I believe we all have been snookered

[edstephan]

I believe we have been snookered

This is from the National Association for Gun Rights


What the Thune Amdendment really means

Small mountains of ink, electrons and hot air have been expended talking about the so-called Thune Amendment, which would have liberalized conceal carry reciprocity.

The amendment to a Defense Department bill received a majority of votes, 58-39, however it failed to gain the necessary 60 votes needed to override a threatened filibuster by arch anti-gunner Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY).

While the amendment itself may have been pro-gun, the shenanigans surrounding the vote should cause many gun rights activist to pause.

There is ample evidence to suggest that this vote was orchestrated by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Thune merely to give Republicans and vulnerable Dems a “pro-gun vote” going into August recess and the upcoming election.

In short, everyone knew that this amendment would fail. It was only brought forward as a pre-election stunt to buy a handful of Senator street-cred with gun voters.

From the Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner:
Laudable though Thune’s goal of national concealed carry may be, however, understand that the entire exercise was nothing but a sham in which (surprise, surprise) the amendment failed by a vote of 58 – 39. So before gun rights supporters contact the 58 ever-so-brave US Senators (including 20 Democrats) to thank them for supporting the measure, all should understand that its failure was preordained by Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and quite probably sanctioned by the NRA.

(Side note: Sixty votes – for “cloture” – were required for passage rather than the usual 51 due to a threatened filibuster by perennially anti-gun Sen. Charles Schumer. In the gentile land of the US Senate, threats routinely substitute for real action.)
…...................
In reality, Reid is vulnerable in his 2010 re-election bid and, consequently, threw the NRA a very small bone.

And what does the NRA get? The appearance of accomplishing something – if not actual passage of the amendment, at least a recorded vote which purports to show who’s “fer ya” and “agin ya.” More action means more NRA members and more money.

Unfortunately, however, the vote shows nothing of the sort and, indeed, undermines your ability to assess which senators are actually pro-gun. The exercise is common, and here’s how it works: Chamber leadership (read that “Democrat”) gives a pass to members in conservative (or vulnerable) districts to vote for a measure which the leadership intends to kill – all the while keeping enough votes against, by Democrats in secure districts, to ensure defeat. They know, after all, that the NRA won’t waste money going after Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein or Frank Lautenberg.

So the result is a vote in which anti-gun Democrats such like Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) get to posture as gun rights supporters.
…
As a masterful touch, the amendment failed by just two votes – exactly the number of Republicans who voted against it, giving the appearance that failure was due to lack of Republican unity.

If the drama demonstrates anything, it is that, as Mark Twain put it, “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.”

To make matters worse, Senate Democrats were all too willing to go along with this charade. Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor (D) and Colorado Senator’s Mark Udall (D) and Mike Bennett (D) were given “permission” to vote in favor of the measure by Senate patriarch Schumer.

From Dana Milbank’s Washington Post column:
How do you outgun the NRA? Very, very carefully.

Mark Pryor knows all about that. The Democratic senator from pro-gun Arkansas was nowhere to be seen on the Senate floor during Wednesday’s showdown over a proposal, championed by the National Rifle Association, that would have gutted state gun-control laws across the nation.

After a morning of angry speeches, a vote was called at high noon. Toward the end of the vote, Pryor entered the chamber through the back door, took a few steps inside, flashed a thumbs-down to the clerk, and retreated as fast and furtively as somebody dodging gunfire.

Several minutes later, the Democrats had racked up more than enough votes to block the proposal. “Are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote?” the presiding officer inquired.

Pryor burst back in, this time through a side door. “Mr. President!” he called out. “Mr. President!” He stopped in the well to consult with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a gun-control advocate who was keeping the whip sheet. Schumer gave Pryor a nod, and the Arkansan — reassured that his vote was not needed to defeat the proposal — changed his vote to an “aye.”

If Pryor wasn’t exactly a profile in courage, keep in mind: The gun lobby has a lot of money and a lot of clout, not to mention a lot of guns. And it doesn’t mind firing off a few rounds to keep lawmakers in line.
…
Only two Republicans went against the gun lobby, but that was enough to leave supporters just short of the 60 votes they needed. The slim margin was no accident: Other Democrats, such as Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey and Colorado’s Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, were said to have been willing to vote “no” if necessary. Twenty minutes after the voting began, Bennet and Udall left the cloakroom together and walked into the chamber. Bennet went to the well to consult with Schumer, who indicated that it was safe for Bennet — a product of D.C.’s St. Albans School — to vote with the NRA. Bennet looked to Udall, who gave an approving nod, and cast his “aye” vote.

Schumer found himself in the unusual position of opposing many of the moderate Democrats he helped bring to office as the head of Senate Democrats’ campaign efforts, including Webb, Casey, Jon Tester (Mont.) and Mark Warner (Va.). “Senator,” a reporter noted to Schumer at a post-vote news conference, “you were staring down some of the folks you were losing on the floor.”

“No. I wasn’t at all,” Schumer replied. “There was no staring down at all — none.”

Gun owners must remember, just because Republicans say they’re pro-gun doesn’t necessarily mean they are.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Reciprocity, Well, that's a mouthful

And it might even sound like a good idea.

If the Feds made every state honor the CCW licenses of every other state...

You could carry virtually everywhere, right?

Well, while we all desire the freedom to carry everywhere we go, and while none of us likes putting up with other states that won't recognize our permits, this amendment is simply not what it appears to be

Hear me out. I know some of our supporters like this idea, and I can understand that. But there's more going on here than you may realize.

First of all, once you let federal bureaucrats control CCW permits for all 50 states, the same bureaucrats will control the content of those permits.

Understand this: Once you've handed the reins over to Washington to federalize CCWs nationwide, the gun grabbers would only need to amend this one piece of code to strip the whole nation of its gun rights -- because that code determines the CCW rules of all 50 states.

And what's the easiest place to start with such a broadly-written bill like this? Legislate by the least common denominator: Do you want to see New York-style CCW in your home state?

And those of you with New England-style rules who enjoy carrying in schools, restaurants, and bars: Do you want those liberties to disappear?

While it may not happen THIS YEAR, it will be a constant threat and a real danger every year.

In truth, this is exactly the opposite of what Montana did with its groundbreaking “Montana Made” legislation. Instead of telling the feds to get out of the firearm regulation business, national reciprocity invites them in. That’s not a good thing.

Second, if this bill passes, the feds will have a complete list of CCW holders for all 50 states. How else would they make the states enforce CCWs nationwide? Do you want the ATF to have a list of every CCW holder in America? I know I don't.

This amendment is a question of power and regulation -- and of stripping rights from states and giving them to the feds.

Finally, there is the problem that insider lobbyists want to attach this amendment to a bill at the top of the homosexual lobby's priority list -- H.R. 1913, the so-called Hate Crimes bill that some critics believe will empower federal agents to regulate speech deemed to be "violent."

H.R. 1913 criminalizes speech and makes your personal beliefs a federal matter. I doubt it would pass without a good dose of political chicanery.

And that's why gay rights groups are trying to buy off some pro-gun elected officials (many of whom publicly oppose H.R. 1913) with this clever amendment nonsense in a crooked ploy to pass a bad bill that wouldn't go anywhere without their support.

Here's how it works:

Those who want to control private speech have prostituted insider gun lobbyists to divide opposition to H.R. 1913 by hoodwinking gun owners into jumping on board.

Now those who would ordinarily want to protect free speech and keep the federal government from regulating thought are being pressured to support an ostensibly "pro-gun" bill...that's not pro-gun at all.

And worse, those who are pushing this amendment have successfully hidden its true nature from so many pro-gun voters who are telling their Senators to vote for it.

Suffice to say: Unlike the NRA, we are extremely hesitant to jump in bed and cuddle with gay rights groups and institutional gun lobbyists to pass a bill that -- no matter how attractive it looks on the outside -- poses so much danger to gun owners.

Wayne LaPierre and his lackeys may think this is a cute move, but we're not falling for this sirens' call. This is all just a trick to make us choose between free speech and guns -- and yet the consolation prize they offer promises only tyranny.

Read Luke's blog here to read more about this controversial move, and don't be afraid to join the conversation by leaving a comment.





An OC Activist and 1 of the 3%
Ed Stephan

[mjf]

Amen. I'm glad you posted this.

[Lazydog]

WOW, thanks for posting.

[mikey]

................

[dc dalton]

Don't surprise me one stinking bit .... as I have said many times before we need to turn Washington back into the swamp it was 230 years ago ... it will stink a whole lot less and the creatures living there would be manageable.

[JayInPa]

If it seems too good to be true it probably isn't!

I'm still against Spector.

[PennsyPlinker]

As attractive as it might be to have the federal leviathan legislate gun rights throughout the land, it should still be a states rights issue. After all, that is why a bunch of us were in Harrisburg not too long ago, right? States rights, the 10th Amendment.

[TaePo]

As attractive as it might be to have the federal leviathan legislate gun rights throughout the land, it should still be a states rights issue. After all, that is why a bunch of us were in Harrisburg not too long ago, right? States rights, the 10th Amendment.

Well, I never thought I would be on the opposite side of the room as PennsyPlinker, but...

I think the whole gun rights thing is and should be an individual issue. If anything, the Feds should prosecute the states that violate the individual and the respective states should prosecute the Feds whenever they step out of line.

Once the inertia of gun control 'correct' thinking takes hold, it is very difficult to change back to the original beliefs that were the foundation of our liberty.

Our Founders knew that inevitably "governments are instituted among men" and the Constitution mainly dealt with the Federal government and limitations. But it is not a huge leap to find that the definitions and limitations should apply at State Level as well, since it also is a government entity. No doubt this means that some powers are given to the Feds, some to the States and all else is retained by the individual people. Just like the tenth.

Perhaps, what we should do, is try to put pressure on the Federal Government to abolish the state permit systems as unconstitutional. So far, the Feds have been able to dodge the bullet, if you forgive the pun, by delegating to the States.

[tdyoung58]

I can't rep you, because I need to spread the love around....

Kinda figured it was to good to be true, glad to see my faith in our elected officials didn't disappoint me.

[stephpd]

I actually think the grass roots movement to restore the Right to open carry is the correct direction. Shall issue, as a clean law, is nice but to many states amended the bills into worthlessness.

Sometimes you have to watch your 'friends' more closely then your enemies. We know what the latter wants and the former seems all to willing to concede to many things just to pass a law.

Since laws are written to restrict activity they can't be good towards our Rights. Some, if not many, should have 'sunset' dates and should need more then just 50% + 1 to pass. Any laws that restrict Rights should be by unanimous vote or fail to become law. It's all to easy to get politicians to do something just for votes.