PDA

View Full Version : Update on Thune Concealed Carry Bill, More


Drivedabizness
07-19-2011, 6:38 AM
Action expected in the next two weeks - standard time ;)

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44920

socal2310
07-19-2011, 7:31 AM
The trick is that once the Democrats were confident his previous bill did not have 60 votes, they then allowed senators who needed a pro-gun vote for appearances voted for it, knowing it would not pass, he said.

I really hope their prior vote comes back to bite them in the backside. One heck of a dilemma. If they vote for it again, they lose support from the national Democratic Party which could jeopardize their pet projects or even their reelection chances while if they vote against it, their opponents will pounce on them during the next election cycle.

The best outcome would be that the same Democrats vote for it again and that there are enough Blue Dogs who support it that the national party has to let it slide.

Ryan

yellowfin
07-19-2011, 8:18 AM
I wish they wanted it bad enough to do it the way it'll get passed: attach it to so many bills it can't fail to pass and do it sneaky so the opposition can't ramp up ahead of time.

OleCuss
07-19-2011, 8:22 AM
It sounds like Thune is planning a reciprocity bill rather than a reciprocity amendment. Another indication that reciprocity is unlikely to be tacked onto the debt ceiling morass.

As a matter of principle I like clean bills anyway. And yes, I know that having all bills be "clean" is pretty impractical much of the time - but I get to like them.

And note that if Thune fails this year you can expect it to come up next year as well.

That is the best reason for Obama to sign off on it this year - if he vetoes it this year then he will have to deal with angry senators next year who will then be stuck with a politically unfortunate vote on the Thune reciprocity legislation during an election year. Better to get Thune reciprocity out of the way this year so that the antis in the base will have calmed down by the 2012 election year.

I think it is good strategy by Thune. I don't really know the odds, but I'll go better than 50/50 for passage of a fairly clean reciprocity bill this year.

J.D.Allen
07-19-2011, 8:50 AM
It sounds like Thune is planning a reciprocity bill rather than a reciprocity amendment. Another indication that reciprocity is unlikely to be tacked onto the debt ceiling morass.

As a matter of principle I like clean bills anyway. And yes, I know that having all bills be "clean" is pretty impractical much of the time - but I get to like them.

And note that if Thune fails this year you can expect it to come up next year as well.

That is the best reason for Obama to sign off on it this year - if he vetoes it this year then he will have to deal with angry senators next year who will then be stuck with a politically unfortunate vote on the Thune reciprocity legislation during an election year. Better to get Thune reciprocity out of the way this year so that the antis in the base will have calmed down by the 2012 election year.

I think it is good strategy by Thune. I don't really know the odds, but I'll go better than 50/50 for passage of a fairly clean reciprocity bill this year.

I think you are being overly optimistic. No freakin way BHO signs this as a stand alone bill.

CCWFacts
07-19-2011, 8:58 AM
I don't really know the odds, but I'll go better than 50/50 for passage of a fairly clean reciprocity bill this year.

Obama will veto it. I can't imagine they have 66 votes in the Senate. Next election the Democrats will probably win back some ground. If they don't attach it to a must-pass bill I'm not optimistic about it ever passing.

Which is fine. I would rather have the courts force this than have it through the legislature.

mblat
07-19-2011, 9:09 AM
Next election the Democrats will probably win back some ground.

In Senate? No way. They have to defend 22 seats vs. Republican 10. Or something like that.
In the house? May be, but unless we will see recovery of Reagan proportions (huh) it is highly unlikely that they will win majority.


That is said - you are correct in big picture. It is unlikely that this bill will ever gather 66 votes to overwrite Obama veto.

OleCuss
07-19-2011, 10:05 AM
I think you are being overly optimistic. No freakin way BHO signs this as a stand alone bill.

You and CCWFacts may be right. I have no doubt you are right in terms of how Obama would prefer to behave - but Obama above all else want to be re-elected. Anything that will get him re-elected is OK (not an uncommon mode of thought/behavior for politicians of whatever ilk).

Obama may want desperately to avoid having this issue come up when the 2012 campaign is in full swing. If it gets to the Senate in 2012 then there will be essentially universal Republican support and there will be Democrat Senators whose seats will be in jeopardy whichever way they choose to vote on Thune 2012 (vote for Thune and anger the nut part of their base and vote against Thune to anger everyone else).

So there are likely to be Democrat senators who will pressure Obama to sign Thune 2011 so that it won't be an issue in 2012.

And remember that if those Democrat senators lose in 2012 then up-ticket (Obama) has a higher probability of losing as well.

Obama would be better off politically if he were to sign Thune 2011 reciprocity as a clean bill rather than waiting until 2012 to get hammered over it. But if Obama figures he is unstoppable in 2012 then he may veto anyway.

CessnaDriver
07-19-2011, 10:20 AM
In Senate? No way. They have to defend 22 seats vs. Republican 10. Or something like that.
In the house? May be, but unless we will see recovery of Reagan proportions (huh) it is highly unlikely that they will win majority.


That is said - you are correct in big picture. It is unlikely that this bill will ever gather 66 votes to overwrite Obama veto.


Agreed on the Senate. Democrats have a tough slog of it.
Also I think the republicans that are up survived the anti-Bush/Republican era of elections. A lot of the democrats that are up got in then, so probably will have a tougher time now.

yellowfin
07-19-2011, 10:29 AM
Agreed on the Senate. Democrats have a tough slog of it.
Also I think the republicans that are up survived the anti-Bush/Republican era of elections. Will they do a better job this time rather than simply not being the other guy like they have for the last decade and a half? As Nick Gillespie points out, our problem is that with only two choices, the market is cornered so we get a choice so limited that it's nearly no choice at all and there's absolutely no incentive for either party to improve.

CCWFacts
07-19-2011, 11:10 AM
You and CCWFacts may be right. I have no doubt you are right in terms of how Obama would prefer to behave - but Obama above all else want to be re-elected. Anything that will get him re-elected is OK (not an uncommon mode of thought/behavior for politicians of whatever ilk).

Wrong, Democrats have repeatedly put gun control above being re-elected.

Texas governor Democrat Ann Richards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Richards) repeatedly vetoed their CCW, knowing that she's taking on the NRA in gun-crazy Texas. She knew it would cost her the election but she did it anyway.

In Wisconsin, Scott Walker made it clear that he would sign the PPA (CCW bill) and his opponent made it clear he would not. Scott Walker won.

The Democrats knew that the 1994 AWB would achieve nothing and lose them many seats in Congress and they did it anyway.

At this point they are more beholden to public service unions and their racial voting bloc than they are to voters and they will consistently put gun control above winning elections.

nicki
07-19-2011, 11:18 AM
Leaders of both parties are trying to get a deal on raising the debt limit, as such, this is something that may be offered to republicans to get them to vote for raising the debt limit.

On the Democrat side, voting against raising the debt ceiling because it has the "Thune bill" attached to it will cause problems for them especially if they happen to be from states that are "Shall Issue CCW" anyway.

41 states are now effectively shall issue, that covers 82 out of 100 senators.

Nicki

stix213
07-19-2011, 11:19 AM
Wrong, Democrats have repeatedly put gun control above being re-elected.

Texas governor Democrat Ann Richards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Richards) repeatedly vetoed their CCW, knowing that she's taking on the NRA in gun-crazy Texas. She knew it would cost her the election but she did it anyway.

In Wisconsin, Scott Walker made it clear that he would sign the PPA (CCW bill) and his opponent made it clear he would not. Scott Walker won.

The Democrats knew that the 1994 AWB would achieve nothing and lose them many seats in Congress and they did it anyway.

At this point they are more beholden to public service unions and their racial voting bloc than they are to voters and they will consistently put gun control above winning elections.

Ann Richards isn't exactly a fair comparison to Obama.

yellowfin
07-19-2011, 11:26 AM
Ann Richards isn't exactly a fair comparison to Obama.You're right, he's worse. He's not used to the idea of it being possible to lose given his political career and how the media and D party machine were down on all fours and in his front middle pocket in '08. Not only is he an ideologue he has delusions of omnipotence and invincibility. He's used to Chicago as his model of American politics and considers little or nothing else.

CCWFacts
07-19-2011, 11:33 AM
You're right, he's worse. He's not used to the idea of it being possible to lose given his political career and how the media and D party machine were down on all fours and in his front middle pocket in '08. Not only is he an ideologue he has delusions of omnipotence and invincibility. He's used to Chicago as his model of American politics and considers little or nothing else.

Right. Ann Richards didn't have the self-delusions that Obama has.

But regardless, my point is that the Democrats have a long-term objective of destroying gun culture, and making us all dependent on the state (and their unions) and they're willing to sacrifice elections to reach that goal.

I would say that Bush won the TX governorship due to Ann Richard's veto of TX CCW law. Gore would have won if Gore had been pro-gun-rights. Kerry also would have won against Bush if Kerry hadn't taken on the NRA. So yeah, the Democrats have no problem throwing away elections, including presidential races, for gun control.

OleCuss
07-19-2011, 12:52 PM
The equation is different now. Heller and McDonald actually give Democrats some political cover for irritating their base on principled civil rights grounds.

Does anyone notice that the amendment got 58 votes? I'd readily agree that some of the votes were purely political and would have been votes against passage if defeat had not been assured. But the point is that there are Democrat senators (and therefore Democrats) who will vote for some RKBA measures if the politics are right.

An Obama veto is not a sure thing at all. Oh, Obama is an anti-freedom fascist, don't get me wrong as to where I stand. And no, I'd not bet my house on his signing a Thune bill (and I'm not upside down). But if the politics play out right Obama just may sign a reciprocity bill.

stix213
07-19-2011, 1:35 PM
An Obama veto is not a sure thing at all. Oh, Obama is an anti-freedom fascist, don't get me wrong as to where I stand. And no, I'd not bet my house on his signing a Thune bill (and I'm not upside down). But if the politics play out right Obama just may sign a reciprocity bill.

I agree, aside from his own political leanings, there is more potential downside for Obama if he veto's the bill than if he just signs it. The bill itself may not even get any press mention.... unless of course if he vetos it, it will be discussed on every news program, with the topic being that Obama is anti-gun. Obama won't be able to control the discussion.

I would still think Obama will most likely veto the bill, but its certainly not out of the question that he would just sign it to make the issue go away.

Funtimes
07-19-2011, 2:35 PM
I could see Obama signing it to get all of the gun votes lol.

press1280
07-19-2011, 4:55 PM
I don't see Obama signing this as a standalone bill. Why would Thune be doing this now? Seems they are going to try to attach this to the debt ceiling, unless someone has another explanation why this is happening now.

dfletcher
07-19-2011, 5:07 PM
I suppose it could be asked of Stearns too, but what effect if any does Thune have on my Utah nonres and Oregon nonres CCW? Still good in those states, still recognized in the others?

Window_Seat
07-19-2011, 5:38 PM
I don't understand why Thune is bringing this up, when Stearns has a better one with 241 Cosponsors (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.822:), and a plan to get it out of the house, and into the Senate as a rider to a must sign bill.

I would like for Stearns to ask Thune to shelf any ideas he has now, since it's a bit late on his part to be thinking about bringing this up. It could really bite us in the backside, and would be an epic loss for us, thanks to Thune...

Erik.

Blackhawk556
07-19-2011, 5:53 PM
^^^^^May be he wants to take credit for this epic win???

Kid Stanislaus
07-19-2011, 7:32 PM
As for myself, I'd just as soon the feral government stay out of gun rights altogether. If there's a way to muck it up you can be sure those phuktards in Wash. D.C. will find a way to do it.

Gray Peterson
07-19-2011, 7:40 PM
I really hope their prior vote comes back to bite them in the backside. One heck of a dilemma. If they vote for it again, they lose support from the national Democratic Party which could jeopardize their pet projects or even their reelection chances while if they vote against it, their opponents will pounce on them during the next election cycle.


You could be a liberal Democratic Senator, dress it up as voting against laws which effect civil rights, and the DNC wouldn't go after you for it, or the DSCC.

This is not 1994, folks. The only reason Kristen Gillibrand turned from pro-gun to anti-gun when she became US Senator is the fact that New York is a strongly anti-gun state which would destroy any pro-gun candidates chances of winning. This is why Carolyn McCarthy was talking about running against her and New York's voters are stupid enough for vote for her solely on her gun control stance.

Try doing that in in the 41 other states. Not gonna happen.

Anchors
07-19-2011, 9:01 PM
I don't understand why Thune is bringing this up, when Stearns has a better one with 241 Cosponsors (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.822:), and a plan to get it out of the house, and into the Senate as a rider to a must sign bill.

I would like for Stearns to ask Thune to shelf any ideas he has now, since it's a bit late on his part to be thinking about bringing this up. It could really bite us in the backside, and would be an epic loss for us, thanks to Thune...

Erik.

That is what I was thinking.
I was reading this and wondering what the hell happened to Streans (HR 822).