Thursday, April 18, 2013

Regarding Cornyn And National Right To Carry Reciprocity


One of the amendments offered yesterday was on national right-to-carry. It was offered by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). Because it didn't get 60 votes in favor, it was considered defeated. The final vote was 57 ayes to 43 nays.

I think the mood in the Senate yesterday was that if Manchin-Toomey didn't pass, nothing was going to pass good or bad. Otherwise you wouldn't have had 44 Senators voting against the Burr Amendment which would have protected the Second Amendment rights of veterans by requiring that they be adjudicated mentally incompetent before losing their gun rights. To me, that amendment was right up there with Mom, apple pie, and baseball.

What does this mean for national right-to-carry in general? As I see it, national right to carry reciprocity legislation has a majority of the Senate in support of it. However, it is not a filibuster-proof majority as it didn't get 60 votes. It would be foolish to think that a Senator Boxer or a Senator Schumer would not filibuster this as a stand alone bill.

A number of the senators voting against the bill come from states with strong shall-issue carry laws. It might be possible to gain the remaining three needed votes. I see Sen. Harry Reid's votes as a "tactical no" while a Nelson of Florida or a King of Maine might be persuaded to listen to their constituents. It would be close and it again shows the folly of the Republicans in nominating weak, stupid, or ineffectual candidates. McCaskill of Missouri, Kaine of Virginia, and Baldwin of Wisconsin should have been beaten in 2012 and weren't. That would have been the three needed votes.

Ah, woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Here is the breakdown of the roll call vote on the Cornyn Amendment.
YEAs ---57
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)
NAYs ---43
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

7 comments:

  1. The last time this came up, there was speculation that Schumer had Bennet's vote in his pocket if needed. Based on his vote this time, that would appear to be true. Perhaps not true of the CO Udall.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Being from FL, and having had my email run-ins with that useless socialist Nelson, you can scratch him off the list right now. He will never, ever go against his masters in the party. He claims to be a supporter of The Second Amendment(as long as it's kept to shotguns and "hunting rifles" on the farm), but his nearly 100% against voting record says otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Agreed with the Nelson assessment above. He is not interested in hearing from his constituents.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The old bipartisan pro-gun coalition is gone with the Blue Dog Democrats.

    Gun rights are now a strictly partisan affair. Republicans are for them and Democrats are against them. It's that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is surprising for me to see the Udall cousins from NM and CO voting for this measure. It will take work to keep them in the Yea column. Being from AZ I know the honest service their fathers gave to this country. Let us pray they have their fathers' integrity as well.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "It would be close and it again shows the folly of the Republicans in nominating weak, stupid, or ineffectual candidates. McCaskill of Missouri...."

    I think you're vastly overstating the ability of parties to nominate their own candidates. McCaskill was said to have dropped a million plus dollars into ads against his primary opponents, i.e. she chose her own opponent. She's so bad, with so many normally politically lethal scandals, plus an election strategy that by its nature could only work once (when she beat the incumbent Republican in 2006 by fighting for every Democratic vote in the state in all the very Red parts), that the first credible candidate against her will win, so she was highly motivated to do this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Having a “Gun-Free” zone to stop ‘gun-violence’ makes about as much sense as having a “Fire-Extinguisher” zone to stop fires.

    ReplyDelete