Was Senate reciprocity vote political ‘cover?’
by Dave Workman
Senior Editor
With the failure by two votes—both marginal liberal Republicans—of the Thune Amendment that would have provided almost nationwide concealed carry reciprocity, conjecture has been rampant that the requirement for 60-vote approval gave several Democrats an opportunity to support an amendment they knew would fail for “political cover.”
Even The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank suggested that the whole thing had apparently been carefully choreographed to allow some senators to vote for the amendment, thus giving them a chance to get a better grade from the National Rifle Association (NRA) on this issue.
Voting against gun rights and their own caucus, Republican Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana and George Voinovich of Ohio held the final tally two votes short of the required 60 to pass legislation sponsored by Sen. John Thune of South Dakota. His amendment to the defense bill would have required full recognition of concealed carry permits between the states, a proposition that brought every anti-gun organization, including the Mayors Against Illegal Guns and International Association of Chiefs of Police, out of the political woodwork.
What the amendment would not have done, contrary to assertions by opponents, is force any state to change its existing concealed carry statutes.
Thune hinted to The Washington Post that the measure might be introduced again later this year. Various newspaper reports, and the Associated Press, characterized the issue as having a strong majority of support, but not enough to meet the 60-vote requirement.
Emotional testimony from anti-gun Sens. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer of California, and Charles Schumer of New York asserted that passage of the measure would have allowed “gun traffickers” to bring “concealed assault weapons” into states that have banned such firearms. Proponents of the measure, including Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, called such assertions nonsense.
“The reality of that particular situation is the gang members already have their guns,” Webb observed at one point. “The people who need this bill are the ones that the gang members might be threatening.”
With the exception of Lugar and Voinovich, every other “nay” vote came from a Democrat, or in the case of Senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernard Sanders of Vermont, both Independents. Thirty-eight Republicans were joined by 20 Democrats, while West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd, the ailing Massachusetts Democrat Edward M. Kennedy and Maryland Democrat Barbara Mikulski did not vote.
Joe Waldron, legislative director for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, suggested in an e-mail exchange with Gun Week that “this was purely cover for rural state Democrats.”
“Most of those ‘Ds’ are not our friends,” he observed.
Leading the opposition, Feinstein, Schumer and Lautenberg not only argued that the legislation would have allowed gun traffickers to bring concealed semi-auto rifles into states with bans, they also professed outrage that this bill violate states rights.
In the aftermath, gun rights activists quickly pointed to various national laws that the anti-gunners had supported, including the Clinton-era ban on so-called “assault weapons,” Lautenberg’s ban on gun ownership by anyone ever convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, the Brady Law and National Instant Check.
Following the narrow defeat, newspapers ridiculed Thune’s proposal, and even criticized the South Dakota senator for suggesting during debate that New York’s Central Park might be safer if armed visitors from his state were able to walk through the huge park while visiting the Big Apple.
Return to Archive Index