Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Sunday, July 26, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Harry Reid
Sun Coverage
Sun Blogs
The first time Sen. Harry Reid won the National Rifle Association’s endorsement for his Senate campaign was 2004. That was the same year the colleague whom Reid would replace as Democratic leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, lost his own race, in part because of opposition from gun owners.
Reid had never been an antagonist of the Second Amendment rights group. An elected official from the West, he always had a healthy appreciation for gun owners’ rights.
But after watching the Democratic Party’s electoral losses on gun issues over the years, he became a reliable proponent of the gun rights agenda.
Now as Senate majority leader, Reid is an odd-man out in Washington — a top Democratic leader who is more pro-gun than several of his lieutenants or rank-and-file members.
It should come as no surprise then that Reid allowed a vote to proceed last week on an NRA-supported bill that was despised by several high-profile Democratic senators.
The legislation sponsored by Republican Sen. John Thune would allow gun owners with concealed weapon permits in their home states to transfer that right to carry into another state that also has a conceal carry law. Thune, incidentally, was the challenger who brought down Daschle in South Dakota that year.
For 20 years, the gun lobby has been increasing the number of states offering concealed weapons permits.
Several states have reciprocity agreements with other states, and 11 states will accept permits from any other state. Only Wisconsin, Illinois and the District of Columbia do not offer concealed weapons permits and would not be required to accept out-of-state permits under the bill.
But opponents think states should have the authority to determine gun laws, and not be forced to accept permits from those with more lenient requirements. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence opposed the bill.
The legislation failed, after being offered as an amendment to a broader bill.
But the effort fell just two votes shy of the 60 votes needed to advance.
In an unusually overt break in party leadership, top Democrats were fighting to kill the legislation. Reid’s lieutenants engaged in indelicate wrangling to keep Democrats as one. One Southern-state Democrat switched his vote from no to yes after the first tally showed enough votes for defeat.
Reid voted in support, as did 20 of his Democratic colleagues — a sign of the gun lobby’s power and the lengths the party has come in supporting Second Amendment rights.
Even in defeat, the National Rifle Association was pleased.
This was the first time the legislation had been brought to a vote in the Senate and it won vast bipartisan support from 58 senators.
“We were very appreciative of Sen. Reid’s leadership,” said Chris Cox, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. “Had it not been for his leadership, this vote would not have taken place.”
Just a little more than a week earlier, the NRA sent a letter to its Nevada members noting Reid’s accomplishments.
The letter reads like a greatest hits list of Second Amendment legislation under Reid’s watch:
He opposed the Obama administration’s interest in reinstating the assault weapons ban, halting momentum; helped pass a law that allows gun owners to carry firearms in national parks; voted against the District of Columbia’s gun ban; voted for legislation to allow pilots in commercial airline cockpits to be armed. And years earlier, the letter notes, Reid was instrumental in passing legislation halting lawsuits that were attempting to hold gun manufacturers and dealers responsible for weapons used in criminal acts.
The letter was not an endorsement for Reid’s reelection in 2010, the organization said, just routine communication with its members.
Endorsements are not usually done by the group until after all the candidates are in the race.
But you can bet who might get the NRA’s nod.
It bites the dust....thank goodness there are still reasonable people left in Congress who will think without the pressures of the NRA.
There was never a danger the bill would garner the 60 votes. The Senate leadership counted votes and had the no votes from the most liberal states leaving the other liberals, like harry Reid, make a fake vote and stand for gun rights.
He gets to claim he voted for it, while not doing anything to help it pass, and yet be assured the plan to peal back gun rights continues in the country. Great fake harry, keep up the hypocrisy.
Reid is not all bad.
He helped get the Iraq War resolution passed.
He helped get FISA passed.
He did not pushed for impeachment or investigations back then or is pushing for them now.
He did not fight that hard against Bush's nominees to the Federal courts or the Supreme Court.
He released a letter to a voter in which he stated that he is always against gay marriage and will vote for the Nevada's ban on gay marriage. That probably help the Nevada's gay marriage to pass by a wider margin.
He is a strong supportor of gun rights.
Although he does very little for Nevada, carries the water for many leftists groups like MoveOn.org and his family members make millions for DC lobbying firms, he sometimes gets things right.
"The legislation ... would allow gun owners with concealed weapon permits in their home states to transfer that right to carry into another state that also has a conceal carry law."
What's Congress doing? This is already covered by the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities clause.
The federal Constitution's Article VI is clear -- all federal government officials "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
The Second Amendment is also written in clear language: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
"Keep" and "bear" are common words with common meanings. From dictionary.com: "keep" means "to hold or retain in one's possession; hold as one's own." To "bear" means "to hold or carry," "to have and be entitled to" and "to have and use." The last would be especially applicable in the context of concealed weapons permits.
Yet the news regularly has stories people arrested for nothing more than keeping and bearing arms (guns). Government buildings, especially courthouses, places existing because the Constitutions created their reasons to exist, are openly hostile to anyone exercising the very freedoms our governments promised to support, preserve and protect.
So why is something this clear and this simple even being debated? It's simply what George Carlin said at his last live performance: government doesn't care about your rights, it's there to expand its power over you and take everything away from you. Our governments are the criminals.
he voted yes because he knew they did not have enought votes to pass...
Actually, 70aarcuda, he is a big 2nd amendment supporter. In fact, when it comes to social issues Sen. Reid is mostly conservative. He favors gun rights, he opposes gay marriage and abortion; and attends church every Sunday he can (like a good Mormon).
I believe Harry voted Yes because he wanted it to pass. He voted Yes on the Concealed Carry in National Parks amendment. There is no reason to believe this was a sham vote.
Harry, Thank you from Illinois.
lets carry weapons in the casino like oldin days. little boys with their toys.
I agree with the blogger who stated he made a fake vote. Senator Harry Reid is a career politician that knows how to play the game of deceit of dirty politics. Senator Harry Reid's time has come and gone. He needs to GO and replaced with fresh ideas and energy, and next year we have that opportunity!
"What's Congress doing? This is already covered by the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities clause."
No, the "incorporation" clause of the 14th Amendment has never been applied to enforce the 2nd Amendment on the states. If that were the case, there would be no such thing as a concealed weapons law anywhere.
That's what the questions during the Sotomayor hearings were about - whether the Heller decision about gun rights applies to the states through incorporation. That's why the NRA has filed lawsuits in California and Illinois - they want the federal courts to apply the 2nd Amendment to the states through the 14th Amendment.
I don't care if it is the 21st century people still need to protect themselfs! This notion that people with concealed carry permits are more dangerous then people who are criminals is bull#hit. To many liberals think that the government has the right to tell us how to live when it is the government who is the real problem here. It's real amazing that you don't here about concealed carry holders shooting up the streets all the time you know if they did that the liberal news media would jump on that story everyday. The only people that are doing the illegal shooting here is the criminal element not the law-abiding citizens. All those liberals that put there faith in government are very naive in life. P.S. I HOPE THAT NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA, ILLINOIS, MASSACHUSETTS, MARYLAND, NEW JERSEY, AND ALL THOSE OTHER LIBERAL SOCIAL WELFARE GUN BANNING STATES ARE ENJOYING THERE HIGH CRIME RATES! THEY HAVE NOBODY TO BLAME BUT THEMSELFS. (WE HERE IN NEVADA HAVE HAD CONCEALED CARRY SINCE 1995 AND IT WORKS FOR US VERY WELL)
31 states (including Nevada) require a mandatory gun-safety course before issuing a concealed weapons permit.
35 states bar issuing a permit if you have been previously convicted of carrying a concealed weapon without one.
31 states bar issuing a permit if the applicant has a history of alcohol abuse.
Under this amendment, those protections would be worthless.
The idea that a law-abiding citizen is going to be effectively able to stop a criminal if they're armed assumes that the person doesn't freeze up under fire. Shooting at a target is one thing. Shooting at someone who's shooting back at you is another thing altogether.
NEOCONS want guns so blacks keep killing each other...sneaky.
vegasj -- doesn't help your credibility here when you show us your inner buffoon.
Killer b? LMAO
"The idea that a law-abiding citizen is going to be effectively able to stop a criminal if they're armed assumes that the person doesn't freeze up under fire. Shooting at a target is one thing. Shooting at someone who's shooting back at you is another thing altogether."
So? We still issue guns to soldiers and police and have no idea if they will freeze up or not until it happens to them personally for the first time. No simulator known to man can test this yet. Why not disarm police and soldiers too then? WELL, BECAUSE YOUR IDEA IS MORONIC, JUST AS YOU ARE.
Did I miss something? Is the Second Amendment the only one that must be rigidly adhered to?
Haven't we been whittling down our First Amendment rights over the years? "Fighting words doctrine" ring a bell? Holmes' "clear and present danger" test? How about the so-called "gang" laws through which three or more minorities standing together in public qualify as a gang and are therefore subject to police harassment?
How about the right of people to assemble and petition their government for a redress of grievances? I seem to remember that not going so well back in 1968 on Balboa Street; and it didn't seem to go so well in Los Angeles last summer... that is, from the side of the people gathering to petition their government.
Haven't we sat by idly while the Fifth Amendment was essentially gutted? The Eighth Amendment? The Sixth Amendment?
We accept that the Founding Fathers couldn't have foreseen all the ways in which free speech might need to be curtailed to protect citizens; we gladly give up our rights to refer to a movie as a "bomb" while waiting at screening at the airport; we gladly surrender our right to even make a joke while standing in line for security; we stand by and fail to intervene when a person is arrested for using profanity in public (usually under the B.S. charge of disorderly conduct); and yet when it comes to guns, people cite the constitution like it's gospel.
Clearly Madison and Jefferson and the rest intended for things like speech to ultimately be controlled by the government to protect the citizens, but even advances in firearms from the single-shot, black powder musket of the day to modern SMGs that can put out 100-plus rounds a minute are not enough to allow ANY government intervention or role in regulating who can purchase a gun, what kind of gun they can purchase, where they can carry that gun, what they can do with that gun. And to suggest otherwise makes you as un-American as the people who think suspected terrorists shouldn't be tortured or detained indefinitely.
"Why not disarm police and soldiers too then?"
Because soliders and police officers go through extensive and rigorous training over a period of months. For police, it includes exercises using "training ammo" (paint) as well as simulators that do test your ability to react under pressure. For soldiers, it does include live-fire training with real ammunition.
The second amendment is not a Democratic or Republican issue: it's a constitutional issue.
The second amendment needs to be eliminated. Horse and buggy days are over. Only allow guns for hunting season, then turn them in till next year.