Maybe Ryan Should Try Turning Off The Air-Conditioning...

[Lord Jim]

In DC in late June, that would probably end this pretty quick:

House sit-in over gun legislation enters sixth hour

WASHINGTON — Democratic lawmakers ground the U.S. House to a halt Wednesday, staging a sit-in to demand a vote on gun control legislation.

Scores of House lawmakers took to the House floor Wednesday morning and have refused to let Republicans take back control. They have taken turns talking about gun violence, said they wouldn't leave until House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., allowed a vote on measures to curb it, and chanted over and over "No bill, no break!" The House is scheduled to adjourn on Friday and be out of session until July 5.

"Where is our courage?" said Democratic Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, who organized the impromptu sit-in. "Those who pursue common-sense improvement are beaten down. Reason is is put aside ... What is the tipping point? Are we blind. Can we see? ... Give us a vote! we came here to do our job!"

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, repeatedly banged his gavel to call the House into order at noon, but the Democrats refused to quiet, and so he gaveled the House into recess.

House Minority Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., suggested that could be a marathon recess.

"Our people deserve to know where their representatives stand on this issue, just as they now do with their senators," he said. "Led by civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis, we will be sitting-in until the House is allowed an opportunity to vote. This is an issue that ought to transcend party — it's about saving lives and keeping our communities safe."

Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong said, "The House cannot operate without members following the rules of the institution, so the House has recessed subject to the call of the chair." As for whether he would allow a vote, she pointed to remarks he made earlier Wednesday when he said the House was waiting to see what the Senate does on the issue. Senators on Monday voted down four partisan gun measures and were working on a compromise Wednesday.

Other House Republicans were less restrained in their response. They have opposed legislation toughening gun laws in recent years because they say the measures would have infringed on Americans' rights to bear arms and to due process.

"Calling this a sit-in is a disgrace to Woolworth's. They sat-in for rights," Rep. Mark Walker tweeted in a reference to black civil rights activists who refused to leave the store's lunch counter when they had been refused service in 1960. "Dems are 'sitting-in' to strip them away."

Most of the House demonstration, unlike last week's filibuster in the Senate that led to the votes Monday, was not broadcast on C-SPAN. The network carries feeds from cameras belonging to the House, which controls what is broadcast.

Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., accused Republican leadership of not allowing the broadcast, although it is longstanding policy not to show the House floor when the chamber is in recess.

“The fact is they can cut off the mics, they can cut off the cameras, they will not silence our voice,” he said as the sit-in approached four hours.

Many lawmakers took to social media to post photos and video of the protest.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /86241864/

I guess Ryan is trying to resolve this amicably, because he's left the lights on...

While the official cameras and mikes are off, they've rigged something up and it's being covered on CSPAN...

[Bicycle Bill]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.    (emphasis mine ... -"BB"-)

Too bad that line appears only in the Declaration of Independence and not in the Constitution.  Apparently the Founding Fathers must have changed their collective mind between 1776 and 1789 on how important the right to life was vis à vis the right to free speech, a free press, and the ability to bear arms.

-"BB"-

[Scooter]

The gall of Mark Walker, as white bread as they come, presuming to lecture John Lewis, who marched with MLK, on what is and is not a legitimate cause for a sit-in.

[Scooter]

[Guinevere]

Maybe Ryan should grow some stones and allow a vote.

It's not like these two proposals - no fly/no buy or making the background checks applicable to gun shows and Internet sales, are huge leaps in yanking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. And they already failed because of the gutless republicans in the Senate

[Lord Jim]

While I personally support both proposals, (assuming that in the no fly list bill proposal there is a reasonable, expeditious procedure in place for people to appeal having been put on the list erroneously) but it's not at all clear to me how caving-in to a political stunt from the opposition party would constitute "growing stones"...

Ryan absolutely positively can not give into this kind of performance art. If he did, there would be no end to it...

[Big RR]

Well Jim, sometimes to break the deadlock some sort of "performance art" is necessary, be it a continuous filibuster without break (as in the past) or a sit-in. and I say this as someone who is not opposed to the background checking portion of the bill but who has serious concerns about the No fly/No buy provisions precisely because I have seen nothing that shows that it does have a reasonable/expeditious appeal process. Giving the executive branch the power to unilaterally create a list of people who can then be denied a fundamental Constitutional right (and like it or not, that is how the courts have viewed the 2nd amendment) sets a very dangerous precedent. Perhaps next we can harken back to the days of the Alien and Sedition acts when the executive unilaterally could close newspapers because they were deemed to be a danger (or maybe expand the power of the executive to jail people, even US citizens, without charge because it unilaterally deemed them a danger). IMHO, rights, and the free exercise thereof, should not be subject to the whim of the executive.

[Guinevere]

And there you go. No reason we cannot make progress on anything in this country. God forbid we come to any reasonable compromise to vote ------ just VOTE --- we aren't even talking about agreement on the subject matter ----on important legislation.

The Senate should go back and filibuster on a vote on Merrick Garland, too.

[Burning Petard]

I think it is past time for a good, transparent look at the 'no fly list'. Who gets on it, and does its impact any other activity?

I have heard the list is very fuzzy. It is a bare bones 'list' with little information as to how to verify that the individual trying to get on board is the actual individual on the list. This has been justified by the absence of any legal right to ride on a commercial air plane. Everyone has a legal right to travel, but no legal right to any and all modes of travel. The proposed use of the no fly list to limit gun purchases, as I have heard the recent news, does include a process for challenging and verifiying the denial of gun purchase.

As far as I know, there is no current way for an individual on that list to find out why they are on the list or how they can get off.

(((((snailgate)))))

[rubato]

And there you go. No reason we cannot make progress on anything in this country. God forbid we come to any reasonable compromise to vote ------ just VOTE --- we aren't even talking about agreement on the subject matter ----on important legislation.

The Senate should go back and filibuster on a vote on Merrick Garland, too.

Why are the GOP such cowards about putting it to the test and voting? Are they ashamed of their votes?


yrs,
rubato

[Sue U]

[Jarlaxle]

Turn off the power, lock the rest rooms, set the HVAC to recirculate and crank the heaters.

[Scooter]

And the thousands of other people who work in the building are supposed to do what, exactly?

[rubato]

Acceptable collateral damage.


yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

[Jarlaxle]

And the thousands of other people who work in the building are supposed to do what, exactly?

Call in sick.

[Scooter]

[oldr_n_wsr]

"Those who pursue common-sense improvement are beaten down.

I have yet to hear of common sense in the house. The term "common sense" is thrown around so much that while it is common to use there is usually very little "sense" about it.

In 2013 there were 47,000 people on the no fly list and it had been increasing every prior year so I have no doubt there are more on it now.
Ted Kennedy was on it.
If you are restricted from purchasing services (flying) or items (guns) shouldn't you be able to find out why and confront your accusers? Innocent until proven guilty and all that. Here they are giving you a judgement (guilty of "something") and sentence (no flying or guns for you) without your day in court or even knowing you have been judged.
And as for the "gun show loophole"
from here:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/24/14- ... bout-guns/

The controversy around the so-called “gun show loophole” is a perfect example of basic ignorance about the nation’s gun laws and their effects.


@scott_stephen 90% of Americans favor ending the gun show loophole but NRA owns enough Dems and GOPs to block even having a vote.

John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) December 27, 2014

There is no gun show loophole, period. The vast majority of gun show sales are conducted by federal firearms licensees, or FFLs, and FFL sales are strictly regulated by the federal government. Every FFL sale must be accompanied by a background check. No ifs, ands, or buts. Every sale of a firearm across state lines — for example, a resident of State A buying a gun in State B — must be processed by an FFL in the purchaser’s state. And what did we just learn about FFL sales? You can’t buy a gun from an FFL without undergoing a background check.


At the federal level (this is a key distinction), the only type of purchase that doesn’t require a background check is a private transaction between two individuals who reside in the same state. Gun shows have absolutely nothing to do with it. And if you think a federal universal background check is going to keep criminals from buying guns from each other, then I’d like to know why it hasn’t prevented them from buying drugs from each other.

And it says this about background checks:

14) “Universal Background Checks” Are Already The Law In Many States

What gun controllers won’t tell you is that “universal background checks” are the norm in a large number of states, notwithstanding the lack of a federal law requiring universal background checks. The gun controllers know this, but they’d rather force a one-size-fits-all federal policy one time than take the time and effort required to convince each state that it’s a good policy for that state.

Take Illinois, for example. Illinois requires universal background checks on all firearms purchases. Until recently, the city of Chicago virtually banned gun possession. Did those laws do anything to curb violent crime in the state? Of course not. Other states that require universal background checks on all firearms purchases include California and New York. How’s violent crime in those states, other than really high?

Some states require universal background checks only on handguns. North Carolina is one of those states. It requires either a concealed carry permit or a government-issued purchase permit, both of which require background checks, before an individual can purchase a handgun. In this case, two background checks are completed if you purchase a handgun from an FFL in North Carolina: once by the county that issues your purchase permit, and once by the FFL that sells you your handgun. Why do I single out North Carolina? Because it was in North Carolina that a crazed leftist armed with a handgun allegedly murdered three young Muslims over what appears to be a parking dispute. He passed his background check with flying colors.