By deception, the U.S. Senate hides and slides a bad gun law through to double-cross the public

Solon (Willman)

The gun bill was hidden behind a different bill to name a courthouse and building.

By Robert Willmann

After a highly publicized shooting at a school with multiple homicides in Uvalde, Texas on 24 May 2022, the usual bandwagon of politicians saying they had to “do something” began hurtling down the road, when an investigation and analysis to find out exactly what happened was just getting underway. An evaluation of the event is still a long way from being completed.

News stories began to appear that discussions were underway in the U.S. Senate for a “bipartisan” gun control bill, with Senator John Cornyn (Republican, Texas), as the obvious front man. It was easy to realize that Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell (Republican, Kentucky) had made Cornyn go out and talk about a bill in a calm voice while keeping its contents secret from the public, while the effort was made to get at least 10 votes from Republicans fixed in advance to make the 60 votes required invoke “cloture” to prevent a filibuster, which would then permit an up-or-down vote on a bill that could succeed with a simple majority. With 10 or more Republicans corralled in advance to vote for cloture and to vote for a bill, its passage could be assured and fixed in advance.

For gun control promoters, the Senate was the risky place with its 50-50 political tie in members and the 60 votes required to get past the filibuster rule for legislation. But once a bill got through the Senate, then the House of Representatives would be an easier place to pass gun control legislation, because it has a majority from the Democratic Party and requires only a simple majority vote for a bill to pass.

But the “unwashed masses” in the public, who consider their guns to be a hot button issue, had to be kept in the dark until the last minute about the language of the bill so that they had no time to read it, analyze it, and build up opposition.

Here is the short version of how the trick was done.

This entry was posted in Current Affairs, government, Gun Control, Justice, Policy, Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to By deception, the U.S. Senate hides and slides a bad gun law through to double-cross the public

  1. JK/AR says:

    In the comments of a previous post on this site from this:

    I left “mysterious” verbiage, first in a comment directed at a Mr. Vince Turner (June 18, 2022 at 10:54 am) and then following that here (June 18, 2022 at 11:47 am Wherein I stated my primary concern to wit)

    “Another concern I worry over is the tendency of Congress-Critters to add amendments. Example : When Obamacare was being debated Mrs. Pelosi famously said “We’ll have to pass the bill to find what’s in it”!

    And now I find the Senate’s version (and what’s likely to emerge from the House I am positively certain that section will also be there!) At any rate I see the Senate takes action to close the supposed “Boyfriend Loophole.”

    Mr Turner was right to be concerned!

    On the most recent April 5th “an event” was alleged to have taken place that resulted in the Director of the Arkansas State Police sending me a letter stating in part,

    “… [A]n active order of protection against you was issued April 6th and does not expire until May 18” [On which date while the Respondent – me – showed up for Court while the Petitioner did not show up] “This disqualifies you from holding a license until final disposition …”

    I received the letter via registered mail on May 12 then, immediately obtained copies of all content, faxed same to my [quite expensive!] attorney, then within two hours but before the Post Office office closed sent back that letter, registered, as well as the CHCL (CCW in the larger number of states I’m familiar with) I’d held since my return to Arkansas in ’02 – having passed at least five previous FBI background checks : two of which were ‘clearance’ requires I’ll be giving no further on. Not pertinent at present anyway.

    Owing to the Petitioner having to be, er, “emergency hospitalized” [somehow “forgetting” – owing I’m certain in the rush to get to Court – to “take her insulin”] The Court granted a continuance until June 21. My case number gets called and Surprise Surprise the Clerk whispers to the Judge for awhile, the Judge whispers back, general whispering in the vicinity of the bench ensues then finally the Judge announces to my, did I mention quite expensive[!] attorney “Sir it appears Petitioner has suddenly discovered an extended period of time requires Petitioner to move to Florida.” “I will issue the appropriate order vacating the Order of Protection.”

    “With prejudice your Honor?” – finally meriting [some] of his expense – more whispering in the general vicinity of the bench then, a version of, “We’ll have to get back to you.”

    Hoo boy I sure hope the US Senate has exerted itself to the extreme in finally getting around to FIXING that dadgonned pesky Boyfriend Loophole! (Now I think I need to write that Senator Cornyn and demand he next do something about the Girlfriend Loophole.)

  2. robt willmann says:

    Thank you very much for the compliment, but it is much too kind, I’m afraid….

  3. TTG says:

    My question is why go through this legislative gimmickry? It didn’t hide the bill from a vote. It didn’t force any senator to vote for or against it. Was it an effort to protect it from attempts to scuttle the bill through other legislative loopholes and gimmickry like poison pill amendments?

    • JK/AR says:

      “It didn’t force any senator to vote for or against it.”

      True enough TTG. What I’m thinking is, the “process” such as it is, was the result of probably one of those ol’ timey rules the chambers have from time-to-time set for themselves (among which for instance is the notorious “Congress exempts itself from legislation it [Congress] passes” – Gee I wish I could exempt myself likewise).

      Like, I’m betting all and sundry Congress-Critters ain’t gonna give up their armed security details, (in spite of the occasional allegation that such-and-such ‘Government Personage’ got him or her self subjected to the Lewinsky Treatment [or was simply accused : see the Blasey Ford rule).

      You reckon TTG Congress (& et al) is likely to give up that immunity?

      But in the present circumstance as you say, “It didn’t force any senator to vote for or against it.”

      I think that’s likely to be covered under the Do something/anything NOW! rule the, er, “respective” chambers of the Federal legislative branch very likely set for itself in those, again, ol’ timey days.

      “Was it an effort to protect it[self] from attempts to scuttle the bill through other legislative loopholes and gimmickry like poison pill amendments?”

      Unnecessary. Exhibit 1:

      And then there’s the Fourth Branch that’ll be along shortly (likely in time for this evening’s news – with the highly likely exceptions of course; see Roe v. Wade – to provide that covering all encompassing “The Narrative.”

      Then – Next up:

      Tighten up the Watch TTG I’d recommend – Looks to be tumultuous shoals dead ahead.

  4. morongobill says:

    I can’t help but wonder if the tip off on the Scotus decision on Roe v Wade might have also been followed by another leak to the Senate leadership on the just released New York decision, leading them perhaps to this subterfuge.

  5. Fred says:

    “That webpage above did not have the text of the gun bill.”

    The duplicity of our elites made manifest again, this time by the actions of Cornyn the Corrupt. He is safely esconed in office until the election of 2026. So “screw you” seems to be his statement to Texans. Somebody had all this drafted and ready a long time ago.

    “Sec. 12001. Juvenile records.”
    Trayvon! and any POC like him ‘gonna be screwed big time if states follow up with that.

    “Sec. 12002. Defining ‘‘engaged in the business’’.” So does that private sale not crossing state lines now count as interstate trade under the commerce clause?

    Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
    “striking ‘‘with the principal objective of livelihood and prof- it’’ and inserting ‘‘to predominantly earn a profit’’;
    (2) by redesignating paragraphs (22) through (29) as paragraphs (23) through (30), respectively; and
    (3) by inserting after paragraph (21) the fol- lowing:
    ‘‘(22) The term ‘to predominantly earn a profit’ means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents,…”
    So selling that gun grandpa left you in his will gonna make you some cash? Isn’t that making a ‘pecuniary gain’ requiring that you have an FFL?

    “Sec. 12005. Misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.”
    Remember that plea deal you took to avoid a felony? Guess what, it is now ex-post-facto gonna deny you the right to possess a firearm. Sucker!

    There’s a lot to love about what the Establishment just did to screw a lot of people. But on the bright side lawyers will make a lot of money and prosecutors like the clowns in Kenosha can screw a lot of locals in even more ways. This will do essentially nothing to the criminal conduct of people already breaking restrictive gun laws.

  6. Jose says:

    We have reached Banana Republic status with gimmicks to pass laws that will be overturn by The Supremes:


    I would like to personal say thank you to the good Catholics Biden and Pelosi for being in office when Roe was overturned.

    Now I have one nice things to say about both of you.

  7. Vince Turner says:

    Anyone who knows you to be a lawful possessor of firearms can now make a statement of ‘concern’ for their safety or the safety of the community and have the criminal justice system encroach upon your freedom requiring a legal response at your personal expense. In the case of Mr. JK/ AR is he able to recover court costs and legal fees from his accuser after it is satisfactorily proven the proceeding was initiated frivolously? Red flag laws, especially ‘boyfriend loophole’ provisions have the potential to inundate the courts with excess unnecessary work costing the taxpayers more money and only enriching the attorneys billing for hours. Def not a win/win scenario.

    • JK/AR says:

      Mr. Turner,

      “In the case of Mr. JK/ AR is he able to recover court costs and legal fees from his accuser after it is satisfactorily proven the proceeding was initiated frivolously?”

      Petitioner didn’t show up for Court. Respondent did.

      Court assessed no fees to any of the parties [though I’m reliably informed there was a subject “filing fee” – I guess I’ll find out at some future point].

      Respondent – me – “[B]ears the responsibility of administrative & fees costs” plus whatever, if the Respondent has the temerity to object to [whatever] the Court of Jurisdiction declares” there’s that then too … I pity the poor sumbitch that “The Senate” proposition from now on out shouts to Y’all are henceforward totally screwed and – There’s nothing you [regular] people can do about it!

      Thank God for the Republicans revealing themselves.

      “We” are doomed.

  8. JK/AR says:

    “Satisfactorily proven” Mr. Turner is a very ephemeral concept where, at least my, “local[ish] courts” are concerned.

    But “No!” where the … Lemme get the form and type directly from it :

    “The Respondent is not [I, JK italicized] entitled under this statute to recover any of Respondent’s associated costs for Respondent’s defense.”

    (I am so informed, able to bring suit against the Petitioner in ‘small claims court’ [recovery limit $5K – But “Where do I go to get my reputation back?” is left unstated] – Plus[!] I’m given to understand if I do exercise that option – bringing suit in small claims – that in itself is harassment. And, if there’s been a previous “relationship” Grounds for a Petitioner to file for Protection.)

    Holy between a rock and a hard place Batman!

    (I’m however confident the Senate has taken adequate steps to include in the legislation, Chapters under the Title to “look after” persons such as myself otherwise subject to seemingly overly-onerous provisions as the public’s yet been revealed

    Yeah Right!)

  9. smoke says:

    What a travesty! The process of making this law demonstrates utter disrespect toward all citizens.

    Robt Willman, thank you for this excellent sleuthing.

    The bits excerpted by Fred make clear why they hid it. Imagine conservative media getting hold of any of that and trumpeting it across the internet. Tucker C would have been all over it, now with specifics to illustrate the real effects.

    By now “congress discusses another gun bill” has just become repetitive and has resulted in such mild effects as to be uninteresting to many, except in its toothlessness to stop any of the incidents around which the furor is fanned. But surely a few headlines about these specifics would have awoken even sleepy, non-news followers.

    I’d like to see a poll reporting how many Senators actually read the bill before it passed. Even how many Senate staffers read it.

    Who did write and “markup” the bill? Not Senator Cornyn certainly. He is just a well compensated messenger. Who is governing us?

Comments are closed.