The sham vote on national concealed carry 'Thune Amendment'

(Or “When a ‘pro-gun vote' … isn’t”)

Senator John Thune (R-SD), whose amendment for national
concealed handgun reciprocity failed by 2 votes.
(AP Photo/Harry Hamburg)

Plenty of ink (and not a little hot air) has been expended over yesterday’s US Senate vote on the “Thune Amendment” to the National Defense Authorization Act. Introduced by Senator John Thune (R-SD) and much-ballyhooed by the NRA, the amendment would have created national reciprocity between states with concealed carry laws, enabling concealed handgun permit-holders to protect themselves and their families during interstate travel.

Laudable though Thune’s goal of national concealed carry may be, however, understand that the entire exercise was nothing but a sham in which (surprise, surprise) the amendment failed by a vote of 58 – 39. So before gun rights supporters contact the 58 ever-so-brave US Senators (including 20 Democrats) to thank them for supporting the measure, all should understand that its failure was preordained by Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and quite probably sanctioned by the NRA.

(Side note: Sixty votes – for “cloture” – were required for passage rather than the usual 51 due to a threatened filibuster by perennially anti-gun Sen. Charles Schumer. In the gentile land of the US Senate, threats routinely substitute for real action.)

Despite hand-wringing by The Washington Post that “Democrats Fear Defections on GOP Gun Proposal,” rest assured that Harry Reid almost certainly engineered every Democrat vote for or against the measure.

So why did Reid engage in such Vaudeville slight-of-hand? Did he schedule the vote to “show his commitment to gun rights”? After all, he insists his intentions are pure:

“This has nothing to do with electoral politics,” assured Reid spokesman Jim Manley, according to politico.com: “Harry Reid has always supported gun rights and intends to do so in the future.”

Yeah, right. In reality, Reid is vulnerable in his 2010 re-election bid and, consequently, threw the NRA a very small bone.

And what does the NRA get? The appearance of accomplishing something – if not actual passage of the amendment, at least a recorded vote which purports to show who’s “fer ya” and “agin ya.” More action means more NRA members and more money.

Unfortunately, however, the vote shows nothing of the sort and, indeed, undermines your ability to assess which senators are actually pro-gun. The exercise is common, and here’s how it works: Chamber leadership (read that “Democrat”) gives a pass to members in conservative (or vulnerable) districts to vote for a measure which the leadership intends to kill – all the while keeping enough votes against, by Democrats in secure districts, to ensure defeat. They know, after all, that the NRA won’t waste money going after Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein or Frank Lautenberg.

So the result is a vote in which anti-gun Democrats such like Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) get to posture as gun rights supporters. As an example, consider today’s account from today’s Washington Post:

“Toward the end of the vote, [Sen. Mark Pryor, D-AR] entered the chamber through the back door, took a few steps inside, flashed a thumbs-down to the clerk, and retreated as fast and furtively as somebody dodging gunfire.

Several minutes later, the Democrats had racked up more than enough votes to block the proposal. ‘Are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote?’ the presiding officer inquired.

“Pryor burst back in, this time through a side door. ‘Mr. President!’ he called out. ‘Mr. President!’ He stopped in the well to consult with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), a gun-control advocate who was keeping the whip sheet. Schumer gave Pryor a nod, and the Arkansan -- reassured that his vote was not needed to defeat the proposal -- changed his vote to an ‘aye.’”

As a masterful touch, the amendment failed by just two votes – exactly the number of Republicans who voted against it, giving the appearance that failure was due to lack of Republican unity.

If the drama demonstrates anything, it is that, as Mark Twain put it, “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.”