Gabriella Hoffman: Warner's Inconsistency on National Concealed Carry Ignores the Facts

Media consultant and Virginia concealed handgun permit (CHP) holder Gabriella Hoffman has this Op/Ed in the Bristol Herald Courier calling out U.S. Senator Mark Warner for his flip-flop on National Carry Reciprocity.  Warner previously supported legislation allowing permit holders to carry nationwide.  He recently came out in opposition to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.  Hoffman writes:

Warner’s opposition to the bill is particularly troubling because our state is one of only 19 states that currently recognizes the valid permits of every other state in the country. Oddly enough, Warner has no issue with gun owners from Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York exercising their right to self-defense when they come to Virginia. Yet he fails to apply this principle to his own law-abiding constituents desiring to exercise that same right in those states.

Warner even suggests expanding CHP rights would encourage more “gun violence.” How laughable.

Hoffman goes on to point out that CHP holders are some of the most law-abiding people in the country and cites Dr. John Lott's research showing CHP holders are more law-abiding than police officers:

By comparing crime reports and revocations of CHP permits in Florida and Texas, he found that permit holders are less likely to commit crimes than police officers. Lott found similar results across the country. Given this, Warner is either obfuscating the facts, or is eager to have billionaire gun control activist Michael Bloomberg continue to line his coffers with donor money.

She also points out what happened when Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring tried to end Virginia's reciprocity and recognition agreements with 25 states - a public outcry led to bipartisan support for legislation introduced to overturn that likely would have withstood a veto by Governor Terry McAuliffe.  This forced McAuliffe to throw his AG under the bus and reach a deal that not only restored the agreements with the 25 states, but actually expanded Virginia's reciprocity to include states not previously recognized.

Warner is used to flip flopping however when it comes to the issue of guns.  He originally opposed Virginia's CHP law but flipped when he ran for Governor.  He also signed more pro-rights legislation than any other Governor in recent memory.  But now that he is in the minority party in the U.S. Senate, he apparently believes he needs to toe the anti-rights line of the majority of his Senate Democrat colleagues.

Hat-tip to Cam Edwards of NRATV.com Cam and Company.

Mark Warner May Hold Deciding Vote on National Reciprocity

The Hill has an article this morning on the renewed push for National Concealed Carry Reciprocity.  Texas U.S. Senator John Cornyn recently introduced the bill for the current session and has been making the rounds talking it up.

The last time the National Reciprocity bill fell just short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate.  Now that Republicans are in the majority of the U.S. Senate, there is hope that there will be enough votes to push the bill over the top:

Supporters of the legislation believe they can secure enough Democratic votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster and get the legislation to President Obama’s desk.

While Obama is unlikely to sign the bill, given his support for stricter gun controls, getting the legislation through Congress would give Second Amendment advocates a significant victory.

Gun-control groups are planning to fight back hard, setting the stage for what promises to be a contentious battle over Second Amendment rights ahead of the 2016 elections.

Illinois Republican Senator Mark Kirk voted against the bill the last time it came up.  That means it would need the support of all of the remaining 53 Republicans and seven Democrats to pass.  The list of Democrats being targeted includes Virginia Senator Mark Warner.

Advocates plan to focus much of their lobbying on the Senate Democrats who have voted for the concealed carry bill in the past: Sens. Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Tom Udall (N.M.) and Mark Warner (Va.).

Warner has a mixed record on issues related to our Second Amendment rights.  As Governor of Virginia, he signed a number of pro-rights bills, including a preemption bill that put all matters related to firearms in the hands of the General Assembly. He did not veto any pro-rights legislation.  For his record as Governor, Warner earned an "A" rating from the NRA Political Victory Fund when he ran for U.S. Senate in 2008.  But after the Sandy Hook school shooting, he made some comments that maybe it was time to consider new gun control and he voted for the Schumer/Manchin/Toomey background check amendment which would have criminalized private sales of firearms between friends and gun club members, among others.  That earned him a "C" rating when he ran for re-election in 1014.

Yes, Warner voted for National Reciprocity in the past.  But the only way to make sure he votes for it this time is if he hears from gun owners.  The gun ban lobby is going to go all out to try and stop the bill from reaching that all important 60th vote.

The Message To Gun Owners from Election Night 2014

Much is being written about last night's huge victory for Republicans.  In Virginia, the big story was how close the U.S. Senate race ended up.  While Warner has not claimed out right victory and Gillespie has not conceded, Warner clings to a razor thin 13,000 vote margin out of over 2 million votes cast.  The disappointing thing to note is had everyone who cast a vote for Dave Brat in the 7th District, and Barbara Comstock in the 10th also voted for Ed Gillespie, Warner would be packing his senate office this morning.  In my home county of Chesterfield, Gillespie underperformed his ticket mates Brat and Forbes (Chesterfield is split between two congressional districts) by about 5500 votes - almost half his final deficit.  If you are voting for Brat, the candidate who defeated former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, it is hard to understand how that same person votes for Mark Warner, or doesn't vote in the Senate race at all. You have to believe those folks oppose President Obama's policies and anyone who has supported them.

Across the country, candidates who supported the rights of law-abiding gun owners won in places like Maryland where GOP candidate Larry Hogan will be the next governor, North Carolina where Thom Tillis defeated Senator Kay Hagan, and Iowa where Joni Ernst defeated Bruce Braley.  There are some exceptions however.  In Colorado, John Higgenlooper, the man who signed the ammunition magazine ban that caused Magpul to leave the state, looks like he survived a close race all the while Republican Cory Gardner was defeating Senator Mark Udall.

The troubling result is passage of Initiative 594 (I-594) in Washington State.  I wrote last month that what happens with I-594 will impact us in Virginia.  Supporters of I-594 say it simply requires so-called "universal" background checks on the sale of privately owned firearms.  But it would do so much more. And as Caleb notes over on Gun Nuts media, the strategy employed by its supporters should be a wake up call to pro-rights activists:

But allow me to return to the point. The reason why 594 passing is bad news for gun owners everywhere is because it validates Bloomberg’s strategy. This is a new kind of gun control game, they’re smarter than the Brady Campaign and they have functionally unlimited resources. Yes, they played it smart in Washington. They picked an issue that’s easy to misrepresent in universal background checks; they played that issue to a strong blue voter base, and then they spent a ton of money on marketing and GOTV. That’s textbook “Winning Ballot Questions 101″ and it’s really hard to fight against.

I would expect to see a lot more ballot question fights in the near future, and I’d expect them to be over things like background checks. It is by far the toughest fight for us, because defeating their argument requires low information blue voters to actually care about facts, and that right there is why we lost in WA. Gun rights had all the facts on their side, and they still lost.

Sure, gun control at the national level is dead for at least two years. But buckle up Sally, because at the state level things could be getting rodeo pretty quick.

Virginia is not an initiative state, but that doesn't mean we won't have to expend a considerable amount of effort on defeating legislative proposals pushing so-called "universal" background checks. That fight will be greatest in the State Senate where we have had to work hard to keep background check bills from getting out of committee even with a GOP majority.  Get ready because it's going to be a busy legislative session.

Update: John Lott asks the question, considering the initiative passed with just slightly less than 60% of the vote, with the gun ban lobby finally stop claiming that 90% support "universal" background checks?

This Hill Article Says it All

Virginia's U.S. Senate race is considered a long shot to send Mark Warner back to the private sector.  But the real prize in 2014 has always been seeing the GOP sending Obama's gun ban supporting Harry Reid packing his majority leader office to the minority.  While many pundits point to signs that the prize is within reach, this article in The Hill should energize gun owners and other voters wanting to turn back many of Obama's unpopular polices to work that much harder until the votes are cast.  The article specifically talks about the Colorado U.S. Senate race but could be about any of the races that the GOP are close to winning.  It's never over until it's over and a good number of election laws that allow voting by mail and to register right up to election day give our opponents the opportunity turn out their voters.

Every registered voter received a ballot in the mail last week, giving both Republicans and Democrats the opportunity to follow turnout in real time and pester holdouts. Coloradans can also register to vote through Election Day, allowing for the possibility that both parties could increase turnout.

Democrats boast that their ground game is better than ever.

So, whether you live in Virginia where the challenger has a hard road ahead in the final two weeks, or Colorado, North Carolina, South Dakota or Kansas, now is the time to get out and do everything you can to see your candidate win, and see Harry Reid lose his job as Obama's top Lieutenant in the U.S. Senate.  You can find an NRA Campaign Field Rep or Election Volunteer Coordinator in your area and volunteer to help by clicking here.

This May Explain Warner's Move to Negative Ads

If you watch TV, you've probably seen an uptick in political ads for the Virginia U.S. Senate race and you have noticed that Warner has gone decidedly negative.  There is a good reason for this shift.  Bearing Drift has done an in-depth look at the just released CNU polls that shows a 12-point lead for Warner, but also shows that he has a ceiling of support:

But there may be a signal in there somewhere: Warner’s vote has a ceiling. In early September, CNU showed Warner at 53 percent. Roanoke College had Warner at 46 percent in late September. The next day, Quinnipiac has Warner at 48 percent (and at 50 in a head-to-head with Gillespie). Now CNU shows Warner at 51.

Warner was supposed to cruise to victory in November.  And, while he still has a lead of between 9 and twelve points depending on which poll you choose, the final total will likely be much closer.  As Bearing Drift pointed out in the above linked post, a lot of things have to go Gillespie's way for him to pull off an upset.  But, the fact that Warner has had to pull out things like "Enron Lobbyist" and other misleading statements in his ads says that Warner knows he is in a fight.

Warner must have thought voting with Obama 97% of the time, for Obamacare after saying he would not support any proposal that made people give up their current insurance, and vote to criminalize private firearm sales and transfers among life-long friends and family members would not come back to bite him.  While he has maintained a lead, he is having to work harder to keep his seat.

Finally, Warner worked hard to get the gun and sportsman vote in his 2001 race for Governor.  He similarly worked for that vote in his first U.S. Senate race.  Neither issue is mentioned on his current campaign web site.  The Mark Warner of 2014 is not the Warner of 2001.  How self identified conservatives can vote for this guy, as the CNU poll indicates, is a mystery.

PolitiFact Mostly Confirms NRA Claims About Veterans' Gun Rights Against Mark Warner

NRA mailings and flyers targeting Virginia incumbent U.S. Senator Mark Warner charge that Warner "has supported restrictions on veterans’ second amendment rights."



PolitiFact took a look at the claim and determined:

As proof, it cites the senator’s 2013 vote against an amendment that would have ended a VA policy of submitting the names of veterans it deems mentally unstable to the FBI for inclusion on a national list of people barred from buying guns. People who didn’t serve in the military, by contrast, can only be declared mentally unfit to buy a gun by a judge. 

So there’s a basis for the NRA’s claim: Warner voted against abolishing a restriction on buying guns that only affects veterans.

PolitiFact notes that Warner did support an amendment that would open an appeals process but that means veterans would still have their rights taken away and only get them restored after appealing while non-veterans have a judicial process BEFORE having their rights taken away.

PolitiFact's final assessment?

The NRA’s statement is accurate but needs additional information. We rate it Mostly True.

No one should have their rights taken away by a faceless bureaucrat and without due process.  Vote Freedom First: Vote Ed Gillespie.  Ed needs your help now! Click here to volunteer.

Bloomberg to Survey Congressional and Senate Candidates on Gun Control

The Washington Post and other news outlets are reporting that Bloomberg plans to put all candidates for Congress and the U.S. Senate on record regarding their position on restricting our firearm freedoms.

The survey intends to make candidates state their positions on the record for the first time. Everytown plans to use their answers — as well as an analysis of any past legislative votes and public statements — to rally voters for or against them in key Senate and House races this fall, similar to how the NRA uses its ratings system to motivate pro-gun-rights voters.

It's basically a ten question survey that asks questions like:

• Under federal law, anyone who buys a gun from a federally licensed dealer must pass a criminal background check, but the same person can end-run this requirement by buying a gun from an unlicensed seller, including from a stranger that the buyer met online or at a gun show. This loophole enables felons, domestic abusers, and other prohibited purchasers to buy guns with no questions asked. In the states that require background checks on all handgun sales, there are 38% fewer women shot to death by their intimate partners and 39% fewer law enforcement officers killed with handguns. Do you support requiring background checks for all gun sales (with reasonable exceptions such as for transfers between close family members and temporary transfers for hunting and self-defense)?

Interesting how they word that first question about so-called "universal background checks" because the only "exceptions" that the Manchin/Schumer/Toomey background check amendment made was fore "close" family members. There were no exceptions for "hunting and self-defense."

Here's another interesting question:

• People listed on the federal government’s terror watch lists are prohibited from boarding airplanes—but current federal law does not bar them from buying guns or explosives. Indeed, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office, people on terror watch lists bought firearms or explosives from licensed dealers 1,321 times between 2004 and 2010. 4 Do you support legislation—drafted by the George W. Bush administration—that would close this "terror gap" by giving the FBI the discretion to block these people from buying guns?

Note that reference to President Bush as if that makes the proposal okay. Here is what is wrong with that proposal:

It will be interesting to see how Virginia Senator Mark Warner will respond to this survey as Bloomberg promises to make it public.

Has the Virginia GOP Learned Its Lesson

According to the Roanoke Times, we will know some time this Saturday afternoon.  The Virginia GOP will hold its U.S. Senate Nominating convention in Roanoke on Saturday and choose between four candidates for the chance to take on incumbent Mark Warner.  The four candidates are former RNC and Virginia GOP Chairman Ed Gillespie, Tony DeTora, a congressional policy adviser from Stafford County; Shak Hill, a U.S. Air Force veteran from Centreville; and Chuck Moss, a businessman from Prince William County.   

Last year's convention for the three state wide offices was a disaster.  The nomination for Governor was unopposed and most people came in committed to one or the other AG candidates.  But for the Lt. Governor nomination, there were five candidates and most delegates were uncommitted, which created the perfect storm for the eventual winner, E.W. Jackson, who made a real stem winding speech and led on every ballot.  In the end, his 20 point loss in the general election likely helped pull down State Senator Mark Obenshain in the AG's race.  Will the GOP go with the best candidate this year?  UVA Political Scientist Larry Sabato seems to think so: 

Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, agreed that a Gillespie defeat in Roanoke is unlikely, given the stakes and following Republicans’ losses of all three statewide races in November.

“Political people are not dumb; their learning curve is not flat,” he said. “The GOP has a fair to good chance to take control of the Senate, and the party is trying to broaden the playing field.

I guess we will find out Saturday if Sabato is right.

Why Mark Warner is Still Popular

Yesterday was the annual Wakefield Shad Planking. For those not familiar with the event, The Wakefield Ruritan Club has hosted The Planking since 1949 on the wooded property of the Wakefield Sportsmen's club near Route 460 in Sussex County, Virginia, about an hour southeast of Richmond and an hour west of Virginia Beach. It is held on the third Wednesday in April each year.  Originally an all Democrat, all male, all white event, today it is overwhelmingly Republican and open to all interested in drinking free adult beverages and eating shad -- the oily, bony fish smoked for the occasion on wood planks over an open flame.  It's a place for candidates to see and be seen and for the politically active to renew old friendships and talk about the likely winners and losers of the year's coming campaign season. 

U.S. Senator Mark Warner was yesterday's featured speaker and Bearing Drift notes that even though Warner has become uncomfortable talking about his support for Obamacare, he at least should be given credit for doing something that the last two statewide Democrat candidates decided not to do, show up.  Warner hasn't abandoned what go him elected in 2001 - going to rural Virginia.

And Warner played his usual "bipartisan" self in his remarks to the assembled crowd:

“Today, we’re not Democrats or Republicans; we’re Virginians and Americans, first and foremost,” Warner said, thanking the Wakefield Ruritans for raising money for rescue squads, Little Leagues and scholarships.

“Of course, looking at this crowd, I realize I’m here as an endangered species, a Virginia Democrat,” he added, pausing a bit for the laughter to subside.

“Looking around the crowd, that’s kind of like Republican women here as well — not many of either one of us,” Warner said, smiling to a burst of energetic female screams meant to prove him wrong. “I knew I’d get ’em,” he said.

Shows why even with Ed Gillespie raising over $2 million over the last 75 days, why he has an uphill battle unseating Warner this year.

2014 Election Do or Die for Firearm Freedom

That's the way the NRA put it in this piece by Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner.

David Keene, former NRA president, said gun voters are motivated. Acknowledging that the president muddied the gun issue in the 2012 election, Keene said, “Now they know, and gun owners are like other people: Once fooled, the second time, it doesn’t work. So they know what the opposition is, they know how close it is in the Senate, they know that the Supreme Court could be at stake in the next few years.”

What will this mean for the re-election hopes of Mark Warner?  Warner coasted to victory in 2008 after receiving and "A" rating from the NRA (but no endorsement) in part due to his record of signing every pro-gun piece of legislation while he was governor.  He was never tested on anti-gun legislation because none passed the General Assembly.  Having given lip service to supporting bans on modern sporting rifles (so-called "assault weapons") in 2001, he kept quiet on the topic in 2008 and voted against the renewal and expansion of the ban last April (though there is some question as to how he would have voted had the vote been close, given comments he made after Sandy Hook).   He did however vote for the Manchin/Schumer/Toomey amendment to criminalize private sales of firearms and he has voted for both Supreme Court nominees that President Obama has nominated - justices who have gone on to vote on the anti-gun side of Second Amendment cases before the Supreme Court.

Is Mark Warner Vulnerable

Conventional wisdom has it that U.S. Senator and former Virginia Governor Mark Warner is one of the safer senators seeking re-election this year.  He is personally popular in Virginia, left office as a popular Governor and was overwhelmingly elected in the 2008 tidal wave that swept Democrats into control of the entire federal government.  Until 2013, he did all he could to at least keep the NRA from endorsing any of his opponents (they made no endorsement in the 2001 election when Warner was elected governor and in 2008 both Warner and former Governor Jim Gilmore received "A" ratings but no endorsement).

Then, in 2012, Newtown happened and Warner was heard distancing himself from Virginia gun owners and NRA members, and when given the chance to say exactly what he was for and against, he could not quite do it.. In the end, in April of 2013, Warner voted for the Manchin/Schumer/Toomey criminalization of private firearm sales but voted against Diane Feinstein's amendment to renew the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban, and voted against Frank Lautenberg's ban on so-called "high capacity" ammunition magazines.

Up until now, only a couple of unknowns with very little experience had come out of the woodwork to challenge Warner as he gears up for re-election this year.  He has raised gobs of money and has gobs more in his personal fortune.  But columnist Marc Theissen suggests that if former RNC Chairman and lobbyist Ed Gillespie ends up throwing his hat in the ring, Warner may not have the easy campaign he had originally expected:

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) is in a lot more trouble than it seems. Despite his ample war chest and approval ratings, only 50 percent of Virginians say Warner should get a second term. And independents, by a margin of 49 to 43 percent, say they would rather have someone new in Virginia’s Senate seat.

A candidate like Gillespie will also likely hound Warner on the fact that he was a deciding vote in the passage of Obamacare, which continues to be even more unpopular with each passing day. And last month, former Virginia Democratic Chairman Paul Goldman and Conservative Blogger Norm Leahy noted how the election of Terry McAuliffe could be Warner's worst nightmare.

Our hunch: He learned that voters are surprised when told of Warner’s support for Obamacare. That vote is a huge liability right now among the Virginians whom Gillespie needs to attract to be more than a sacrificial lamb. And should he run, it would mean a major national GOP guru is betting he can use Obamacare to bring someone of Warner’s stature down.

Warner is already trying to tar Gillespie with the "high paid lobbyist" label, but as The Hill notes, with McAuliffe's election, that may not work.

Most bets will still be on a Warner victory in November.  But, if the Virginia GOP does not commit suicide at it's nominating convention this spring, and instead goes with a nominee that can at least match Warner's ability to raise money and make it a credible race, if the voter mood remains what it it now, Warner may find himself in the fight of his life.

Mark Warner, NRA, and Sotomayor

With debate and a vote on President Obama's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court taking place this week, much is being written in the media as to whether the NRA's decision to score the vote and the fact that a number of previously NRA endorsed U.S. Senators are going to vote for her signals the organization's clout is waning. I think this is all tripe but today's Washington Times noted this comment from Virginia's junior senator Mark Warner:

"I think the NRA at some point has gone beyond its mission, and are perhaps allowing themselves to get hijacked by those who are in the extreme," Sen. Mark Warner, Virginia Democrat, told the Hill newspaper.

Is it extreme to oppose someone for a life appointment to the highest court in the land who has opined that the protection guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution "is not a fundamental right?" Does Senator Warner view as extreme those who believe the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right?

I find his comment interesting if for no other reason, Warner has worked hard to cultivate a pro-Second Amendment record, including not offending the NRA since he ran for Governor in 2001. The last time he made anything near a disparaging remark about the group was at a debate during the 2001 campaign when debate moderator and former governor Doug Wilder asked if Warner thought the NRA was a positive force in Virginia. Warner stumbled and fumbled and finally said he thought the NRA represented the views of its members. His performance on that question in the debate prompted the NRA to change it's neutral stance at the last minute and send a letter to members urging them to vote for Mark Earley. Though the letter was probably sent too late to have a major impact on the election results, it likely had something to do with Warner's 12 point lead in the polls dipping to a 5 point margin of victory on election night.

Be that as it may, Warner went on to sign every pro-rights bill that was put on his desk and earned an "A" rating in his campaign for the senate last year. He was not endorsed since his opponent was also a former governor with an "A" rating who is also an NRA Board member.

Regarding the Sotomayor nomination, NRA was between a rock and a hard place. It is difficult to defeat a Supreme Court nominee (though not impossible - just ask Robert Bork) since, as the Times noted, many put issues on the back burner and take the view that the president should get his pick. Elections do have consequences after all. Given her written opinion on the issue near and dear to the heart of NRA members, if they said nothing, there would be pro-freedom folks that would be unhappy. If they decided as they have, to oppose the nomination and lose, you get Paul Helmke saying things like this:

"The lesson that's going to come out of this is you can vote against the NRA and still win, and win in gun-friendly areas," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation's leading gun control group, which is billing this week's vote as a chance to defeat the NRA.

I am still scratching my head though over Warner's backhand to the NRA. Here is a guy who back in February told The Hill newspaper that he opposed reinstating the so-called "assault weapons" ban so you can't figure he is a darling of the anti-rights crowd. But his comment sounds like some Brady campaign talking point on Sotomayor. I guess this is what happens when you elect a "Radical Centrist" as Senator Warner likes to call himself.

Musings on the National Concealed Carry Vote

The Grand Junction Colorado Sentinel ran an editorial last Friday discussing how things work in Washington when it comes to votes on controversial issues - and specifically what Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote the day before regarding how some of the Democratic members of the Senate decided to vote on the Thune Amendment.

How do you outgun the NRA? Very, very carefully.

...Toward the end of the vote, Pryor entered the chamber through the back door, took a few steps inside, flashed a thumbs-down to the clerk, and retreated as fast and furtively as somebody dodging gunfire.

Several minutes later, the Democrats had racked up more than enough votes to block the proposal. "Are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote?" the presiding officer inquired.

Pryor burst back in, this time through a side door. "Mr. President!" he called out. "Mr. President!" He stopped in the well to consult with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a gun-control advocate who was keeping the whip sheet. Schumer gave Pryor a nod, and the Arkansan -- reassured that his vote was not needed to defeat the proposal -- changed his vote to an "aye."

Only two Republicans went against the gun lobby, but that was enough to leave supporters just short of the 60 votes they needed. The slim margin was no accident: Other Democrats, such as Pennsylvania's Bob Casey and Colorado's Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, were said to have been willing to vote "no" if necessary. Twenty minutes after the voting began, Bennet and Udall left the cloakroom together and walked into the chamber. Bennet went to the well to consult with Schumer, who indicated that it was safe for Bennet -- a product of D.C.'s St. Albans School -- to vote with the NRA. Bennet looked to Udall, who gave an approving nod, and cast his "aye" vote.

According to the GJ Sentinel, Udall and Bennet dispute Milbank's account. The Sentinel notes that it is a classic "he said, they said" situation but tries to promote Milbank's credibility. Not knowing Milbank and not having read much of his work, I make no judgements. I will say as I did the day the vote was taken that after looking at the vote total and the names of those who voted yea, I had to wonder if the two Republicans who voted no gave at least two Democrats cover to vote the other way knowing there were not enough votes to pass the amendment.

I received a reply from Senator Mark Warner's office the day after I sent him a thank you email for supporting gun owners and the Thune Amendment. Warner was one of the Democrats that I had to wonder if he got a pass. While the Senator racked up a very good record on pro-rights legislation when he served as Virginia's governor, he has in the past supported the Clinton Gun Ban, handgun rationing, and a five day waiting period before the purchase of a handgun. Some of these positions were when he served as the chairman of the Democratic Party of Virginia over 16 years ago but support for the Clinton Gun Ban was as recent as 2001. I will however take the Senator at his word when he said in his response to me that he thought Virginia's laws on concealed carry would make it unlikely that someone from out of state would carry in Virginia and commit a crime. This at least tells me that the Senator (or more appropriately, his staffer) understood the amendment and what it would have done - hold out of state permit holders to Virginia law while carrying here.

But the Sentinel article and Milbank's column does give us more food for thought as to the true number of Senators on whom we can count when the going gets touch on gun rights.

Thune Amendment Fails 58-39

The Thune Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390) failed this afternoon on a vote of 58-39, lacking the required 60 votes to invoke cloture. There were more than enough votes to pass the amendment but those opposing the amendment decided to filibuster the vote - thus requiring 60 votes for passage. Virginia's Senators Mark Warner and Jim Webb both voted with gun owners and our right to self defense and voted for the amendment. Please be sure to contact Senators Warner and Webb and thank them for standing with law abiding gun owners.

National CCW Reciprocity Vote Set for Today

All gun owners need to get on the phone right now. Today the Senate will vote on John Thune's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Amendment to S.1390 (the National Defense Authorization Act). As a part of the consideration of that legislation, Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) have offered an amendment to provide for interstate recognition of Right-to-Carry permits. Senator Warner's phone number is (202) 224-2023 and Senator Webb's number is (202) 224-4024.

Update: 10:44 am - Illinois Senator Dick Durbin is leading the fight in hopes of rounding up at least 41 votes against the amendment to prevent it from being considered. This means it is extremely important that you call Warner and Webb now to urge them to support the amendment.

Update: 10:57 AM - Watch Debate live here. Feinstein is currently spreading misinformation.

National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Vote Coming Soon

Daniel White, the Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner writes this morning about the Thune-Vitter amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390) which would provide for interstate recognition of Right-to-Carry permits. NRA-ILA reported on Friday that it is highly likely the amendment would come up for a vote today or tomorrow.

The Thune-Vitter amendment recognizes that responsible, law-abiding Americans deserve the right to defend themselves and their families when they cross state lines. Passing interstate Right-to-Carry legislation will help further reduce crime by deterring criminals, and—most important of all—will protect the right of honest Americans to protect themselves when deterrence fails.

We are a highly mobile society. There is absolutely no reason that a Virginian, who has a concealed handgun permit (CHP), and takes a cross country trip, should not be able to carry their firearm to be prepared should he or she need it for self defense. Call Mark Warner and Jim Webb and encourage them to vote for the Thune-Vitter amendment on concealed carry national reciprocity to S.1390.

Democrats Show Little Taste for Gun Control

I can find some fault with the content of this article (like the characterization of semi-automatic firearms as "rapid-fire") but the premise is good for gun owners - that Democrats in Congress are expressing little interest in gun control. Take for instance this quote from Ill. Senator Dick Durbin during debate on the D.C. gun rights amendment:

We do not debate guns around here much anymore. Basically, we reached a point where there are not many people who will stick their political necks out to vote for sensible gun control — too big a hassle.

Durbin is one of the ones that would like to pass more gun control but Democrats like Virginia's Mark Warner and Jim Webb have both gone on record this year supporting gun owner rights by voting for the pro-rights amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights Act.

Senator Mark Warner and "Assault Weapons"

When Mark Warner ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 1996, as well as when he ran for Governor in 2001, he expressed support for the Clinton Gun Ban. It is believed when he responded to the NRA questionnaire for the 2008 U.S. Senate race, he signaled a change of heart. Yesterday, The Hill newspaper reports that Warner opposes a renewal of the ban. While The Hill does not quote him saying he would vote against the ban, the paper reports he does oppose the ban and quoted him saying “I have generally thought we ought to enforce our existing laws and we should not be adding new ones.”

More on Obama'sForay into Virginia

The national press, which has been fawning over Barack Obama since he won Iowa in January, continues to point to Virginia as a road map to the White House for Obama. Today's Washington Post pointed out that Democrats suggest that Obama is uniquely qualified to put Virginia in play. The Post stated that Democrats point to demographic changes in the past four years, becoming more diverse, more suburban and wealthier -- factors Democrats say helped secure statewide victories for Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and Senator Jim Webb.

What Democrats do not say is that both of the Republican opponents ran terrible campaigns. Democrats also point to the fact that Virginia has a significant African American population (about 20 percent) and is home to a comparatively well-educated electorate in vote-rich Northern Virginia, constituencies that have supported Obama in huge numbers.

Obama soared into Virginia yesterday, borrowing parts of the strategies of Kaine and former governor Mark R. Warner, who is running for the U.S. Senate this year. Kaine, Webb and (less likely because he is the favorite to pick up a Republican Senate seat) Warner all have been mentioned as possible vice presidential picks for Obama, further increasing the focus on Virginia.

In Bristol in southwestern Virginia's coal country, Obama took his campaign to the heart of the Appalachian region, where Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) ran strong in the primaries and a region full of those "bitter" folks who "cling to guns and God." Obama was joined by Warner, who has appealed to rural voters.

But, Obama, you are no Mark Warner. Guns owners must get active this election season because an Obama administration with an emboldened Democratic Majority in the House and Senate could spell bad news for gun rights.

Obama thinks Virginia is "In Play"

Presumed Democratic Presidential Nominee Senator Barack Obama seems to think that Virginia is in play this year, having handily won the Commonwealth's Democratic Primary earlier this year. He was in Bristol today with U.S. Senate candidate and former Governor Mark Warner and will be in Prince William County later today with U.S. Senator Jim Webb. It should be noted that both Warner and Webb have verifiable gun rights credentials. Obama is the most anti-gun presidential candidate in history.

While Warner did not veto any of the pro-gun bills that arrived on his desk while he was Governor, he does have some history of stating support for certain gun control laws. He is on record as supporting the Clinton gun ban (Washington Post, 10/9/96). Also while running for Governor, Warner said he opposed the repeal of Virginia’s handgun rationing law (one gun-a-month) and said he would veto a bill to repeal it. He also supported Fairfax County's attempts to ban guns in recreation centers saying “If this kind of legislation went through, I'd sign it,” but added “My sense is under the current General Assembly, you're not going to see this kind of law go through.” (Washington Post, July 21, 2001).

Warner is running against another pro-gun former governor, Jim Gilmore, to fill the seat of retiring Senator John Warner. Given that Warner has stated that he supported the Clinton Gun Ban (ban on semi-autos purposely misnamed "assault weapons) and that Obama has said he wants to reinstate the ban, Virginia gun owners should take every opportunity to press Governor Warner on the issue and how he would vote if he is elected. Governor Gilmore is a member of the NRA Board of Directors.