National Association for Gun Rights
July 27, 2009

The Thune Amendment: Welcome to the Masquerade

A few weeks back, I sent you an email about the NRA's national
concealed carry bill that certain Republicans were trying to
attach to the speech-regulating "hate crimes" legislation.

In that message, I wrote about many of the dangers posed by the
NRA's original proposal to federalize our CCW system -- and they
are myriad.

(I've provided a link to NAGR's original statement on the
problems with the NRA's plan at the bottom of this email in case
you want to read or reread it.)

But just last week, there was a new national reciprocity bill on
gun owners' minds -- and on the Senate floor: The Thune
amendment.

As you probably know, it failed by two votes.

And I'd like to tell you why.

It wasn't a "lack of unity" in the Republican party that led to
the Thune amendment's 58-39 demise: The Thune amendment was
never supposed to pass.

The entire process was calculated to fail by faux Republicans
and vulnerable Democrats scheming together -- but only after
dozens of anti-gunners on both sides of the aisle could exploit
the chance to dissemble on the record as gun rights supporters.

It's Washington politics at its finest -- voting "yes" on an
ostensibly pro-gun bill orchestrated to die just short of the
needed number of votes, but that could still be used to dupe
constituents.

This is what happened in a nutshell:

Knowing that there are not enough votes for passage, Senator
Thune proposes the amendment (as cover, we think, for all the
faux gun rights supporters in the Senate) with the understanding
that Harry Reid will only allow it on the floor if he can get a
filibuster threat, thus rendering the amendment impossible to
pass.

Senator Schumer immediately threatens to filibuster (more
grandstanding), so now the amendment needs 60 votes to invoke
cloture.

(Read between the lines here: The bill did not have enough
votes to pass anyway, so all the filibuster threat did was to
give these scumbags 9 more "safe" yes votes to parade around.)
Senators Schumer and Reid secure all the nay votes needed to
ensure defeat.

Then, as guided by Reid and Schumer, Republican and Democrat
anti-gunners (especially those in rural or conservative states)
seize the opportunity to vote for something none of them actually
believed in order to pacify their constituents.
"See! Look! I voted for this bill! I'm pro-gun!"

Senators were literally getting permission from Schumer and Reid
to vote for the amendment -- permission because they couldn't go
over 59 votes -- lest the bill actually pass.

(Gasp!)

And remember who cooperated with this whole scheme: None other
than Mr. Thune.

Great cover vote, fellas. Good job.

Don't believe me? I'll let Luke's newest blog post -- which
contains the damning snippet from the Washington Post about Mark
Pryor's (D-AR) and Chuck Schumer's signal exchange on the Senate
floor -- explain the rest.

Click here to read Luke's commentary and leave a comment:
http://paracom.paramountcommunication.c ... A6AA5353DC

In Liberty,
Dudley Brown
Executive Director

To read or reread my earlier statement on the first national CCW
bill as formulated by the NRA, click here:
http://www.nationalgunrights.org/natlreciprocity.shtml

...In MN, you can drive with a SD issued drivers license, but you can't carry a gun with a SD concealed carry permit. Cars are far more dangerous than guns, and the logic eludes me.
...

Senator Thune may have been a bit Naive in the workings of Washington - but I believe his heart is right on this one.

Which would make him the perfect author of a bill that was never meant to pass.

Drivers licenses are legal anywhere based on (I think) Federal Law.

Carry permits are authorized on a state-to-state basis, based upon how their rules for getting a permit stack up against ours. (Theirs have to be same as ours, or more stringent, usually; that rule is codified in MN law at least)

Carry permits are authorized on a state-to-state basis, based upon how their rules for getting a permit stack up against ours. (Theirs have to be same as ours, or more stringent, usually; that rule is codified in MN law at least)

Nope. In Minnesota, another state's permit issuance standards must be "substantially similar," a very low standard meaning "bearing some resemblance."

"Meets or exceeds" is the incorrect, extralegal policy of the Pawlenty administration.

Have there been any challenges to this - that you are aware of? That is, has anyone with a concealed carry permit from another state not explicitly listed as having reciprocity with MN - challenged their right to carry in MN?

Have there been any challenges to this - that you are aware of? That is, has anyone with a concealed carry permit from another state not explicitly listed as having reciprocity with MN - challenged their right to carry in MN?

There are some people who have tried to expand reciprocity through proper channels but were thwarted.

I guess he was too busy not keeping an eye on his and Fletcher's Gang Strike Force guys.