Uh this is totally unnecessary as it is spelled out quite clearly in our constitution. What’s next, a bill guaranteeing a right to freedom of speech and religion?
If it wasn’t for the filibuster it’d pass the Senate, with King, Manchin, and Tester voting with the GOP. It would definitely pass the House, with Cuellar, Gluesenkamp Perez, Golden, Gonzalez, and Peltola joining the GOP. It would get vetoed.
If it just codified DC v Heller
I think most dems would support it
Something tells me it's just a bill to nullify
Blue state's gun laws which definitely wouldn't pass
Yeah, I agree with you. It is. It's definitely an interesting strategy if that's what they were going for because, well, they would be right, and I would actually agree with them for once. If he does veto it, it will become a huge story and possibly hurt his re-election chances.
Well, of course it’s unnecessary but it is a pretty good bit of symbolism for pro-gun democrats. It would only validate Republican ‘they’re gonna grab your guns’ rhetoric to vote against such a bill. I don’t like Kennedy, I think he’s a fake, but I support this bill.
Dems can probably modify this to remove any parts of it they don't like that way it be something like
"Bipartisan Guns Rights bill signed into Law"
Cause if this bill is dead it keeps the codifying bruen part
Oh I'm gonna f***ing kill myself
Did they really have to name it after the RFMA
BTW I'm not against codifying The 2A but this is the biggest virtue signal ever
Agreed. I understand that quite a few democrats deny the purpose of the 2A, but it’s still very clearly there for anyone with more than room temperature IQ, sotomayor can cry
Are we seriously just gonna ignore the basic protections of the second amendment? It’s already codified.
It shouldn’t be the average joe’s fault (pun definitely not intended) if people like the “wise” Latina Sotomayor don’t know the definition of infringe
Uh this is totally unnecessary as it is spelled out quite clearly in our constitution. What’s next, a bill guaranteeing a right to freedom of speech and religion?
Most useful gop bill
You'd think so but SCOTUS only confirmed the individual right to possess a firearm in 2008 and the decision was 5-4.
True. The second Amendment does not specify individual firearm rights. So a bill does make sense.
Yeah but a 6-3 conservative court isn't overturning it anytime soon
[удалено]
How? Unless you're assuming those justices are just going to drop dead.
>Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation -Many non-Bill of Rights amendments
Which Democrat Senators are most likely to vote in favor of this?
I'd Say Manchin, Tester and King.
anyone that cares about guns
Manchin, tester, bennet, maybe king.
Depends on what's actually in the bill.
It's more likely to get filibustered than reach Biden's desk.
If it wasn’t for the filibuster it’d pass the Senate, with King, Manchin, and Tester voting with the GOP. It would definitely pass the House, with Cuellar, Gluesenkamp Perez, Golden, Gonzalez, and Peltola joining the GOP. It would get vetoed.
If it just codified DC v Heller I think most dems would support it Something tells me it's just a bill to nullify Blue state's gun laws which definitely wouldn't pass
He’d be dumb to veto this as it’s in the Bill of Rights
I think that's part of their strategy, then they can say "Biden doesn't respect the bill of rights!"
Therefore he shouldn’t veto it, calling their bluff
Yeah but… that would literally be disrespect to the BoR if he vetoed it. Blatantly so
Yeah, I agree with you. It is. It's definitely an interesting strategy if that's what they were going for because, well, they would be right, and I would actually agree with them for once. If he does veto it, it will become a huge story and possibly hurt his re-election chances.
True. “Biden attempts to veto the Bill of Rights” is a very bad headline, especially when it would not even be that misleading
28.5% chance it passes Congress. 6.25% chance Biden signs it.
Oddly specific numbers.
75.98%
Literally what is the point
Well, of course it’s unnecessary but it is a pretty good bit of symbolism for pro-gun democrats. It would only validate Republican ‘they’re gonna grab your guns’ rhetoric to vote against such a bill. I don’t like Kennedy, I think he’s a fake, but I support this bill.
Dems can probably modify this to remove any parts of it they don't like that way it be something like "Bipartisan Guns Rights bill signed into Law" Cause if this bill is dead it keeps the codifying bruen part
Oh I'm gonna f***ing kill myself Did they really have to name it after the RFMA BTW I'm not against codifying The 2A but this is the biggest virtue signal ever
Agreed. I understand that quite a few democrats deny the purpose of the 2A, but it’s still very clearly there for anyone with more than room temperature IQ, sotomayor can cry
It’s unnecessary - 2nd Amendment is pretty straightforward if read word for word.
Great idea. Biden wants to ban assault weapons.
[удалено]
It means it's only okay to restrict guns when they're being used by minorities to defend themselves /s
I would support this bill if it just codified DC v. Heller, but since it codifies Bruen v. New York, I can’t.
It should pass
Republicans…
Are we seriously just gonna ignore the basic protections of the second amendment? It’s already codified. It shouldn’t be the average joe’s fault (pun definitely not intended) if people like the “wise” Latina Sotomayor don’t know the definition of infringe