UPDATE: September 13, 2010:
I just received this from my press secretary contact:
From: SJC Majority (Judiciary-Dem)
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 8:57 AM
To:
Subject: SJC ADVISORY: Notice of Full Committee Hearing POSTPONEMENT - 9/14/10 - "Firearms in Commerce: Assessing the Need for Reform in the Federal Regulatory Process"
Importance: High
For Planning Purposes
Monday, September 13, 2010
Contact: 202-224-7703
NOTICE OF FULL COMMITTEE HEARING POSTPONEMENT - The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on “Firearms in Commerce: Assessing the Need for Reform in the Federal Regulatory Process” scheduled for Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 10:00 a.m., in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building has been postponed.
# # # # #
I also got this note with the forwarded email:
David - I wanted to alert you to the postponement of tomorrow’s “Firearms in Commerce” hearing. A Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing scheduled late Friday, coupled with a cloture vote on the Senate floor, both scheduled for the time this hearing would be underway, have posed multiple scheduling conflicts. I will keep you posted about rescheduling the hearing.
The original article posted on September 8 now follows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing entitled 'Firearms in Commerce: Assessing the Need for Reform in the Federal Regulatory Process' for Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building," the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary website informs us.
It will be a "full committee" meeting. What's it all about?
A Google search shows a lot of suspicious generalized speculation and little else, with nothing in their "News" category.
A search of NRA-ILA's website at the time of this post shows no relevant hits on the term "firearms in commerce." Likewise, nothing is appearing at this time in their "In the News" section.
GOA is similarly devoid of any hint, both on their main page and via a site search.
If I had to guess, they'll probably be discussing something along the lines of plotting to end private sales, and we'll be hearing terms like "gun show loophole." I'd also expect a push beyond the domestic to international concerns like the Arms Trade Treaty, especially after the UN PrepCom in July.
You can see the Committee members here. So far there is no word about this on Chairman Patrick Leahy's website. Nor on Ranking Member Jeff Sessions'. Nor in "Committee Resources" documents and reports.
So I started going down the list of press contacts and making calls, identifying myself, and that I wanted to find out what will be covered by the hearing so I could write about it. Leahy's press secretary is on jury duty today and can only be reached by email. Sessions' press secretary and deputy press secretary are tied up right now and can best be reached by email. I decided to try Orrin Hatch, since he has an established record that he at least understands the Second Amendment's purpose, and actually got his press secretary on the phone.
He referred me to the person I should be talking to and gave me her email address. He says she checks her Blackberry and he's sure she'll get back to me.
Sheesh--it's a simple question.
I just sent off the email asking for a "for the record" response on "what will be proposed/discussed in the subject hearings."
I'll of course post any reply as soon as I have one.
In the mean time, let's hope our well-connected gun lobbyists get something out there soon that assures us they're on top of things.
UPDATE: I just received the following email reply:
"Hey there:
"Actually, that would better be addressed by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee…Senator Leahy and Senator Sessions. They are the ones who lay out the hearings/agenda for the committee. So they are much more able to discuss this than I am."
Where's that E*Trade baby? I want to see a shocked face.
Back to the drawing board.
UPDATE 2 (From Leahy's press secretary):
"I am out of the office on jury duty. I will respond to you message as soon as possible. If you need immediate assistance, please call 202-224-7703."
The scenery looks familiar. We're not going around in circles, are we?
UPDATE 3 (From Leahy's press secretary again):
"David - I am out on jury duty but hope to be in this afternoon. I'll be able to offer some information about the hearing for background ONLY. We don't yet have a finalized witness list."
And this comment was just left at WarOnGuns:
"After calling Cornyn, Hutchinson, and the NRA/ILA offices, I called Jeff Sessions office since he is the ranking member. I spoke to a young woman named Ivy who told me that, 'It will be about how the ATF is going to regulate FFL's.' When I asked for more details, I was instantly asked who I was with in a very aggressive tone. I told her simply a citizen whose issue is the 2nd. She offered no further details."
UPDATE 4 (from John Richardson, via email):
"I just spoke with Stephen Miller, press sec. to Jeff Sessions. From what he said, the primary thing that will be on the agenda is consideration of S. 941. He did say he hadn't seen a witness list yet and that I should contact the Majority Staff for more info.
"He went on to say that as far as he knew, Leahy was the only Dem. member who was a co-sponsor of S. 941. It has 36 co-sponsors."
Miller is one of the press secretaries I first tried to call and then emailed, with no response as yet.
S. 941 is the BATF Modernization Act, something NRA is pushing.
UPDATE 5 (from NRA-ILA):
"On Tuesday, September 14, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on reforming current regulation of commerce in firearms--especially in the area of dealer licensing and oversight--by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."
Thanks to comment poster "Truth and Freedom" for the follow-up.
UPDATE 6: I just posted "Firearms in commerce hearing to examine BATFE practices," with "not for attribution" quotes from a Senate press secretary in the know.
------------
Would an "American Trigger Sports Network" T-shirt be banned?
Trigger Sports LIVE! host James B. Towle and I will be discussing anti-gun bigotry at schools, today at Noon, PST.
------------
Help wanted--inquire within
Regular readers: Please help me spread the word by sharing Gun Rights Examiner links with your friends? And get more commentary on the gun rights stories of the day at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.
Comments
Remove All DemoRATS in November. NO EXCEPTIONS
I think we're about to be screwed. Cornyn isn't up for election this year, are any of these guys up now?
Since when has ANY reform in Government REDUCED regulation? Never. This Hearing can NOT possibly be good news.
And why the secrecy? Where's the transparency in Government Obama promised us?
How can a notice of a public hearing before the full Judiciary Committee not include the AGENDA?
This Government thinks it's no longer accountable to the People. They give us the runaround. They regulate everything from shower heads and toilet bowls (gallons per minute and per flush), to 401k's and Retirement funds, and to guns.
Can't WAIT for the November elections! Those who support the 2nd Amendment, you better show-up to vote on November 2nd, or you'll get more of the same BS we see today.
Vote 'em all out. That will let them know that THEY work for US - not vice versa.
(From Leahy's press secretary again):
" We don't yet have a finalized witness list."
WITNESS list?
Is somebody guilty of something?
I'd expect "attendee list" or "speaker list", but not "witness list."
Maybe that's the customary term, for anyone who is interrogated by a Congressional Committee.
Yes, the customary term. They almost always are sworn in and testify under oath.
David why do I feel like I’m about to be bent over and violated?
Since the Drudge Report provided a link to this hearing notice (http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=4771), some have expressed concern that this will be a hearing to showcase stricter federal gun control regulations. and the ambiguous title of this hearing contributes to their concern.
In fact, the opposite is true. The focus of this hearing will be the BATFE reform bill (S. 941) that is cosponsored by 36 Senators (for which five are Democrats) including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy Democratic cosponsor. H.R. 2296, the House companion of S. 941, now has 240 cosponsors. More information about S. 941/H.R. 2296 can be found at: www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5210 and www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=251&issue=28.
I've reported that in the updates, above, but still have not had it confirmed by anyone in the SJC. Leahy's press secretary promised to give further details in an email to me this morning.
I'm guessing this will result in yet more "laws" for free individuals to ignore.
You (yes, YOU) are already a criminal. Embrace your outlawry.
Senate Judiciary Committee to Hold Hearing on S. 941 (BATFE Reform) Next Tuesday -- click on www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6016
So just a theoretical question, but what does it take to qualify as a "professional film and theatrical organizations"?
I called three FFL's I know about this after reading about it to make them aware and the first one I spoke with said he did not think they would do anything untoward at this time. I pointed out to him that if the Democrat Leadership really thinks it is going to get its ass handed to them on a platter come November, do you really think they would not try? He stopped flat and said: "I had not thought of that. Now, I am very nervous."
I do not give a flying flip if the NRA is pushing this, it is too close and uncomfortable for me to believe it is nothing but treachery being planned. Moreover, if it was something the NRA wanted us to know, they would have sent out an E-mail blast calling for support. Instead, they are perfect replicas of Sergent Schutlz- "I know nothing!"
D
My e-mail to John Cornyn
I have very recently learned that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing entitled "Firearms in Commerce: Assessing the Need for Reform in the Federal Regulatory Process" for Tuesday, September 14, 2010.
Is this hearing being held to consider S. 941 and/or H.R. 2296, both bills filed under the stated intentions of; “[R]eforming the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, modernizing firearms laws and regulations, protecting the community from criminals, and for other purposes”?
I respectfully request that you be on your guard during said hearing against legislators who would desire to infringe rights protected by the Constitution and who would legislate statutes that encourage agents of federal bureaucracies to further infringe those rights.
Respectfully submitted,
Woody W Woodward
Spur, Texas 79370
[W3]
Addendum:
Still not used to this new format.
[W3]
So I'll put a different spin on this, albeit an unlikely one. What if the Dems see themselves losing in November but want to do something about that. With the Supreme Court ruling in McDonald perhaps they're finally willing to admit defeat on the 2nd amendment and will toss us a bone to help keep themselves in power.
Once again you see our government in "inaction" and stonewalling the public's right to know. These are people paid by us who are acting in secrecy with the apparent objective of not allowing either side of the issue a fair chance to speak their mind. It would appear we have a sham going on and Senator Leahy appears to be leading it.
The only thing straight about a congressional hearing is the the desk they're sitting around and that's on a curve. Truth is a virtue, lying is ethical, and there are NO ethics in D.C.
I've been buried with other things the past couple of days and didn't realize this was causing such a stir.
The hearing is expected to be a normal hearing on S.941 and if anything comes out of it I expect it to be a bone to the industry in the form of support for the bill and possible fast-tracking for passage.
S.941 is a very detailed and carefully written bill primarily addressing punitive options ATF has for addressing FFL errors and omissions. As things stand, ATF can either revoke the FFL or they can give a warning - nothing in between. S.941 gives them some fines and such which they can impose (with very strict limitations to minimize abuse) as an alternative to revoking a license.
This bill is supported by the NSSF and NRA and ATF. While I was very skeptical about it, I can't find anything particularly objectionable about it.
The only people opposing the bill are Brady and VPC and their objections seem to lie in the fact that NRA and NSSF support it.
I think it is quite possible that this bill could be fast-tracked and passed as a "what have we done for you lately" show-piece for the Dems. "See, we just passed this pro-gun bill supported by NRA and NSSF! We're not so bad!"
I think the chances of this being used for sneaky anti-gun back-stabbing are extremely slim.
Jeff Knox, www.FirearmsCoalition.org
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!