibility they need to develop tailored, cost-effective plans to reduce their emissions.”

The regulations require states to cut carbon emissions by 32 percent before 2030  and give them until Sept. 6 to submit implementation plans to do it.

Opponents in West Virginia fear that costly regulation will price coal out of the energy market. They point to a recent study by the West Virginia College’s Bureau of Business and Economics that forecasts an 18-percent reduction in the state’s coal production by 2035.

Brian Lego, an assistant research professor at the college, tells The Daily Signal that the production decrease could be as much as 25 percent in the long run. And as businesses brace for the new regulation, Lego predicts that West Virginia will witness more layoffs of coal miners and more shutdowns of mines.

So far this year, the state has seen an avalanche of layoffs. The West Virginia Coal Association estimates that as many as 2,000 miners were put out of work in January.

The CEO of one of the nation’s largest coal producers, Murray Energy, tells The Daily Signal that’s part of a growing trend.

Bob Murray says his company “peaked at 8,400 direct employees on May 1, 2015.” Now his company’s payroll has dwindled to about 6,000.

Murray, whose company is one of the litigants requesting that the Supreme Court put a hold on the Clean Power Plan, says that under the new regulations, “people on fixed income aren’t going to be able to pay their electric bills.”

And domestic manufacturers, he says, “won’t be able to compete in the global market because electric rates are soaring.”

In addition to this “economic and personal carnage,” Morrisey told the West Virginia Coal Symposium last week that the Clean Power Plan does “violence to the rule of law.” He also argues that “these rules will transform the EPA from environmental regulators into a central energy planning authority.”

West Virginia’s first Republican attorney general in 73 years, Morrisey has brought the state to the forefront of several legal cases against the Obama administration. But he tells The Daily Signal the current challenge could prove the most significant.

The EPA is trying to “pick winners and losers within the energy marketplace,” he says, warning that if this “unprecedented” action isn’t curbed, the agency’s authority “moves to levels we can’t possibly comprehend.”

Advertisements

From Sea to Shining Sea: 5 Examples of Voter Fraud across America

Leave a comment

This is from the Daily Signal.

We all remember the words of Eric The Lawless Holder when he said voter fraud does not exist. 

Contrary to the assertions of many, voter fraud is not a myth.

 

It is a stark reality that exists nationwide, from the rural counties of Georgia to the urban centers of New York.

The Heritage Foundation has documented nearly 250 caseswhere nefarious citizens, officials, candidates and campaign operatives conspired to commit vote fraud, compromising the integrity of our elections to achieve their ideological goals.

Here are some of the egregious new additions to the voter fraud database:

1. Kentucky

In eastern Kentucky, Ross Harris and Loren Glenn Turnerfunneled $41,000 to the 2002 county judgeship campaign of Doug Hays for what the defendants claimed was a lawful operation to pay more than 1,200 people $50 each to drive voters to the polls.

But a jury determined that this alleged vote-hauling program was just a disguise for what was in reality a vote-buying scheme. The punishment reflected the severity of the fraud:Hays was sentenced to six months behind bars, and Harris was hit with a $100,000 fine.

2. Mississippi

Not to be outdone, William Greg Eason of Tallahatchie County, Mississippi bribed voters with beer and money to cast fraudulent absentee ballots for a district supervisor candidate in a 2003 run-off election. A jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to two years in prison, a punishment that also clearly reflected the severity of the offense.

3. West Virginia

Voter fraud and its ill effects are not limited to elections for local offices. On the contrary, voter fraud can and often does occur in connection with elections to the nation’s highest offices. In Lincoln County, West Virginia, Circuit Clerk Greg Stowers and five other Democrats were charged in 2005 with participating in a conspiracy to buy votes in congressional and presidential elections dating back to 1990.

The men paid for votes in liquor and cash (typically $20 per vote), handed out slates listing preferred candidates, and performed favors for supporters. All six eventually pleaded guilty to these charges in 2006, and Stowers was sentenced to six months in federal prison.

4. Georgia

A case out of Georgia shows that voter fraud has the power to steal an election from the rightful victor.

Tommy Raney, a 2007 candidate for a city council seat, and his campaign worker, Debra Brown, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit absentee ballot fraud.

Raney won the election against Larry Pickett by only 27 votes. Raney and Brown were fined $158,000 and $20,000, respectively. Despite the fraud, the election results were never officially overturned, and Raney did not resign his city council seat until nearly two years later, in September of 2009.

5. Iowa

Martia Yvonne Phillips and eight others in Iowa  pleaded  guilty to voting in the 2008 election despite being convicted felons who had not had their voting rights restored. Phillips voted while still on probation for a 2006 felony drug conviction. She was subsequently sentenced to five years in prison, a sentence that was suspended to two years’ probation.

Voter fraud clearly exists in many forms and in many places despite earnest efforts by some authorities to crack down hard on offenders. Moreover, voter fraud is easy to commit and tough to investigate after the fact, particularly when inadequate safeguards exist to detect the crime in the first place.

That is why it is important for state legislatures to enact commonsense legislation designed to combat voter fraud before it can distort an electoral result. Voter ID laws—which many liberals love to criticize, but which a majority of Americans across ideological lines support—are an answer to many types of voter fraud, including fraudulent use of absentee ballots.

But other measures are also needed, such as requiring proof of citizenship to register and verification of the accuracy of voter registration information.

Critics often argue that laws intended to uphold the integrity of elections are ineffective and unnecessary.

Voting Fraud Prevented

But take the case of Carol Hannah of Colorado. Hannah was registered to vote in Mohave County, Arizona and Adams County, Colorado and was convicted of voting in both statesduring the 2010 election. Hannah’s double-voting was detected by the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program, a system that examines shared voter data from more than 25 states and checks for identical name and date-of-birth matches to ensure the accuracy of voter rolls and to ensure that individuals like Hannah cannot unlawfully double-dip.

In that case, the program did exactly what it was designed to do. Hannah was sentenced to three years of supervised probation and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine.

Democracy is one of America’s finest traditions; voter fraud is not.

The implications of these cases are clear: election fraud exists, and it is neither isolated nor inconsequential. We can and must take steps to detect and deter this problem.

 

 

Two great road signs

1 Comment

This is from my email box.

Indiana sign

West VA

West Virginia Bill Disarms Federal Gun Control Regulations

1 Comment

This is from The New American.

If your a West Virginia  gun owner you need to support State Delegate Cindy Frich and thank the co sponsors for her bill.

 

West Virginia state lawmakers are doing their part to keep the federal beast inside its constitutional cage. First, state delegate Eric Householder took on ObamaCare, and now Cindy Frich, his colleague in the House of Delegates, is setting her sights on protecting the Second Amendment.

On January 9, Frich and five cosponsors (the same bill was offered last legislative session and had nine cosponsors) introduced HB 2832, the Firearm Protection Act.

If it were enacted, the bill would render unenforceable any “federal law which attempts to ban semiautomatic firearm[s] or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on firearms in this state…”

There are two forces at work in Frich’s effort to thwart the federal government’s constant attempt to unconstitutionally infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

First, there is a well-established principle of federalism called anti-commandeering.

Put simply, anti-commandeering prohibits the federal government from forcing states to participate in any federal program that does not concern “international and interstate matters.”

While this expression of federalism (“dual sovereignty” as it was named by Justice Antonin Scalia) was first set forth in the case ofNew York v. United States (1992), most recently it was reaffirmed by the high court in the case of Mack and Printz v. United States(1997).

Sheriff Richard Mack was one of the named plaintiffs in the latter landmark case, and on the website of his organization the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, he recounts the basic facts of the case:

The Mack/Printz case was the case that set Sheriff Mack on a path of nationwide renown as he and Sheriff Printz sued the Clinton administration over unconstitutional gun control measures, were eventually joined by other sheriffs for a total of seven, went all the way to the supreme court and won.

There is much more “ammo” in this historic and liberty-saving Supreme Court ruling. We have been trying to get state and local officials from all over the country to read and study this most amazing ruling for almost two decades. Please get a copy of it today and pass it around to your legislators, county commissioners, city councils, state reps, even governors!

The Mack/Printz ruling makes it clear that the states do not have to accept orders from the feds!

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia explained:

As Madison expressed it: “The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist No. 39, at 245. [n.11]

This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.”

When the federal government assumes powers not explicitly granted to it in the Constitution, it puts the states on the road toward obliteration and citizens on the road to enslavement.

The next principle on display in Delegate Frich’s bill is known as nullification — Thomas Jefferson’s “rightful remedy.”

Nullification is a concept of constitutional law that recognizes the authority of each state to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution.

Nullification is founded on the assertion that the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the federal government to enact laws that they expect the people to obey.

That is to say, the Constitution is an agency agreement between the states (the principals) and the federal government (the agent).

The law of agency applies when one party gives another party legal authority to act on the first party’s behalf. The first party is called the principal and the second party is called the agent. The principal may grant the agent as much or as little authority as suits his purpose. That is to say, by simply giving an agent certain powers, that agent is not authorized to act outside of that defined sphere of authority.

Upon its ratification, the states, as principals, gave limited power to the federal government to act as their agent in certain matters of common concern: defense, taxation, interstate commerce, etc.

The authority of the agent — in this case the federal government — is derived from the agreement that created the principal/agent relationship. Whether the agent is lawfully acting on behalf of the principal is a question of fact. The agent may legally bind the principal only insofar as its actions lie within the contractual boundaries of its power.

Should the agent exceed the scope of its authority, not only is the principal not held accountable for those acts, but the breaching agent is legally liable to the principal (and any affected third parties who acted in reliance on the agent’s authority) for that breach.

Under the law of agency, finally, the principals (states) may revoke the agent’s (the federal government’s) authority at will. It would be unreasonable to force the principals to honor promises of an agent that has acted outside the limits of its authority as set out in the document that created the agency in the first place — the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson provided perhaps the best defense of nullification in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 where he wrote:

That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour [sic] of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.

Even Alexander Hamilton, not exactly a champion of strong state governments, explained that an act of Congress is a law only when it is enacted lawfully. In Federalist 33 he wrote:

If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed…. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. [Emphasis in original.]

As Cindy Frich, Eric Householder, and the cosponsors of their respective bills apparently understand, state legislators have not only the authority, but the obligation to stand in defense of liberty and prevent the federal government from using them as mere administrative subdivisions, good for nothing more than executing their unconstitutional edicts.

As of Friday, January 18, West Virginia’s Firearm Protection Act was waiting with scores of other recently proposed legislation to be heard by the state’s House Judiciary Committee.

Manchin sees gun control passage still ‘difficult’ in 2014

Leave a comment

This is from The Politico.

The voters of West Viriginia need to fire this ass hat.

But are they too happily sucking on the handout teat of big 

government?

Look  at how long sheets Byrd was a Senator.

To the good people of West Virginia I am sorry if my above

 comment offends you.

I know your blameless you have not been on the big

government handout teat.

 

 

Sen. Joe Manchin says rounding up the votes to pass a bill creating background checks for gun purchases next year is going to be “difficult.”

While saying he’s “hopeful” that some would change their minds, the West Virginia Democrat acknowledged there are Democrats who opposed the bill creating background checks for gun purchases.

“Hopefully, they would maybe reconsider,” Manchin said in an interview aired Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “It’s going to be difficult to get the extra votes that we need. I’m going to be honest with you.”

Manchin, a gun owner who had a top rating from the National Rifle Association, negotiated a background check bill with Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut. But the measure stalled in the Senate in April when it failed to get the needed 60 votes to advance.

Manchin said gun owners didn’t oppose background checks in theory but were concerned that government wouldn’t stop with checks.

“What we found out is that people couldn’t trust government that they would stop there,” he said.

DC Police to Law Abiding, Re-Register Your Guns or Pay Fines, Go to Jail

2 Comments

This is from AmmoLand.

This will be happening across America if Obama gets his way.

This why we must  make the RINO‘s in both houses extinct.

Then replace them with true Conservatives also replace

several DemocRats in both with Conservatives.

You noticed I said Conservatives not just Republicans.

I will not register my guns

I will not register my guns

Washington DC – -(Ammoland.com)-  Beginning January 1 2014, all Washington, D.C. gun owners are being required to re-register any guns that were registered “between 1976 and 2010.”

According to NBC Washington, this re-registration will take place every three years from this point forward.

Every three years, the Washington Metro Police Department (MPD) will send out forms requiring gun owners to verify that they “still live in the District and… still have your firearm.” The penalties for not complying with re-registration range from “a $13 fee to a $1,000 fine and one year in jail.” 

When Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) pushed universal background checks earlier in the year, Breitbart News warned that the federal government would have to create a gun registry to make Manchin’s plan work. The government would have to know where every gun is and who owns it in order to know whether people are submitting to background checks or selling privately.

Similarly, the D.C. universal background check policy has led to a gun registration program for just this purpose. 

Dick Heller–the D.C. resident behind the famous District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) case which struck down the handgun ban in the district–says he will sue over this re-registration requirement as well. He said this requirement punishes law abiding gun owners because “you don’t see criminals registering guns.
Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/12/dc-police-to-law-abiding-register-your-guns-go-to-jail/#ixzz2nybtSKOd
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

WV Leads 27 States,Territories in Supreme Court Brief Supporting Citizens’ Rights to Buy, Sell Guns

Leave a comment

This is from Ammo Land.

If you can legally own a firearm where is the problem?

The problem is Barack Obama and Eric Holder the gun

hating Communist in control of our government.

West Virginia

CHARLESTON, West Virginia –-(Ammoland.com)- West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey today announced that West Virginia and 25 other states and one territory have filed an amicus, or friend of the court, brief with the U.S. Supreme Court opposing a federal government attempt to prosecute legal gun owners who wish to sell a weapon to another person who can legally own and purchase firearms.

“Our Office is proud to lead a bipartisan group of 27 states and territories in this brief to oppose the U.S. Department of Justice’s attempt to unilaterally create a federal restriction on firearm sales between law-abiding citizens,” Attorney General Morrisey said.

“We believe that every legal gun owner in this state and nation should be interested in the outcome of this case.”

The case, Abramski v. United States of America, challenges whether federal law prohibits citizens who legally buy a firearm from a licensed dealer with the intention of then selling that gun to another private citizen who also may legally own and purchase firearms.

The Obama administration argues that the citizen who buys and then sells the gun is acting as a “straw purchaser,” which they claim is illegal under several federal statutes.

The States, however, argue that Congress has never passed a federal law that prohibits such purchases. At most, the laws relied on by the United States prohibit private citizens from selling guns to people who are prohibited from owning firearms, such as minors, convicted felons, or people who have been diagnosed as having mental illnesses. It is up to the States and their citizens to decide whether to implement additional regulations on private gun sales.

West Virginia is joined in this brief by attorneys general representing Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

“This case is important to West Virginia citizens who wish to practice their Second Amendment rights and sell firearms to other legal West Virginia gun owners,” Morrisey said. “The State of West Virginia does not discourage private gun sales, but the Department of Justice wants to ensnare innocent West Virginian gun owners in a web of criminal laws if they try to sell their guns. This federal overreach is a blatant attempt to overstep state regulations and Congress in order to steer more gun sales to federally licensed dealers, who then make federal records of every transaction.”

The states’ amicus brief is in support of a former Roanoke, Va., police officer, Bruce Abramski, who purchased a gun in 2009 using a law enforcement discount and sold it to his elderly uncle, who lived in Pennsylvania. Both Abramski and his uncle could legally own firearms and made the transaction in accordance with Pennsylvania gun laws, including a background check of the purchaser. However, federal authorities prosecuted Abramski on the grounds that he made false statements on the gun purchase form.

In January 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld Abramski’s conviction, saying that such “straw purchases” are illegal under federal law. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to review the conviction.

“Our Office is very concerned about the federal government’s targeting of law-abiding gun buyers,” Morrisey said. “The federal government is attempting to circumvent Congress and set aside state regulations that don’t prevent private gun sales, and instead make sure there is a federal record of every gun bought or sold in the United States. While no one wants guns to end up in the hands of a potential or real criminal, the administration’s interpretation oversteps the law and could make criminals out of innocent citizens.”

Oral arguments are scheduled for Jan. 22, 2014, with a decision to come by the end of the court’s session in June.

To read the amicus brief, go to http://www.wvago.gov/pdf/12-1493tsacWestVirginia%20Abramski%20V%20US.pdf

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/12/supreme-court-brief-supporting-citizens-rights-to-buy-sell-guns/#ixzz2mkoldkD4
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

 

Unions Finally See Obama’s War On Coal Is Costing Jobs

Leave a comment

This is from the Liberty Alliance.

The unions are getting stabbed in the back by Obama.

The unions went to the wall to get Obama elected.

They were expecting Obama to be in their corner while they tried to 

wrap their tentacles of death wrapped around more companies. 

 

Obama’s war on coal represents a huge opportunity for Republicans. A DailyCaller.com story, Unions protest Obama on coal, covers the growing recognition that Obama’s war on coal is costing them jobs.

The Boilermakers Local 154, a union representing workers in Western Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia, took a public stance against the EPA’s attack on the coal industry.

Responding to an editorial in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, in a letter to the editor a leader of the union said: I represent more than 2,000 boilermakers in Western Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. My members learned the hard way that the EPA’s goal isn’t clean air; it’s eliminating coal and our way of life.

Critics of coal malign the thousands of boilermakers, mine workers and hard-working men and women who earn an honest living in our region from coal.

They insult us — calling us polluters and murderers. In its Aug. 6 editorial (“Coal Barons”), the Post-Gazette made outrageous claims about our livelihood, attacking our integrity and ignoring the tremendous environmental gains made by coal. In the last three decades, coal usage has tripled, but pollutants like sulfur dioxide have fallen by 56 percent.

The union thanked Republican Representative Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania for supporting union workers. The DailyCaller.com story also noted disapproval from the United Mine Workers Union about Obama’s climate change policy. Continue Reading at DeneenBorelli.com

Read the rest of this Liberty Alliance article here: http://libertyalliance.com/2013/08/unions-finally-see-obamas-war-on-coal-is-costing-jobs/#SSuhRLQdHhct8q3M.99

 

Nate Silver: GOP Closer to Taking Senate Control in 2014

Leave a comment

This is from NewsMax.

Do not think for one minute the DemocRats are not worried.

Hopefully Nate is correct in his projection.

Republicans might be close to winning control of the Senate after next year’s elections, according to New York Times statistician Nate Silver.

Writing in his “FiveThirtyEight” blog on Monday, Silver said this weekend’s announcement by former Montana Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer that he would not run for the Senate “represents the latest in a series of favorable developments for Republicans as they seek control of the chamber.”

The GOP, which holds 46 seats in the Senate, likely will lose New Jersey’s special election in October to replace the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, according to Silver. The loss will leave Republicans with 45 seats, meaning they will need six more to control 51 seats and overcome Vice President Joe Biden‘s tiebreaking vote.

But, Silver stressed, Montana — along with West Virginia and South Dakota, two other red states where an incumbent Democrat has retired and the party has not identified a strong candidate to replace them — “gives Republicans a running start.”

“Republicans could then win three more seats from among red states like Louisiana and Arkansas, where vulnerable Democratic incumbents are on the ballot, or they could take aim at two purple states, Iowa and Michigan, where Democrats have retired,” Silver said.

He said more opportunities could arise if the political environment becomes more favorable to Republicans, perhaps “because of a further slide in Mr. Obama’s approval ratings.”

Meanwhile, he noted, “Republicans have few seats of their own to defend,” even though seats in Kentucky and Georgia might be vulnerable.

“Unlike in 2012, they can focus almost entirely on playing offense,” he said.
Silver concluded that the “best guess, after assigning probabilities of the likelihood of a GOP pickup in each state, is that Republicans will end up with somewhere between 50 and 51 Senate seats after 2014, putting them right on the threshold of a majority.”

The Times political analyst noted that in February he said Republicans would win 49 or 50 Senate seats next year.

“Their standing has improved by about one seat since then,” he said.

Still, Silver wrote, “The fact that the battle for Senate control appears to be very close right now does not guarantee that it will end up that way. It is therefore important to watch macro-level indicators — especially Mr. Obama’s approval ratings, the generic congressional ballot and major economic measures — in addition to following the recruitment and polling in individual states.”

In 2008, Silver correctly predicted the winner of all 35 U.S. Senate races. In the 2012 presidential election, he correctly predicted the winner of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

In last year’s Senate races, his predictions were correct in 31 of 33 states. He was wrong in North Dakota and Montana, where he had predicted Republicans would win.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/silver-Republicans-Senate-control/2013/07/16/id/515282?promo_code=1289E-1&utm_source=1289EThe_black_sphere&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1#ixzz2ZGCtXoK5
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Senators work on possible breakthrough on gun background checks

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

We need to stay alert to this secession.

It sounds like Senator  Pat Toomey(R-Pa.) is caving in

and selling out gun-owners.

 

Two prominent senators are working toward forging a compromise proposal on expanded background checks, aiming for a breakthrough on the biggest impasse in controversial gun control legislation.

Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey and West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, an influential moderate, are said to be working on a deal that would allow the checks to apply to purchases at gun shows and Internet sales — but, importantly, exempt some sales between hunters or close relatives.

It’s unclear whether such a proposal would be embraced by pro-gun rights conservatives and the National Rifle Association, which so far has opposed the kind of comprehensive firearms legislation pushed by President Obama and his allies in Congress. But the issue of family members and others being subjected to an expanded background check system for sales between them has become an obstacle.

The NRA and other gun-rights advocates, while arguing the checks would eventually lead to a federal gun registry, also said they would be too cumbersome for the two groups – citing faraway trips to government offices and mandatory record keeping. They also say criminals would find ways to avoid the checks.

The current system covers only sales handled by federally licensed gun dealers, with gun-control advocates saying the country needs to do more to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

They also say the checks and records – now retained by gun dealers, not the government — are the best ways to ensure those would-be gun buyers’ histories are researched.

A Toomey-Manchin deal on checks could revive legislation, a key part of President Obama’s second-term agenda, to curb gun violence. The president has embarked on a fresh round of public appearances in a bid to sway Congress to approve legislation, as it appeared support for the bill was waning.

Obama on Monday will resume that effort, visiting the University of Hartford, in Connecticut, where he is expected to talk about the victims of the mass shooting inside an elementary school in the nearby town of Newtown in December.

“On the eve of Senate consideration of gun safety proposals the president will speak, as he did at the State of the Union, of the obligations we have to children lost in Newtown and other victims of gun violence to act on these proposals,” a White House official told Fox News on Sunday night.

An administration official said 11 family members of Sandy Hook victims will ride back to Washington with Obama on Air Force One. They had planned to lobby lawmakers on Tuesday in support of gun control.

One problem with a Toomey-Manchin deal is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants to begin debate on the issue Tuesday, now that Congress has returned from a two-week spring break.

A bipartisan group of eight senators has been working on legislation since the new Congress started in January, just weeks after the school massacre.

Reid already has removed from the Senate plan proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity gun magazines, after realizing he would not have enough votes. Those items could still be voted on as amendments to the main package, but their initial inclusion prompted a backlash from lawmakers that continues to hurt the bill’s chances.

A Toomey-Manchin agreement remains a work in progress and could change, said Senate aides who spoke on condition of anonymity. But a deal would help gun-control advocates win crucial support from wavering moderate Democrats and from Republican senators, who have largely opposed much of Obama’s push on guns.

Manchin is a moderate and Toomey is a conservative, and both senators have received A ratings from the NRA.

“The background checks in particular are something we need to push ourselves to reach agreement on,” senior West Virginia Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller said Monday. “We know beyond any doubt that right now in America there are too many ways for criminals and the mentally ill to buy guns, especially at gun shows — and we know how to fix it.”

Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said Monday that a compromise on gun legislation was “feasible and possible and is also necessary and desirable.”

“Senator Toomey’s involvement along with Senator Manchin, two very credible and experienced senators, is very important to achieving that kind of common ground,” Blumenthal told CNN.

Without support from some Republicans, a significant expansion of background checks won’t be possible because there are only 53 Democrats in the Senate plus two Democratic-leaning independents. Conservative Republican senators have promised to use delaying tactics against gun legislation, which would take 60 votes to end.

Federal background checks are currently required only for transactions handled by the roughly 55,000 federally licensed firearms dealers; private sales such as gun-show or online purchases are exempt.

Manchin is part of the so-called “Gang of Eight” that has been trying to craft a background check compromise. The group included New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer who has focused his efforts on conservative Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

However, those talks sputtered over Schumer’s insistence on — and Coburn’s opposition to — requiring that records be kept of private gun sales.

“I’m still hopeful that what I call the sweet spot — background checks — can succeed,” Schumer said Sunday. “We’re working hard there.”

Asked about the potential compromise, Manchin spokesman Jonathan Kott said, “My boss continues to talk to all of his colleagues.” Toomey spokeswoman E.R. Anderson said she could provide no information.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/08/congress-returns-to-gun-debate-with-possible-breakthrough-on-background-checks/#ixzz2PuTUZRlA

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: