Reciprocity Never Intended to Pass‏?

This is what I've written so far on the Thune Amendment:

Nationwide right-to-carry bill prompts anti-defense hysteria
Does Thune amendment treat a right like a privilege?
Senate Rejects Thune Gun Reciprocity Amendment
Are those against nationwide concealed carry for states' rights?

Andy Barniskis has been sending me email updates on another angle altogether. As some of you know, I've been really pressed with personal issues lately, and have not had time to do more than just copy and paste on this, so forgive the lack of formatting or input, and just focus on and discuss the content.

I'd like to explore what they're saying. NRA management defenders are welcome to comment if you think anything is unfair or misrepresented.

1st email thread sent to me:

David:

Here is the original email and a couple follow-ups I received from
other people.

--Andy

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Subject: Reciprocity never intended to pass

Correspondent writes:

Andy,

You may remember me. [My spouse] works on the hill. I still
follow your writing when I can. You are right more times than
even you know. ;-)

You missed something this time.There never was any intention on
the R side for the Thune amendment to pass. The vote was
orchestrated to have just enough R votes to fail, but to give
the party a shot of pro-gun image for 2010. The NRA knew that.

Yes, they talked about the future necessity for legislating
permit standards if this kind of legislation passed. But they
didn't care about that enough to want it to pass. Yet.

+++++++++++++

Subject: Re: Reciprocity never intended to pass

> >You missed something this time.There never was any intention on
> >the R side for the Thune amendment to pass. The vote was
> >orchestrated to have just enough R votes to fail, but to give
> >the party a shot of pro-gun image for 2010. The NRA knew that.

[Name suppressed--DC] writes:

Actually, I'm pretty sure Andy and most others on the list
knew that.

If you look at every Republican hot button issue, they always
seem to miss by just a few votes. And those votes are almost
always Republican votes. They missed by two votes. And again, two
Republicans voted against. Also, it's important to note that they
managed to move those two votes around this time. It's almost
always Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe who vote with the Dems.
This time it was the other two old reliable Hyphenated
Republican-Democrats (Yeah, I know that's redundant), Voinovich
and Lugar.

What I'm saying is that we may have been born yesterday, but it
was pretty early yesterday.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Andy comments:

The thing that WAS ambiguous was whether the Rs might want it to
pass because of its long-term anti-gun effect of bringing the
feds into managing CCW requirements, or whether it was just a
pre-election year (2010) "brand identification" charade. Turns
out it was "B," a charade. Of course, if BOTH parties weren't
in on it, you might have expected more Ds to have voted for it
because of its potential for anti-gun exploitation.

Whichever faction wins in 2010, there will probably be a better
chance of something like this passing after the election, and
then the only question will be how fast the feds exploit the anti-
gun potential contained in it; and which party will be most
responsible for that legislation. "Uniformity" does sound like
a mantra the enforce-existing-law "conservatives" could get on
board with.

--Andy

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Subject: Re: Reciprocity never intended to pass

> >The thing that WAS ambiguous was whether the Rs might want it to
> >pass because of its long-term anti-gun effect of bringing the
> >feds into managing CCW requirements, or whether it was just a
> >pre-election year (2010) "brand identification" charade. Turns
> >out it was "B," a charade. Of course, if BOTH parties weren't
> >in on it, you might have expected more Ds to have voted for it
> >because of its potential for anti-gun exploitation.

Correspondent writes:

Andy,

Another thing pointing to it being a republican charade and that
it never was intended to go anywhere was that GOA supported it.
Everything else being equal I would have expected GOA to take the
obvious position that it would lead to expanded federal
intrusion on carry permits. That they never entertained or
addressed that issue for a second indicates they were
participating in a Republican charade, which we all know they are
not above doing.

> > Andy: Especially when their owner Richardson starts plucking his
> > puppets' strings. All to God's Glory, of course.


++++++++++++

Subject: DC DUPLICITY

[Name suppressed] forwards:

The Washington Post piece below appears to confirm the contents of this
note I saw earlier:

"There never was any intention on the Republican side for the Thune
amendment to pass. The vote was orchestrated to have just enough
Republican votes to fail, but to give the party a shot of pro-gun image
for 2010. The NRA knew that. Yes, they talked about the future necessity
for legislating permit standards if this kind of legislation passed. But
they didn't care about that enough to want it to pass. Yet."

> > Andy: It's times like these I wish I was a "real" journalist. I'd
> > have scooped the essence of the story by several hours -- though
> > thanks to the Washington Post for filling in the details, which
> > my source had not.

Gun-Shy
By Dana Milbank
Columnist
The Washington Post
July 23, 2009

How do you outgun the NRA? Very, very carefully.

New email thread:

Correspondent writes:

Here is what a source in washington told me about the question I asked
regarding why there was a need for 60 not 51 votes on the Thune Amendment on
national concealed carry.

> it was a pre-agreement between the parties: amendments on the defense
> bill would need 60.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Andy comments:

Nothing suspicious about THAT -- No, not at all.

Actually it sounds like a change of the rules that may have been intended
to cover more than one charade, and not just the "reciprocity" charade.

It allowed the vast majority of either party to vote for something for
purposes of "brand indentification," without the danger of it actually
passing.

As [Name suppressed] wrote, most of us may have been born yesterday, but some
of us were born EARLY yesterday. (Just not enough of us.)

The day I can't still find humor in these charades -- and the way the
vast majority of people fall for them -- well, on that day, look out
baby!

--Andy

New email:

Correspondent forwards:

Gun Rights Heros, I Have A Present For You

New email:

Friends:

This blog is by the same guy as the "gunwrites" blog that I forwarded
yesterday. It's a pretty good follow-up.

--Andy

+++++++++

Correspondent forwards:
A Floor Beneath Our Rights

New email thread:

Correspondent writes:

A source told me a failure was certain so that is why the vote was held.
Senators were told to vote however they needed to for that reason.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Andy comments:

That does not necessarily conflict with my source's contention that
it was never INTENDED to pass in the first place, and that it's sole
intent was for Republicans to use for "brand identification" in
preparation for 2010. Since we seem to be reliving 1994 to the last
jot and tittle this year, watch for a lot more brand identification
yet this year -- coming soon to a Tea Party or Gun Rally near you!

If anyone, say the NRA, had really CARED about this legislation, they
would have held every senator's feet to the fire, even in the face of
certain defeat of the legislation. Then they would have beat the
living hell out of ANY "no" vote, come next year.

Watch, and mark my words -- If the NRA refers to this reciprocity
issue AT ALL next year, they will focus on those Republicans who
are safe to always blame and to refer to as "RINOs" -- even though
they play a key role in the ongoing charade.

--Andy

New email:

Correspondent forwards:

The sham vote on 'Thune Amendment' for national concealed carry

Before thanking the 39 Senators who voted for national concealed handgun
reciprocity via the failed "Thune Amendment," gun rights supporters should
understand that the amendment's failure was pre-ordained, demonstrating
that, as Mark Twain opined, "It could probably be shown by facts and figures
that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."

The sham vote on national concealed carry 'Thune Amendment' [Note--this is by Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner Paul Valone--DC]


New email:

"NRA loses a round in the Senate, thanks Reid anyway"

> Andy: Both parties profited from this charade.

Correspondent forwards:

NRA loses a round in the Senate, thanks Reid anyway

That's what I've got so far--I apologize for the lousy formatting/lack of edits, but was faced with the choice of presenting the information or not, because I just don't have time to make it pretty.

Hopefully some discussion will follow.