Thune amendment fails; falls two votes short

[babylonsister]

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/07/22/thune-amendment-fails-falls-two-votes-short/

Thune amendment fails; falls two votes short
@ 12:33 pm by Eric Zimmermann


A controversial change to gun control policy fell two votes short of Senate passage this afternoon.

The "Thune Amendment"–named after chief sponsor Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)–would have forced states that grant concealed firearm permits to honor such permits from other states.

Opponents argued that states have much different standards for getting a permit, meaning states with stricter standards would have to honor permits from state's with a more lax policy.

The amendment garnered 58 votes, including between 15 and 20 Democrats (a full roll call will be available shortly.) At least two Republicans–Sens. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio) voted no. Under Senate rules, the amendment needed 60 votes.

[N7255Q]

1. That 60 vote rule. Some people love it and some hate it.

shrug

[Engineer4Obama]

43. There should just be a cap to how often you can use it

It needs to stay around for things like this.

[donco6]

2. Good news. n/t

[TheWraith]

12. No, it's not.

Contrary to popular opinion, the standards for getting a concealed-carry license are fairly uniform cross country with a few exceptions: for instance, New York which is more difficult, and Vermont where you require no license at all. So the idea that there would suddenly be a flood of "gun nuts" walking around is simply false. It's equivalent to saying that people from Kansas shouldn't be allowed to drive in New York because it might be easier to get a driver's license.

Second, the more recognition the federal government requires states to give to the judicial acts of other states (as required by the constitution) the clearer a body of evidence there is for making the legal case that marriage licenses don't stop working the minute you step out of Iowa. As it stands, there are only a handful of types of legal documents that other states aren't legally required by the federal government to recognize when coming from other states. Carry licenses and marriage licenses are two of them. Knocking down one of those would put DOMA on even shakier footing.

[joeybee12]

18. Gun nuts can already take a gun from one state to another...

...1986 law...this is about concealed weapons, which in essence are really really stupid to begin with....and it's about forcing states that aren't run by wing-nuts to allow gun nuts to come there and have a concealed weapon.

[X_Digger]

20. Reciprocity already exists..

.. it's only states like NY & CA that don't honor permits from other states.

This would have made reciprocity uniform among the states.

[joeybee12]

23. It would have forced states to go along with these stupid laws, you mean...

...all for authoritarianism here, no need for states that are run by lunatics to make laws for themselves.

[X_Digger]

25. "go along with these stupid laws"?

What laws would this have forced those states that only honor their own permits to 'go along with'?

[joeybee12]

30. To honor a law from another state that allows idiots to carry cpncealed weapons...

...the regulations for geting a concealed weapon permit vary greatly...states like california have strong restrictions because they're sane and realize there actually are very few instances where a concealed permit is legimiate, Alaska has none, they give them to everyone.

[TheWraith]

66. Actually, there's very little variation in concealed weapons permit requirements.

The standard requirements nationwide are to be a legal adult who has never been convicted of a felony, violent misdemeanor, or any form of domestic violence; has no extant mental health problems; is a legal primary resident of the issuing state; has no current outstanding warrants, restraining orders, writs of protection, etcetera; passes the NICS federal background check; and a few other things. The main variation is that some states require a training class beforehand, and some don't. Then there's states like Vermont, where you don't have to have any license in order to carry a concealed weapon. Somehow, Vermont doesn't seem to be swimming in blood.

[X_Digger]

72. And since VT does not offer permits..

Nobody from Vermont would be able to carry in another state solely because of this amendment. (Unless they had an out of state permit from another state.)

[Tesha]

44. Strangely enough, certain people from certain places *CAN'T* drive in New York City.

> It's equivalent to saying that people from Kansas shouldn't be allowed to drive
> in New York because it might be easier to get a driver's license.

But that's exactly the case that exists now! Strangely enough, certain people
from certain places *CAN'T* drive in New York City. NYC requires drivers to
be 18 years old and they don't give a damn if your state lets kids drive at
(say) 15-1/2. And it's all perfectly legal.

It's also notable that when it came to Equal Marriage, the Republicans and
the usual bunch of DINOs weren't nearly so hot on allowing one state's
marriage laws to bleed across into the neighboring states.

But Guns, well, whenever we're talking about guns, things have to be
different!

Tesha

[TheWraith]

63. Actually, this bill was subject to the requirements of the host state.

For instance, limitations on where they could carry their weapons.

[Pavulon]

70. I broke the SHIT out of that law

man I never knew that. Either way, at 17 I would not have cared anyway. What a stupid law.

[Critters2]

3. Good.

I hope both of my senators voted no. If so, I'll call and thank them. I don't want gun nuts from other states coming here with their weapons.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Think of it. Two weeks ago, Al Franken wouldn't have been voting on the Amendment.

That's an awfully close vote.

[dsc]

14. unless Franken voted yes it doesn't matter

They needed 60 yes votes, not a certain fraction of votes cast.

[kestrel91316]

5. Good. You wanna hide a gun on your person, do it in your OWN state.

[N7255Q]

10. Congratulations on Prop 8

your wonderful state won't have to accept those disgusting gay marriages from filthy blue states.

[kestrel91316]

22. Well, given my vocal support for gay marriage (an my married gay clients),

your hateful snark seems misplaced.

State laws are STATE laws, and the states have the right to regulate certain things. Like concealed weapons, which is the ACTUAL subject of this thread.

[N7255Q]

29. Pretty selective outrage there. (I'm gay and I've had guns for 50+ years)

and I know a hypocrite when I see one.

[kevinbgoode]

50. And you live in Oklahoma. . .

is there a reason a gay person would need a gun in such a hospitable environment?

[fascisthunter]

52. .

[N7255Q]

69. Naw, everybody loves us.

Except the ones who want to beat the fuck out of us.

[Cha]

6. They have more important amendments to

pass than fucking thune's gun fantasies.

[BlooInBloo]

7. Thank gawd.

[Deep13]

8. Lugar's from Indiana. nt

[babylonsister]

13. Thanks. OP changed. nt

[Jokerman]

9. "Dick" Lugar is from Indiana, not Ohio.

But if Ohio wants him I wouldn't mind.

[BlooInBloo]

11. Schumer on teevee right now - says they had 4 or 5 more ready to go, if needed.

[X_Digger]

16. 4 or 5 who would have changed?

Only 3 didn't vote.. Byrd, Kennedy, and one other who was out for ankle surgery.

[BlooInBloo]

19. He didn't use the words you used - they were more like the words I used...

But that's what I took him to mean - basically that they saw they had enough votes to kill it, so some Dems in politically tough areas got the green light to vote 'no'.

Again - those aren't the words he used, just how I understood them.

[X_Digger]

21. *nod* I'm just confused..

.. cause if he had 4 of 5 'ready', that means 4 or 5 voted 'yes' but were prepared to change their vote to 'no'.

Be interesting to know who they were.

[BlooInBloo]

26. (shrug) I imagine that happens pretty routinely...

Giving cover to noob senators, or senators with tough races, that kind of thing.

[Engineer4Obama]

45. Barbara Mikulski

She's my senator so I try and keep track. She would probably have been a no vote so there was no difference.

[zanne]

15. IT'S A WONDERFUL DAY! NT

[N7255Q]

17. And now, no bad person will ever illegally take a gun into a gun-free zone.

Hallelujah.

[joeybee12]

24. Wow--you're stil here? I thought you'd be busy answering phones today...

...after all the NRA hotline must going off the hook again now that this reasonable and well-thought-out amendment didn't pass. pity.

[N7255Q]

28. As it happens, I've owned guns for well over 50 years and was never an NRA member

at least not up til last year when I began to see my fellow Democrats starting to crap on the Bill of Rights.
I've been reading DU for over a year and I know this...about half the people here agree with me on 2nd amendment issues, so I guess you can just call us all nasty names if that floats your boat.

[Critters2]

31. You've been reading DU for over a year, but didn't decide to actually

sign in until today...to complain about a gun bill. Really?

[N7255Q]

33. Uh, yes that's exactly right. Does it offend you?

If I were to comment on some other issue would that be...different?
Thank you for the welcome, it sure is nice to be welcomed in such a friendly manner!

[Critters2]

35. How long have you belonged to the NRA? nt

[N7255Q]

36. Not long. I never did for the first 50+ years I owned guns.

But after years of seeing people crapping on the Bill of Rights (the republican Brady bunch) I finally decided to join.
:D
editing, didn't you see my post 28 where I said?
You replied to it...

[Critters2]

37. A Democrat and an NRA member.

Only one way to react to that.

:puke:

[N7255Q]

47. Oh, dear, the several million of us don't meet your purity test.

Love the big tent. How do you feel about queers? (I'm one of those too)

[Critters2]

49. The man with the gun is crying victim.

That's humorous.

[N7255Q]

51. I'm not worried, I will continue to carry mine anywhere I please

and there really isn't a thing you can do about it.

[Critters2]

56. What makes you frightened that you need to carry a gun all the time?

What a sad way to live. Pathetic, really.

[N7255Q]

65. That's pretty funny...I'm not frightened -because- I have it.

I wonder how comfortable you'd be alone in some of the places I go. Not very, I'm quite sure. What's pathetic is that some people think the Bill of Rights is a bunch of options that people can pick and choose some parts and ignore others...like the 'salad bar' "christians" who pick out a few isolated bible verses to justify demonizing gay people. I know how that works all too well.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Critters2]

78. Actually, my pacifism is a result of my being Christian.

So, is the fact that I perform weddings for gay people. If you want to flash "gay-friendly" credentials, friend, you'll lose that battle. I've taken plenty of risks because of my sexuality and that of the people I serve. And I do it without a gun...so they really are risks.

[N7255Q]

86. Pardon me, but I am not your friend. I don't know you from Adam.

So which parts of the New Testament DO you adhere to?...apparently not Matthew 10:34
the salad bar is still wide open, I see.

[Critters2]

88. Says the gun-toting Christian.

I am good with the ignore function.

[N7255Q]

89. Ah, "ignore", the last refuge of a debunked coward.

Nice.

[Pavulon]

67. 2 types of people, those who carry spare tire, flares, and a tow rope

and those who take help from people who do. Fear is not a factor in carrying a weapon. Fear does not motivate me to carry tools in my car that may be helpful should I (or an unprepared person) need them. WTF does it matter to you what I carry.

Why should you care?

[Critters2]

74. Because guns are intended to kill people.

They're not tire irons.

[N7255Q]

76. That is an egregious logical fallacy.

I have a feeling you know that.

[Critters2]

79. So, guns AREN'T intended to kill people?

Then why do you need one?

[Pavulon]

83. That dog is intended to hunt. Not to sit in your bed

it was designed for a specific purpose. Guns are designed to place a piece of metal downrange. What that metal does is up to the user. If you choose to use it for something else that is your call. I have no reason or intent to use a gun to kill anyone. If I choose to carry a gun how does that impact you.

[N7255Q]

87. I really don't have the time to conduct a class in Logic 101 here.

Let's just drop it.

[Pavulon]

80. Guns don't have intent..

people do. Bullets actually do the killing. You buy that piece of metal and you own it from the barrel to the final resting point. Intent allows a person to kill you with a gun or a tire iron. Or their car while texting away like a jack ass. Either way you are stone dead, so wtf do you care if you were killed by a chevy or 115 grain chunk of metal. Some asshole still killed you.

[Critters2]

81. Guns ARE intended.

By those who make them, and those who use them.

[X_Digger]

82. Guns are _intended_..

..to propel a projectile.

[Critters2]

84. into a human being. nt

[Pavulon]

85. Users choice.

you can use your car to kill a person too.

[joeybee12]

32. You have a perverse view of the Bill of Rights...as do 'those half" of who

you say agree with you...sick, twisted NRA propoganda to make you believe what the 2nd amendment actually was intended for.

[N7255Q]

34. That's pretty funny. Like a train wreck.

...

[fascisthunter]

53. nah... it's pathetic and sad actually

especially when men don't feel free without carrying a weapon.

[marmar]

54. "it's pathetic and sad....especially when men don't feel free without carrying a weapon"

SCREAMS from the "Amen!" corner. :applause:

[fascisthunter]

57. thanks

I want my country back from these psychos.... it's personal.

[Pavulon]

64. So repeal it. Wouldn't be the first time..

some asshole monkeyed with the constitution. I mean it took a while before they realized how fucking stupid they were, but the damage was done. The booze ban went great, just like the drug war. Brilliant. Just repeal the 2nd. This is just pissing in the face of lawful people.

I have a CCW, I design turbine blades and processes to make them for major companies here and abroad, I have military training on the M9 (a handgun), and have passes a single scope background check and have good judgement. Now why should I not be able to have a consistent rule covering ccw?

I am a psycho for that, really?

[N7255Q]

71. Well said, sir.

Very well.

[N7255Q]

68. What other groups do you freely call 'psycho'?...gays, maybe?

Brown folks? Orientals? Plumbers & lawyers?


Sure do love this big tent I'm finding here.

[fascisthunter]

90. What an Ignorant Statement

ignorant and shallow way of trying to stifle debate with a false charge of bigotry. Trying to play the victim was transparent... I'm not impressed.

Gun pushers are psychos, people who make a living by lobbying for the gun industry, helping to sell weapons in society is much different from people who are born a certain way. I expect right wingers to confuse the two.

[derby378]

27. Here's the roll call of votes on the Thune amendment

YEAs - 58
Alexander (R-TN), Barrasso (R-WY), Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Begich (D-AK), Bennet (D-CO), Bennett (R-UT), Bond (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Casey (D-PA), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Collins (R-ME), Conrad (D-ND), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Dorgan (D-ND), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (R-SC), Grassley (R-IA), Gregg (R-NH), Hagan (D-NC), Hatch (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Johanns (R-NE), Johnson (D-SD), Kyl (R-AZ), Landrieu (D-LA), Lincoln (D-AR), Martinez (R-FL), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Murkowski (R-AK), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Reid (D-NV), Risch (R-ID), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Snowe (R-ME), Tester (D-MT), Thune (R-SD), Udall (D-CO), Udall (D-NM), Vitter (R-LA), Warner (D-VA), Webb (D-VA), Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs - 39
Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Brown (D-OH), Burris (D-IL), Cantwell (D-WA), Cardin (D-MD), Carper (D-DE), Dodd (D-CT), Durbin (D-IL), Feinstein (D-CA), Franken (D-MN), Gillibrand (D-NY), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Kaufman (D-DE), Kerry (D-MA), Klobuchar (D-MN), Kohl (D-WI), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Lieberman (ID-CT), Lugar (R-IN), McCaskill (D-MO), Menendez (D-NJ), Merkley (D-OR), Murray (D-WA), Nelson (D-FL), Reed (D-RI), Rockefeller (D-WV), Sanders (I-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Shaheen (D-NH), Specter (D-PA), Stabenow (D-MI), Voinovich (R-OH), Whitehouse (D-RI), Wyden (D-OR)

NOT VOTING - 3
Byrd (D-WV), Kennedy (D-MA), Mikulski (D-MD)

[RagAss]

41. Warner...You piece of Shit.

[KharmaTrain]

42. It's Called A "Safe Vote"

The fact that two GOOPers went against it, doomed this puppy...but it also gave some Democrats cover...voting "Aye" knowing the motion was going to fail. Warner and several of the others were able to keep the NRA off their backs...and even but them in a box and keep them on the sidelines in future elections. Bottom line is the NRA lost a big vote today.

[marmar]

46. Very proud of the Michigan Senatorial Duo.....

:yourock:

[Critters2]

59. Both of my Senators voted correctly! Even the incompetent one! nt

[Pavulon]

61. Squandered chance to prove dems are not anti gun, law impacts

law abiding people who have submitted to a criminal background check. Pretty stupid.

[mascarax]

77. Feingold?! Why?

I left him a message for him on this too...am disappointed.

[Hepburn]

91. Same question...WTF!?!?!?!?!?!? eom

[Ichingcarpenter]

38. A Repuglican ammendment fails and some DUers cry

What a pathetic place this has become when Duers support Repuglicans

[N7255Q]

48. You mean the Republican Brady gang?

And there are only 2 ms in amendment.

[Ichingcarpenter]

55. The Brady Amendment was a Democratic Bill...... which republicans hated

so that means you must be a republican since you don't even know history and suggested it was a repug bill

1. Brady Amendment--H.R. 975

Despite increased public attention on the issue of gun control, no legislative proposals were introduced in Congress until seven years after the assassination attempt. On February 4, 1988, Representative Edward Feighan (D- Ohio) introduced H.R. 975 which provided for a seven-day waiting period before any person could sell, deliver or transfer a handgun to someone who was not licensed under the Gun Control Act of 1968. <19> Under this Act, a prospective purchaser would have been required to sign a sworn statement which the handgun dealer would send to the local chief law enforcement officer for verification. <20> If, after the seven-day waiting period, the dealer did not receive notification from the chief law enforcement officer that the purchaser's receipt of the handgun would violate federal, state or local law then the transfer could be initiated. <21> Initially, H.R. 975 did not preempt state gun control legislation if there was a preexisting waiting period of at least seven days prior to the transfer of a handgun. <22>



http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Cozzolino1.html

[N7255Q]

73. I didn't mention the Brady Amendment, you imagined that.

I was referring to the -organization-.

[Pavulon]

62. I support smart shit, do not call was repub

and is great. This law impacts people who have undergone a background check and are legal gun owners. Wasted chance to pass a smart bill that would shut down the dems are anti gun. Oh well.

Fucking with gun control is a suicidal move.

[kiapolo]

39. I would have loved this amendment to pass...

In Hawaii we have NO concealed firearms permits for regular citizens. Our arcane firearms laws in Hawaii would force lawsuits in most other States...

[marmar]

40. Enchante !!!!

:toast:

[fascisthunter]

58. phew... almost forgot to rec this

[Owl]

60. Good. Glad the amendment failed to pass.