When are we getting the Thune Bill?

The reason 58-39 didn't carry the day was because Sen. Schumer filibustered and it takes 60 votes to pass a cloture (end debate and vote already) motion rather than the 50 to approve an amendment or bill. He could do the same thing for a brand-new stand-alone bill.

It makes me think Harry Reid might be smarter than most give him credit for, allowing the amendment in the first place: he and the rest of the red-state Democrats got a chance to go on record voting for a pro-gun amendment without it actually mattering, Schumer got credit for a win against the NRA, the Brady gang got a bit reinvigorated at a close win, and the NRA and its allies will now be seen as hypocritical when speaking out against federal laws and standards and wanting things to be left to the state level.

If you look at the vote you should notice that it was supported by both Republicans and Democrats - most of the latter coming from rural states. So the vote wasn't along party lines.

That said, the party leadership, which is center-left to way, way left doesn't like the idea at all. They would try to derail any stand-alone bill if they could, but if one got to the floor of both the House and Senate the results might be interesting - especially as we get closer to the 2010 elections.

As usual, the Old Fuff's post is spot on!

Sam

I disagree with your analysis. When controversial legislation is proposed the best chance to get it through is as an amendment to am important bill. Democrats are famous for attaching all sorts of Liberal agenda items to defense bills, etc. knowing that legislators opposed to the measure may vote for it anyway to get the main bill through. Adding the measure as an amendment was the best shot it had and it still failed.

Don't be fooled by the 58 votes in support. Many of those were cast by senators who actually oppose the bill but wanted to curry favor from gun owners or avoid condemnation from the NRA. They voted in favor knowing the bill would fail. Had there been a real chance of passage the senators opposed to it who voted for it this time would have voted against it.

Also note that Chuck Schumer vowed to filibuster this bill. If it ever comes back he will do it and right now he could make it stick. And even if... and that's a HUGE if... it got through the Congress it would still have to be signed by the president. Our totally, fully committed, anti-Second Amendment Marxist president who has stated his opposition to concealed carry and actually favors a total ban on gun ownership. What do you think the odds are he would sign such a bill into law? Here's a clue: zero and none.

As much as I would love to see this bill pass and become law there is no hope of it happening with the current power structure in DC. MAYBE if there were a Republican majority (not all of them are pro-gun but they tend to be better than the average Democrat) and a president friendly towards the 2nd Amendment it might see the light of day. For the time being, no way.

You may or may not be right, but I believe that making legislators vote on any gun issue creates a valuable record. You are right of course in saying that some will support the bill only because they are sure it won't become law, but there are ways to detect their true feelings. I would love to put Obama in a position where he had to either sign or veto a pro-gun bill, because it would put to rest those Democrats that keep telling us that he really isn't anti-gun.

Sure he isn't....

Don't be fooled by the 58 votes in support. Many of those were cast by senators who actually oppose the bill but wanted to curry favor from gun owners or avoid condemnation from the NRA. They voted in favor knowing the bill would fail.

Click to expand...

My analysis exactly, a throwaway bill to make "moderate" Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats appear conservative and responsive to their constituents without actually doing anything the real bosses would disapprove of.

All I know is it missed by 2 votes.....an only 2 Republicans voted against it, if they hadn't, it would of made it...thats why I won't be voting for Sen. DICK Lugar (R) at the next election.

No, it didn't miss by only 2 votes. In a real vote... in this Congress... it would have missed by 12 or more.

Obama would veto and the spin doctors would convince the ignorant and uncaring that he was actually supporting the 2nd with his veto. About 90% of voters are blithering idiots who have no freaking idea what they are doing.

And that's not just my opinion, that is the conclusion of a recent university study of voters. Results showed 90% had absolutely NO CLUE as to what their candidate stood for or wanted to do. They voted for name recognition, party affiliation*, or some other consideration (um, like maybe 97% of black voters voting for Obama- but remember it wasn't about race).

* I heard a guy at a gun show before the election actually say "I know Obama is bad on the gun issue but I HAVE to vote for him because he's the Democrat."

Idiots, morons and stupid fools elect the president and Congress. I fully favor a basic civics test that must be passed before being allowed to vote.

All of the news stories surrounding this made for some interesting reading. One article said that this would have affected every state except Wisconsin and Illinois, because they don't issue concealed carry permits.

Many have suggested a national concealed carry bill to even the playing field so to speak. I even brought it up on a forum a couple of years ago. The Federal government laws generally trump state law. I'm comfortable letting this issue stay at the state level.

However, it would be interesting to see what President Obama would do if passed in the legislature.

I generally don't like these amendments being tacked onto what is considered more important or critical legislation. It's sneaky and underhanded. I would prefer a straight bill with an up or down vote to see where our representatives stand and how well they represent their party or their constituents.

Sen. Shumer doesn't come close to representing my interests. But I enjoy listening to him speak and make his case on whatever issue it might be. He is very partisan, but he has a pretty good head on his shoulders.

Idiots, morons and stupid fools elect the president and Congress. I fully favor a basic civics test that must be passed before being allowed to vote.

Click to expand...

Amen.

I've always thought we should go back to restricting the vote to landowners. If only people with skin in the game get to decide, we wouldn't have so many people trying to vote themselves a paycheck from the gub'ment. The majority of responsible, hardworking people own a house or could if they wanted to. I'm not talking a 40 acre minimum, just some sort of equity in a primary residence or business.

Juvenal said:

Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses

Click to expand...

Anyway, I'm getting way off topic here.

Pretty much. Discussions of the bill contents are on topic. Discussions about the meanderings of the various CongressCritters are not.