Monday, July 27, 2009

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.

10 comments:

  1. straigharrow7/27/2009 1:12 PM

    There just isn't that much to discuss, David. I already said this was scripted. It isn't like this is the first time we've seen it.

    No more discussion, we'll either take it or not. I predict we'll take it and send the same sonsofbitches back to Congress next election, unharmed.

    And the pressure in the cooker will approach catastrophic failure levels.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No surprises. Did anyone really expect anything different?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have said for years that the NRA does not want to win the battle of the Second Amendment. Do you realize how much money there is to be made from this issue?

    ReplyDelete
  4. straightarrow7/27/2009 2:52 PM

    My letter to my Senator on the Thune amendment.



    Sen. Mark Pryor, sir, you were erroneously identified in the newspaper and various blogs as David Pryor during your recent vote on the Thune amendment. I do not know if you share your father's name somewhere in your name, but here you identify yourself as Mark.

    Nothing about that is particularly troubling, except were I to do something as despicable and cowardly as you did, I would use an alias farther from my real name. I suggest you try John Smith, next time you engage in Stupidity Theater for us rubes back home. We may not be as ignorant and ill--in formed as you hope or need.

    You voted to confirm Eric Holder, which was bad, but within you justifiable options (not to an American, but maybe to a Senator).

    However, on the Thune amendment you voted both ways. Once you received Chuck Shumer's permission to change your vote in order to appear representative of your constituency once you were certain the amendment would fail. Is Chuck an Arkansan? No, I didn't think so.

    I was not a particular fan of the Thune amendment, but I am an outright enemy of cowardice and deceit.
    As stated previously your actions here were despicable and cowardly. So here is the question I will try to ask every voter I know when you run for re-election "At what point does the description of a man's actions become the description of the man?"

    Have a nice day, and I pray an enjoyable forced retirement.

    Sincerely,
    Charles H. Sawders

    ReplyDelete
  5. To be honest, I am just as happy it didn't pass. I don't want the Feds into this issue. They are screwing up enough things without honking with this issue too.

    I expect Thune has his heart in the right place, but yes, the actions of Pryor illustrate that the matter was theater for some. How deep that goes is hard to know, being unable to read minds. What these guys say and what they do differ so often, only the doing matters and even that can be misleading, as Pryor shows.

    The days of voting with your conscience and intelligence (re Conyers and the healthcare bill) are substantively gone from much of government. The less reach they have, the better.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If anyone still believes Republicans are pro-gun, just ask them the "X-ray question": "Do you support the absolute human right of every person to own and to carry, everywhere they go, in any way they see fit, whatever type of firearm they wish without asking permission of anyone, ever?" Hesitation or avoidance of an honest answer will tell you all you ever need to know about the person.

    (Word verification: "fakers"!)

    ReplyDelete
  7. We've seen the 'free passes' issued to CONgress and the Senate when the members screw us. We've seen the midnight amendments and 'unanimous consent' bullshit (anyone remember Bob Dole and Brady bill?).

    This would not surprise me...perhaps in my lifetime SCOTUS will clearly incorporate 2A against the states and sweep out the reams of fed law that crush our innate rights; ;oh hell I'm dreaming...for gawd's sake people fire every sitting congress puke, we have got to start over.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I wrote about this last week with the exact same perspective

    http://guywithguns.blogspot.com/2009/07/perspective-on-national-concealed-carry.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. I figured some of the Repubs like SC's Lindsey Graham were using Thune as a vote to balance their support of Sotomayor.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Damn - I was HOPING that the line
    "NRA loses a round in the Senate" was a typo... and was supposed to say, "LOOSED a round in the Senate". That would have maybe done more good than the NRA has done in years of jaw-flapping.

    ReplyDelete

Keep it on topic. Submit tips on different topics via left sidebar Contact Form.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.