Who to target in Senate after this morning?

**ungawa** · April 10th, 2013, 10:49 AM

I know we need to pester Casey and Toomey. But let's face it. After this morning, it's pretty clear we need to hedge our bets and start Plan B. And go after some other people in the Senate. People who do not consider us their direct constituents.

Anybody got a strategy?

If this makes it out of the Senate it will gather steam and it may be harder in the House. Also, House Republicans will be punished however they vote on this if they have to vote. Far more than Senate Republicans would ever be. They will probably lose the House in 2014. So this could be a double disaster if it gets to the House.

**SwampFoxZ71** · April 10th, 2013, 08:59 PM

Actually, not sure why people think this will be a disaster if it reaches the House? Senators are voted on at the state level so they have to have broad support. House Representatives are voted on locally in precincts/districts where they are much closer to the community they serve and typically more closely reflect the values and desires of that local area.

A vote in the House could hurt Democrats who've been avoiding this issue just as much, if not more, than some perceive this issue to hurt Republicans. In fact, it was the revolution of 1994 that hit the House after the first AWB, not the Senate.

I don't think it matters one iota if this makes it to the House. Just like 1994, no matter what, if it makes it to the House or not, at the local level this may be a wakeup call for all those around the country who fully understand what the following phrase means:

"shall not be infringed"

**staylo** · April 10th, 2013, 09:14 PM

I agree. Senate candidates have to fight for votes in Philly and P-burgh, but house candidates only need the votes of their local consituents. And with gerrymandering of the decades, most house districts are pretty locked up for one party or the other. Pitts, for example, where I live would not suffer much from voting against a UBC bill. The Dems here won't vote for him anyway, the gun supporters will, and I would think very few 'independents' will make this a big part of their reasoning for voting one way or the other. Even with polls supposedly very high in support for UBCs the polling on whether people think they will actually do anything substantive to actually reduce crime is quite low, so while the support the idea they don't think it would actually do anything, so why get too upset if it doesn't pass.

**JenniferG** · April 11th, 2013, 03:17 AM

I think we should concentrate all our efforts to get someone of a higher caliber to replace Toomey before we try to go after anyone else's Senator. We need a solid well spoken conservative that is rooted in Pennsylvania and is ready to take on the the big city machines. No Christine O'Donnell's, someone that has held office and can communicate real conservative ideals. The Tea party people have to be grinding their teeth at this point and they have some soul searching to do after this debacle.

The former Senator got away with telling everyone he was conservative because he ran against an extreme leftist but that was a joke the former Senator rolled over faster than you could blink an eye. I've written to the NRA and you GOA and SAF members have to get with your leadership to pull any funds that were earmarked for the former Senator's 2016 run. Let's look around our State House and Senate and find someone that can get conservatives to turn out in numbers.

**Qtrborecrazy** · April 11th, 2013, 08:10 AM

Lets start at the state level. Get rid of all the wishy washy locals who have not upheld their oath. Elect people who will get rid of the psp non gun registry, who will punish the mayor and city concil members who violate the state constitution. A strong state government that believes in law and order is what we need.

**ungawa** · April 11th, 2013, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by SwampFoxZ71

Actually, not sure why people think this will be a disaster if it reaches the House? Senators are voted on at the state level so they have to have broad support. House Representatives are voted on locally in precincts/districts where they are much closer to the community they serve and typically more closely reflect the values and desires of that local area.

Boener said today that he will try to follow Republican House rules but may have to ignore them for new gun laws and immigration.

This means the Speaker of the House of Representatives just said he will make an exception and allow gun control bills to go to a vote even if a majority of Republicans won't vote on it, as long as there are enough Democrats to pass it. And it is his choice.

So, yeah, the fix is in.

**Dorian** · April 11th, 2013, 09:29 PM

In reading the posts I agree with everyone, Representatives that do not back our interest need to be replaced. I understand that politics is not for everyone, it is a corrupt entity. Might their be members of this forum who would be willing to run for office's. While I am a NY resident attempting to move to Pennsylvania (hinges on finding employment), once we have established residency, my goal is to run for an office. I read the process required, for me it will be lengthy. I feel in order to fight for Pennsylvania it must be done from the inside. The more of us there are on the inside the more we can be assured that they will not gain ground. Independence Hall should be a reminder of what it took to break away form tyranny. But it seems to be only a few understand.

**nepa_go** · April 12th, 2013, 10:30 AM

Here's one thought from GOA on a "Plan B":

"Here is the new battlefield. Because of the Senate rules, many of the upcoming gun control votes will need 60 (out of 100 votes) to move forward. That will almost certainly be the case with the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer proposal. And because the entire Second amendment movement - GOA, NRA, etc. - is against the Toomey language, it virtually ensures his amendment will fail.

And if Toomey-Manchin-Schumer doesn't pass, then Reid probably won’t have enough votes to overcome a second filibuster on the bill - as it would contain the original anti-gun language sponsored by Reid and Schumer. This all but guarantees that the legislation would die, as Republicans and a half-a-dozen Democrat Senators would then team up to keep the bill from getting the required 60 votes"

[source: Gunowners of America (GOA) email, 4/12/2013 12:11 AM]

For now, I'm planning to call Toomey's office to express my "disappointment", hoping that maybe he'll support an eventual filibuster of the entire bill as amended - especially if his amendment isn't part of the final amended bill. (It could be that Dems will vote against his amendment to support even stricter BG chk language).

Come his next election cycle, I'm hoping that some real constitutional conservative mounts a primary challenge.

**nepa_go** · April 13th, 2013, 12:02 AM

I called Toomey's Scranton office today and expressed my disappointment, letting them know that whatever the merits of Toomey's amendment, the end result is that he made it easy for moderate Republicans and red-state Democrats to vote for cloture and leave control of the process in the hands of Harry Reid.

I asked if Toomey might still vote against the whole package, if it contained language (he regarded) as infringing on the RKBA. The answer was that he might, if it contained such language.

I also asked if he might support a filibuster at some later stage of the debate. This answer was even more tentative than the first. 'Told the aide that a vote for an eventual filibuster was the only way I could imagine Toomey redeeming himself with the gun rights community.

When they don't ask for your contact info, it's a bad sign. Politicians are more likely to reply to a constituent with whom they agree. Three calls to his office and they never asked for my name or address. A bad sign but you do what you can.