Democratic majorities don’t decide Senate votes as you once believed
August 15, 2009

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

To paraphrase Tina Turner’s 1980s hit “What’s love got to do with it?” one has to wonder “What’s a majority vote have to do with democratic institutions?”

On July 22, the US Senate showed that representative democracy can be as constant as a lady of the evening.

To understand what happened to the bipartisan amendment offered by Sens. John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) to provide interstate recognition of right-to-carry licenses, one need only take a brief look at the timeline.

The Thune-Vitter amendment had originally been filed as a separate bill—S-1390—with bipartisan support and the clear intent to acknowledge that the right to self-defense extends across state lines. It was a clear attempt to provide for law-abiding citizens who had been previously vetted by their states to carry a handgun for personal defense the same recognition that driver’s licenses get when you cross a state line. All states giving full faith and credit to the gun-licensing authorities of all the other states has been a long sought objective of serious gun policy advocates.

Orchestrated Opposition
The anti-gunners have long demonstrated their hypocrisy by demanding uniform national gun control laws cast in Capitol Hill concrete while rejecting such a social policy standard if it did not meet the most anti-gun requirements of the most anti-gun states. For instance, while bemoaning different state gun laws that regulate the sale and possession of firearms, they defend states rights when people like Thune and Vitter take them at their word and propose a federal law requiring reciprocal recognition of state-issued licenses.

When the Thune-Vitter measure was offered as an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill, the anti-gunners immediately started screaming foul.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his cohorts in the Mayors Against Illegal Guns gang, longtime supporters of a one-size-fits-all federalist gun policy, immediately condemned this sensible proposal.

Likewise, the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, perhaps stung by earlier pro-gun amendments approved by Congress as amendments to the DC voting rights bill and the energy bill, found new voice to champion states rights in order to deprive honest citizens of the means to self-defense.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) immediately warned that the Republican “sneak attack” legislation could render New York State’s law requiring handgun owners to obtain concealed carry licenses toothless.

“To say that someone who gets a license in another state can then take their gun into Central Park or into Eisenhower Park without any checking with local law enforcement is appalling and could affect our safety,” Schumer said in an interview with Newsday.

He threatened to filibuster the amendment, which led to some internal Senate procedural maneuvers, almost as effective in blocking a vote as a filibuster.

His New York stablemate in the Senate, Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who once was allegedly opposed to restrictions on gun ownership as an upstate congresswoman, also opposed the Thune-Vitter amendment, and voted with Schumer against it. (More about Gillibrand later!)

Anti-gunners Strike Back
While the bipartisan supporters of national reciprocity were trying to figure a way around the threatened Schumer filibuster, on July 20 the Violence Policy Center (VPC) issued a press release of their “study” which claimed that concealed handgun permit holders killed seven police officers and 44 private citizens over a two year period.

The timing was right out of the movie “Wag the Dog.” The VPC release made no bones about linking their “study” to the vote on the Thune-Vitter amendment. The generally anti-gun media, of course, lapped up the “study” without chasing down its origins in an effort to help shape public opinion against the amendment.

In the press release, VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand stated, “State concealed handgun systems are arming cop-killers and other murderers. It is beyond irrational for Congress to vote to expand the reach of these deadly laws.”

“Republican sneak attack!” “Deadly laws!” “Filibuster!” The opposition had orchestrated a clear attempt to derail the Thune-Vitter amendment.

On July 22, by a margin of 58-39, a bipartisan majority of the US Senate voted in favor of the Thune-Vitter amendment. You would think that a clear majority, voting in a democratic forum would have passed the amendment. But not so!

Despite the bipartisan majority of votes, the Thune-Vitter amendment did not pass—because it fell two votes short of the required 60 votes for its approval. Where did the super-majority number come into a Senate vote, you might ask? A simple majority passes most measures unless otherwise provided in the Constitution—or by a special parliamentary rule.

Well, before the vote, the majority and minority leaders—Democrats and Republicans——had adopted a special parliamentary rule requiring a 60-vote approval threshold. The agreement was, in part, used to avoid a filibuster and any hostile amendments to the Thune-Vitter amendment, something that had also been threatened.

“Today’s strong majority vote in the US Senate was an important step forward in the National Rifle Association’s decades long effort to make right-to-carry and national reciprocity the law of the land,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre afterward.

And, in a news release, Thune said, “Today, overheated rhetoric and fear mongering overcame common sense. My amendment would allow responsible firearms owners to protect themselves while obeying the firearms laws of the states they visit. The individual right to self-defense should not end at the state line. Despite today’s defeat, this amendment had bipartisan support and I hope the Senate will reconsider this important issue in the future.”

No True Indicator
Dave Workman’s report on the national reciprocity measure offers more about the climate that prevailed on Capitol Hill for the vote. Not every Senator was as forthright about the vote as they might have been. The rollcall vote on the Thune-Vitter amendment is reported on Page 7 of this issue. But the raw vote may not be a true indicator of real sentiments of many in both parties.

There were some Republicans who voted for the amendment who have not been as stalwart defenders of the right to keep and bear arms as they would have you believe. There were some Democrats who may have voted for the amendment secure in the knowledge that it would never become law, but able to lay claim to a pro-gun vote when the next time they are out campaigning.

Gillibrand, for example, delivered an anti-gun vote as she obviously promised Schumer and New York Gov. David Paterson when he appointed her to fill Hillary Clinton’s seat. Before her elevation to the Senate by appointment, Gillibrand had claimed to be pro-gun and protective of her constituents’ firearms rights, and had been rated an “A” by the NRA in her last House race.

But now, she and Schumer, as well as any other pair of anti-gunners who voted wrong in the knowledge that national right to carry would not pass, will have to answer to any of the residents of their states who become victims of the status quo and suffer from predatory attacks while traveling that they might have been able to defend against.

Yes, there is a right to travel freely in this great county, but thanks to those who organized the 60-vote threshold and the whole charade, there is not right to travel free from fear.
Return to Archive Index