SB 107-03: Federal Assault Weapon and Automatic Weapon Ban Full Repeal Act (Passed)

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Aye; this amendment has already passed. Wouldn't another amendment removing this one be a form of fillibustering, in a way? It shouldn't be allowed. We've already passed this amendment and this new one just wastes time.

P1G$ AR$3!
Something gets backdoor-ed into the bill without being transparent about what they were actually including. It's disingenuous at best.

[Saint Milei]

Aye; this amendment has already passed. Wouldn't another amendment removing this one be a form of fillibustering, in a way? It shouldn't be allowed. We've already passed this amendment and this new one just wastes time.

Labor tier logic at it's finest^

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay

[Schiff for Senate]

Aye; this amendment has already passed. Wouldn't another amendment removing this one be a form of fillibustering, in a way? It shouldn't be allowed. We've already passed this amendment and this new one just wastes time.

P1G$ AR$3!
Something gets backdoor-ed into the bill without being transparent about what they were actually including. It's disingenuous at best.

It passed with support from a majority of voting senators. Frankly, deal with it. Introducing an amendment for the sake of removing one you don't like which passed is deplorable regardless of the politics behind it; I'd oppose this so-called amendment even if it was the converse (if say, some bad amendment were to pass, I'd oppose any attempts by fellow gun control supporters made to introduce another 'amendmen't whose sole purpose is removing one that passed). All this is doing is wasting time.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye; this amendment has already passed. Wouldn't another amendment removing this one be a form of fillibustering, in a way? It shouldn't be allowed. We've already passed this amendment and this new one just wastes time.

Depends on the circumstances. There are many cases where an amendment contains a provision that is later discovered to be broken or unworkable and thus has to be further refined or removed and replaced as such.

Even in the absence of such a situation, it basically comes down to the votes. Filibustering is hardly the abused tactic that is in real life, primarily because the rules state that after a week the cloture requirement is only a majority anyway.

[Schiff for Senate]

Aye; this amendment has already passed. Wouldn't another amendment removing this one be a form of fillibustering, in a way? It shouldn't be allowed. We've already passed this amendment and this new one just wastes time.

Depends on the circumstances. There are many cases where an amendment contains a provision that is later discovered to be broken or unworkable and thus has to be further refined or removed and replaced as such.

Even in the absence of such a situation, it basically comes down to the votes. Filibustering is hardly the abused tactic that is in real life, primarily because the rules state that after a week the cloture requirement is only a majority anyway.

That's not the case here. Deadprez realized after the fact that an amendment he didn't like passed, so he creatively came up with an 'amendment' that does nothing but waste time and try to undo something that already passed. And unfortunately, other gun rights supporters such as yourself are encouraging this nonsense fillibustering by voting nay. I would vote aye, honestly, even if I supported guns (I don't, of course).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye; this amendment has already passed. Wouldn't another amendment removing this one be a form of fillibustering, in a way? It shouldn't be allowed. We've already passed this amendment and this new one just wastes time.

P1G$ AR$3!
Something gets backdoor-ed into the bill without being transparent about what they were actually including. It's disingenuous at best.

It passed with support from a majority of voting senators. Frankly, deal with it. Introducing an amendment for the sake of removing one you don't like which passed is deplorable regardless of the politics behind it; I'd oppose this so-called amendment even if it was the converse (if say, some bad amendment were to pass, I'd oppose any attempts by fellow gun control supporters made to introduce another 'amendmen't whose sole purpose is removing one that passed). All this is doing is wasting time.

We generally don't content ourselves with passing final votes based on "majority of those voting". Amendments for instance require "2/3rds of the chamber's entire composition" to vote for one to pass.

If an amendment passes with a sub majority vote because of low turnout, then the final vote has the full chamber's membership voting it could very well tank the bill.

What you are essentially saying is that the minority view of the chamber must dictate the final outcome and that is certainly not the desirable situation and certainly doesn't warrant the moralizing being presented on the matter.

[Schiff for Senate]

Aye; this amendment has already passed. Wouldn't another amendment removing this one be a form of fillibustering, in a way? It shouldn't be allowed. We've already passed this amendment and this new one just wastes time.

P1G$ AR$3!
Something gets backdoor-ed into the bill without being transparent about what they were actually including. It's disingenuous at best.

It passed with support from a majority of voting senators. Frankly, deal with it. Introducing an amendment for the sake of removing one you don't like which passed is deplorable regardless of the politics behind it; I'd oppose this so-called amendment even if it was the converse (if say, some bad amendment were to pass, I'd oppose any attempts by fellow gun control supporters made to introduce another 'amendmen't whose sole purpose is removing one that passed). All this is doing is wasting time.

We generally don't content ourselves with passing final votes based on "majority of those voting". Amendments for instance require "2/3rds of the chamber's entire composition" to vote for one to pass.

If an amendment passes with a sub majority vote because of low turnout, then the final vote has the full chamber's membership voting it could very well tank the bill.

What you are essentially saying is that the minority view of the chamber must dictate the final outcome and that is certainly not the desirable situation and certainly doesn't warrant the moralizing being presented on the matter.

I notice you yourself didn't vote on the amendment. How come?

In any case, it's a senator's obligation to vote on stuff. It's pretty much all there is to the job, aside from introducing bills and amendments. If they can't be bothered to show up and vote (no offense to you personally), then I don't see why anyone else should worry about that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye; this amendment has already passed. Wouldn't another amendment removing this one be a form of fillibustering, in a way? It shouldn't be allowed. We've already passed this amendment and this new one just wastes time.

Depends on the circumstances. There are many cases where an amendment contains a provision that is later discovered to be broken or unworkable and thus has to be further refined or removed and replaced as such.

Even in the absence of such a situation, it basically comes down to the votes. Filibustering is hardly the abused tactic that is in real life, primarily because the rules state that after a week the cloture requirement is only a majority anyway.

That's not the case here. Deadprez realized after the fact that an amendment he didn't like passed, so he creatively came up with an 'amendment' that does nothing but waste time and try to undo something that already passed. And unfortunately, other gun rights supporters such as yourself are encouraging this nonsense fillibustering by voting nay. I would vote aye, honestly, even if I supported guns (I don't, of course).

There is no way in which this is fillibustering, especially since the underlying bill is what is desired.

The standard for cloture is a majority vote after one week on the floor, not two-thirds. So if the majority of the Senate turns out against cloture, because the majority of the Senate finds objectional a previous low turnout amendment vote, that is simply the very same majority that will determine the final outcome ensuring that its voice is heard.

Otherwise, the whole bill could end up being voted down and then it being necessitated to start all over completely from scratch.

Which wastes more time?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye; this amendment has already passed. Wouldn't another amendment removing this one be a form of fillibustering, in a way? It shouldn't be allowed. We've already passed this amendment and this new one just wastes time.

P1G$ AR$3!
Something gets backdoor-ed into the bill without being transparent about what they were actually including. It's disingenuous at best.

It passed with support from a majority of voting senators. Frankly, deal with it. Introducing an amendment for the sake of removing one you don't like which passed is deplorable regardless of the politics behind it; I'd oppose this so-called amendment even if it was the converse (if say, some bad amendment were to pass, I'd oppose any attempts by fellow gun control supporters made to introduce another 'amendmen't whose sole purpose is removing one that passed). All this is doing is wasting time.

We generally don't content ourselves with passing final votes based on "majority of those voting". Amendments for instance require "2/3rds of the chamber's entire composition" to vote for one to pass.

If an amendment passes with a sub majority vote because of low turnout, then the final vote has the full chamber's membership voting it could very well tank the bill.

What you are essentially saying is that the minority view of the chamber must dictate the final outcome and that is certainly not the desirable situation and certainly doesn't warrant the moralizing being presented on the matter.

I notice you yourself didn't vote on the amendment. How come?

In any case, it's a senator's obligation to vote on stuff. It's pretty much all there is to the job, aside from introducing bills and amendments. If they can't be bothered to show up and vote (no offense to you personally), then I don't see why anyone else should worry about that.

I have had a rough week between work and school and then got run down and sick because of it, though thankfully not Covid again.

I generally would share your sense of obligation and responsibility, but again if the majority comes to the final vote, finds the content objectional and defeats the bills because an amendment previously passed solely because of a minority vote early on that wastes even more time because then they have to start all over.

[Joseph Cao]

Abstain on cloture.

Aye; this amendment has already passed. Wouldn't another amendment removing this one be a form of fillibustering, in a way? It shouldn't be allowed. We've already passed this amendment and this new one just wastes time.

P1G$ AR$3!
Something gets backdoor-ed into the bill without being transparent about what they were actually including. It's disingenuous at best.

It passed with support from a majority of voting senators. Frankly, deal with it. Introducing an amendment for the sake of removing one you don't like which passed is deplorable regardless of the politics behind it; I'd oppose this so-called amendment even if it was the converse (if say, some bad amendment were to pass, I'd oppose any attempts by fellow gun control supporters made to introduce another 'amendmen't whose sole purpose is removing one that passed). All this is doing is wasting time.

We generally don't content ourselves with passing final votes based on "majority of those voting". Amendments for instance require "2/3rds of the chamber's entire composition" to vote for one to pass.

If an amendment passes with a sub majority vote because of low turnout, then the final vote has the full chamber's membership voting it could very well tank the bill.

What you are essentially saying is that the minority view of the chamber must dictate the final outcome and that is certainly not the desirable situation and certainly doesn't warrant the moralizing being presented on the matter.

I notice you yourself didn't vote on the amendment. How come?

In any case, it's a senator's obligation to vote on stuff. It's pretty much all there is to the job, aside from introducing bills and amendments. If they can't be bothered to show up and vote (no offense to you personally), then I don't see why anyone else should worry about that.

Not to repeat Yankee's point (his other posts still stand, would have made those points myself if he hadn't) but the other issue was that the vote was open for less than twenty-four hours and closed without reaching majority support. The voting period is generally 72 hours to allow every senator to vote in time even if they aren't able to be online daily (as I also wasn't in the past 24 hours, although thankfully I don't think I missed anything).

[Joseph Cao]

For the record, too, I think it would help the Senate at large if people proposing amendments could explain themselves when proposing them. Not aimed at any one amendment since a couple of recent ones have lacked that, but others have gotten understandably hung up about it.

[Former President tack50]

Aye

[Continential]

Nay

[West_Midlander]

Nay

[Senator-elect Spark]

Aye

[DabbingSanta]

Nay

[Schiff for Senate]

Abstain on cloture.

Aye; this amendment has already passed. Wouldn't another amendment removing this one be a form of fillibustering, in a way? It shouldn't be allowed. We've already passed this amendment and this new one just wastes time.

P1G$ AR$3!
Something gets backdoor-ed into the bill without being transparent about what they were actually including. It's disingenuous at best.

It passed with support from a majority of voting senators. Frankly, deal with it. Introducing an amendment for the sake of removing one you don't like which passed is deplorable regardless of the politics behind it; I'd oppose this so-called amendment even if it was the converse (if say, some bad amendment were to pass, I'd oppose any attempts by fellow gun control supporters made to introduce another 'amendmen't whose sole purpose is removing one that passed). All this is doing is wasting time.

We generally don't content ourselves with passing final votes based on "majority of those voting". Amendments for instance require "2/3rds of the chamber's entire composition" to vote for one to pass.

If an amendment passes with a sub majority vote because of low turnout, then the final vote has the full chamber's membership voting it could very well tank the bill.

What you are essentially saying is that the minority view of the chamber must dictate the final outcome and that is certainly not the desirable situation and certainly doesn't warrant the moralizing being presented on the matter.

I notice you yourself didn't vote on the amendment. How come?

In any case, it's a senator's obligation to vote on stuff. It's pretty much all there is to the job, aside from introducing bills and amendments. If they can't be bothered to show up and vote (no offense to you personally), then I don't see why anyone else should worry about that.

Not to repeat Yankee's point (his other posts still stand, would have made those points myself if he hadn't) but the other issue was that the vote was open for less than twenty-four hours and closed without reaching majority support. The voting period is generally 72 hours to allow every senator to vote in time even if they aren't able to be online daily (as I also wasn't in the past 24 hours, although thankfully I don't think I missed anything).

Oh. Well, in that case, some of the fault likely lies with WD, and I do admit I find it a bit suspicious that the votes close early on certain amendments/bills. I wish he'd leave the vote open for longer, and honestly, in that case, this amendment isn't even particularly unreasonable, since I'm guessing all would have a chance to truly iterate their views on the amendment without unfair restrictions on time placed by WD.

Aye; this amendment has already passed. Wouldn't another amendment removing this one be a form of fillibustering, in a way? It shouldn't be allowed. We've already passed this amendment and this new one just wastes time.

P1G$ AR$3!
Something gets backdoor-ed into the bill without being transparent about what they were actually including. It's disingenuous at best.

It passed with support from a majority of voting senators. Frankly, deal with it. Introducing an amendment for the sake of removing one you don't like which passed is deplorable regardless of the politics behind it; I'd oppose this so-called amendment even if it was the converse (if say, some bad amendment were to pass, I'd oppose any attempts by fellow gun control supporters made to introduce another 'amendmen't whose sole purpose is removing one that passed). All this is doing is wasting time.

We generally don't content ourselves with passing final votes based on "majority of those voting". Amendments for instance require "2/3rds of the chamber's entire composition" to vote for one to pass.

If an amendment passes with a sub majority vote because of low turnout, then the final vote has the full chamber's membership voting it could very well tank the bill.

What you are essentially saying is that the minority view of the chamber must dictate the final outcome and that is certainly not the desirable situation and certainly doesn't warrant the moralizing being presented on the matter.

I notice you yourself didn't vote on the amendment. How come?

In any case, it's a senator's obligation to vote on stuff. It's pretty much all there is to the job, aside from introducing bills and amendments. If they can't be bothered to show up and vote (no offense to you personally), then I don't see why anyone else should worry about that.

I have had a rough week between work and school and then got run down and sick because of it, though thankfully not Covid again.

I generally would share your sense of obligation and responsibility, but again if the majority comes to the final vote, finds the content objectional and defeats the bills because an amendment previously passed solely because of a minority vote early on that wastes even more time because then they have to start all over.

Yeah, that's fair enough. My only point is, everyone should make a point to vote - of course, it's different if you have IRL things going on like you did, but otherwise. Nonetheless, Cao also explained that WD closed the vote earlier than he should have, thus giving all senators less time to vote. So in a way, I would suppose this amendment is fair, if only because it allows all senators to have their voice heard regarding the actual amendment.

Aye; this amendment has already passed. Wouldn't another amendment removing this one be a form of fillibustering, in a way? It shouldn't be allowed. We've already passed this amendment and this new one just wastes time.

Depends on the circumstances. There are many cases where an amendment contains a provision that is later discovered to be broken or unworkable and thus has to be further refined or removed and replaced as such.

Even in the absence of such a situation, it basically comes down to the votes. Filibustering is hardly the abused tactic that is in real life, primarily because the rules state that after a week the cloture requirement is only a majority anyway.

That's not the case here. Deadprez realized after the fact that an amendment he didn't like passed, so he creatively came up with an 'amendment' that does nothing but waste time and try to undo something that already passed. And unfortunately, other gun rights supporters such as yourself are encouraging this nonsense fillibustering by voting nay. I would vote aye, honestly, even if I supported guns (I don't, of course).

There is no way in which this is fillibustering, especially since the underlying bill is what is desired.

The standard for cloture is a majority vote after one week on the floor, not two-thirds. So if the majority of the Senate turns out against cloture, because the majority of the Senate finds objectional a previous low turnout amendment vote, that is simply the very same majority that will determine the final outcome ensuring that its voice is heard.

Otherwise, the whole bill could end up being voted down and then it being necessitated to start all over completely from scratch.

Which wastes more time?

Fair enough; as I said, Cao explained about how the vote closed early, so it would make sense for another (hopefully fairer and more inclusive) vote to occur.

[Saint Milei]

If this was the same circumstance as before, the vote would be closed right now but we know why it won't

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

To reiterate my point and not commenting on any deviations from this in this thread I will simply link back to last week when I raised the "potential concern about how votes were being ended leading to problems": https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=470594.msg8426024#msg8426024

Anyway, the standards for final votes are tougher than amendment votes. Meaning it is in fact very possible for a minority to pass an amendment, especially with a sympathetic PPT that then has the effect of ensuring the majority kills the bill on the final vote. Not saying that is what is happening here, just pointing out the dichotomy and why "moral standing" was not the best line to take in such matters.

1.) Final Votes and veto overrides votes shall last for a maximum of 4 days (i.e. 96 hours). A final vote may be ended earlier than 96 hours:

a. If the vote has a majority to pass or fail, then the Presiding officer may call 24 hours for Senators to vote or change their votes.

b. If all Senators have voted and the result is unanimous for or against, then the Presiding Officer may end the vote immediately.

3.) If judged hostile by the sponsor, or if a Senator has objected, a vote shall be started by the PPT once the amendment has been on the floor twenty four hours. The vote shall last for three days or until a majority has voted in favor or against the amendment, at which point Senators who have voted shall be prohibited from changing their votes and the vote shall be declared final.

[Saint Milei]

They are waiting for the right time to tally the vote so pericles can come back and add an amendment to kill the bill

[Schiff for Senate]

Let me just say, while I oppose the repeal (obviously) I am finding WD's decision to close the votes early a tad suspicious. Earlier too, on my amendment to the Hospitals Act (which, in fairness, was likely going to fail anyway), he shut the vote very early, with 6 still having not voted and technically a majority not having opposed my bill yet (only eight). Upon Cao asking why the vote was shut before majority threshold against was attained, WD replied, somewhat cryptically: 'No particular reason. I’ll take care to keep votes open longer going forward,' which he obviously didn't. So I'm genuinely wondering if there might be something a tad fishy going on about closing votes early.

[West_Midlander]

Let me just say, while I oppose the repeal (obviously) I am finding WD's decision to close the votes early a tad suspicious. Earlier too, on my amendment to the Hospitals Act (which, in fairness, was likely going to fail anyway), he shut the vote very early, with 6 still having not voted and technically a majority not having opposed my bill yet (only . Upon Cao asking why the vote was shut before majority threshold against was attained, WD replied, somewhat cryptically: 'No particular reason. I’ll take care to keep votes open longer going forward,' which he obviously didn't. So I'm genuinely wondering if there might be something a tad fishy going on about closing votes early.

This course of events has been disappointing. I have to say that I had higher hopes for the honorable PPT and his conduct in that office.

[Schiff for Senate]

Let me just say, while I oppose the repeal (obviously) I am finding WD's decision to close the votes early a tad suspicious. Earlier too, on my amendment to the Hospitals Act (which, in fairness, was likely going to fail anyway), he shut the vote very early, with 6 still having not voted and technically a majority not having opposed my bill yet (only . Upon Cao asking why the vote was shut before majority threshold against was attained, WD replied, somewhat cryptically: 'No particular reason. I’ll take care to keep votes open longer going forward,' which he obviously didn't. So I'm genuinely wondering if there might be something a tad fishy going on about closing votes early.

This course of events has been disappointing. I have to say that I had higher hopes for the honorable PPT and his conduct in that office.

Considering that when he PM'd me and solicited me for my vote, he said it was nonpartisan and he wouldn't do anything remotely partisan, just what the PPT was supposed to do. In the next senate I think we might need a new PPT.

[West_Midlander]

It's also disappointing that the President and the honorable PPT are not willing to work against this dangerous amendment, instead, making only meager efforts to secure the right to bear arms.

We theoretically have the pro-gun votes to pass a clean repeal.

Also, despite Senator Pericles' refusal to pursue delaying this bill, the government still stands in favor of a partisan power grab when it comes to the Senate rules. All together, this turn of events has been deeply, deeply disappointing and should be thought thoroughly about by undecided or swingable voters in the upcoming federal elections and by pro-gun voters of all political stripes.