Senator Claire McCaskill suggested yesterday if a concealed weapons law she had voted against had actually passed, it could have set a precedent for forcing states, like her home state of Missouri, to recognize another state’s gay marriage laws.

Sen. McCaskill says she was not against letting people carry concealed weapons. But she is against requiring one state to accept another state’s laws that might differ from its own. She says it would be a foot in the door that could allow Vermont’s laws on gay marriage to be enforced in Missouri, which has a constitutional provision against gay marriage.

McCaskill says many of the supporters of the proposal are advocates for states’ rights, but they want to override states’ rights on carrying concealed weapons.

McCaskill audio available here:

[audio:http://www.missourinet.com/podcast/feed/a6afff9d-c09f-1e1c-6be13276f8998390/article/a39175b5-5056-b82a-37fd2022b5878c0c/audio/a451587c-5056-b82a-37678da2082718e8/macgun.mp3]

Senator McCaskill has since attempted to clarify her position via email.
(via Pam’s House Blend)

“In talking about my recent vote against the gun provision offered in the Senate, I wasn’t clear when I stated that my vote against that provision was because it came down to a states’ rights. I was expressing my frustration in that some who argue that states shouldn’t respect the laws, certificates, or permits from other states when it’s convenient, like with gay marriage, but then argue that they should when it’s convenient on another issue, like gun rights. They can’t have it both ways,” McCaskill said.

While it is true that Republicans are demonstrating hypocrisy with regards to state’s rights on this issue, based on McCaskill’s original statement, it really sounds like she thinks DOMA is a “good” idea.

PROMO, The Missouri LGBT advocacy group has responded to McCaskill’s comments today:

In a statement defending her opposition to this bill, she [McCaskill] stated: “This is a foot in the door that would require, for example, the laws in Vermont on gay marriage to be enforced in Missouri.”

This is a problem. A state’s rights argument is valid in this situation, however it is inconceivable that an ally can support Hate Crimes legislation- which recognizes the LGBT community is a target of increased abuse, intolerance and aggressive force- but uses a touchstone issue for the community as a shield rather than stand alone on an anti-gun sentiment.

In a time when we have seen incredible strides on a state by state basis, we have turned a corner and will not tolerate being used as a shield. Please reach out to Sen. McCaskill’s office and let her know while she is an ally, you won’t tolerate being used as a shield. The numbers listed are below for local and DC offices.

Gay Republicans have also expressed particular outrage over McCaskill’s comments, an outrage likely fueled more by the fact that McCaskill is a Democrat and their strong support of the concealed weapons law, than anything about gay marriage.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has withdrawn a proposed amendment that would have placed an 18-month moratorium on discharges under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. She simply didn’t have enough votes.

Matt Canter, a Gillibrand spokesperson, told the Blade on Wednesday that the senator determined there weren’t 60 votes available for a vote of cloture on the amendment.

“She was working for about a week to assess support among her colleagues for the measure,” he said. “It does not appear that we’re going to have the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. So she’s not going to pursue the moratorium amendment at this time.”

Canter said Gillibrand is working with senators “to continue to highlight the issue and move forward on the issue.”

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) is slated to introduce a bill for full repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the Senate. In the House, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) took over as lead sponsor of repeal legislation earlier this month.

Canter said Gillibrand will continue to back Kennedy and Murphy’s efforts to build support for repeal legislation.

While unfortunate, the withdrawal is not completely surprising. The proposed amendment was last minute, and comes at a time when the Senate has been focused on healthcare reform, the DoD authorization bill, and mermaids. Seriously, it had better not been the last one.

The Senate today voted to strip funding for F-22 fighter jets from the Department of Defense Authorization bill. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act rides as an amendment to the DoD legislation, which was under the threat of a veto if funding for the controversial aircraft remained.

The 58-40 vote reflected an all-out lobbying campaign by the administration, which had to overcome resistance from lawmakers confronted with the potential losses of defense-related jobs if the F-22 program was terminated.

“The president really needed to win this vote,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said. Levin said it was important not only on the merits of the planes but “in terms of changing the way we do business in Washington.”

While the termination of the F-22 program increases the likelihood Obama will sign the hate crimes bill when it reaches his desk, it is unclear if the “unwelcome” amendments added just yesterday, including a provision for the death penalty, will pose further problems.

The ACLU also has issues with the Senate version of the bill, preferring the House version.

Late yesterday the Senate overwhelming passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act by a margin of 63-28, despite objections from many Republicans, including former presidential nominee Senator John McCain. The legislation passed as an amendment to what many consider a must-pass Department of Defense authorization bill. And therein lies the rub. While President Obama supports hate crimes legislation, he may veto the bill because of wasteful spending.

…Obama has told Congress he will veto the defense bill if it includes more money for an F-22 fighter program he is trying to terminate. The House in April passed a similar hate crimes bill, but did it as independent legislation not tied to a larger bill.

Five Republicans voted for it, zero Democrats voted against it.  Full roll call of vote courtesy of Tips-Q:

Voted Yea – 63
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Burris (D-IL) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN)	Gillibrand (D-NY) Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaufman (D-DE) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK)	Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (D-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

Voted Nay – 28
Barrasso (R-WY) Bennett (R-UT) Brownback (R-KS) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC)	Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Grassley (R-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Kyl (R-AZ) McCain (R-AZ)	McConnell (R-KY) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting – 9
Alexander (R-TN) Bond (R-MO) Bunning (R-KY)	Byrd (D-WV) Corker (R-TN) Graham (R-SC)	Gregg (R-NH) Kennedy (D-MA) Martinez (R-FL)