View Full Version : Thune Gun Amendment
A pitched fight over handguns takes place in the Senate this week as gun control advocates move to block an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would allow armed citizens with state-approved concealed-carry permits to cross into another state that also allows the carrying of concealed weapons. The reciprocity amendment is being offered by South Dakota Sen. John Thune, who says it would require those crossing into a neighboring state to follow the rules governing concealed weapons in those localities. "My legislation enables citizens to protect themselves while respecting individual state firearms laws," said Thune. He should know: Thune has his South Dakota
carry permit. His amendment is backed by the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and six other gun groups.
Read more here: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/07/20/thune-lautenberg-clash-on-concealed-carry-gun-proposal.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/20/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5175231.shtml
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/Schumer_Ill_fillibuster_Thune_gun_amendment_.html
Although unlikely to pass it would be great news for CCW holders who travel to other states and still want to protect themselves and their loved ones.
I so hope this passes. I almost can't believe that anyone had the balls to do it.
Not a slam on LEOs but I had to do a little reading after one of the articles mentioned the IACP. The International Association of Chiefs of Police is not only opposing this legislation but after a little research I found out they fought against HR 218 as well. Not only do they want Joe citizen to be defenseless but also their own officers and retirees??? I don't understand that mentality at all other than politics for getting reelected.
Nathan_Bell
07-21-09, 12:28
Not a slam on LEOs but I had to do a little reading after one of the articles mentioned the IACP. The International Association of Chiefs of Police is not only opposing this legislation but after a little research I found out they fought against HR 218 as well. Not only do they want Joe citizen to be defenseless but also their own officers and retirees??? I don't understand that mentality at all other than politics for getting reelected.
Too many administrators in LE are bean counters and not real police anymore. They want to avoid having anything in the papers that can make "their" departments look bad and hurt their budgets. Screw everything else, including the public's safety.
NinjaTactics
07-21-09, 12:47
I so hope this passes. I almost can't believe that anyone had the balls to do it.I too hope it passes, but I doubt that's going to happen.
Here are some more articles of interest regarding the situaton:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/07/20/the-philosophical-fraud-of-the-thune-amendment/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-20-2009/0005062958&EDATE=
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/Schumer_Ill_fillibuster_Thune_gun_amendment_.html
rubberneck
07-21-09, 12:57
According to Chuck Schumer each state carefully crafts it's CCW laws and a measure like this brings an unacceptable level of danger. I suppose I could make the same argument about states honoring other states drivers license's. Far more people die at the hands of idiotic drivers than by guns but morons like Schumer have no issue with people from other states driving in NY.
meisterhau
07-21-09, 13:02
I'd certainly like to see changes in a more positive, pro-2A, pro-citizen direction.
Since my beloved state won't allow CCW, I'm not really that familiar with the laws in any state regarding the practice. While this law would benefit those who have that privilege/exercise that right, I wonder how many issues there might be with people not doing their homework and understanding the state-to-state differences? How much of a potential issue could this be? (and I'm not saying people shouldn't be responsible and look into it beforehand)
It would be interesting for sure. How do you deal with a state like California that has discretionary issue? Would I be allowed to CCW there when I visit?
I'd certainly like to see changes in a more positive, pro-2A, pro-citizen direction.
Since my beloved state won't allow CCW, I'm not really that familiar with the laws in any state regarding the practice. While this law would benefit those who have that privilege/exercise that right, I wonder how many issues there might be with people not doing their homework and understanding the state-to-state differences? How much of a potential issue could this be? (and I'm not saying people shouldn't be responsible and look into it beforehand)
Something like Vermont carry or HR 218 for citizens would be nice.
Not a slam on LEOs but I had to do a little reading after one of the articles mentioned the IACP. The International Association of Chiefs of Police is not only opposing this legislation but after a little research I found out they fought against HR 218 as well. Not only do they want Joe citizen to be defenseless but also their own officers and retirees??? I don't understand that mentality at all other than politics for getting reelected.
The IACP is a notorious group of politicians and political appointees. They DO NOT speak for rank and file police, as born out by many many polls and studies.
PRGGodfather
07-21-09, 16:40
The IACP is a notorious group of politicians and political appointees. They DO NOT speak for rank and file police, as born out by many many polls and studies.
Amen to that. They are the official C-squares of law enforcement. Weren't ever real cops, stopped carrying years ago, and probably don't even load their guns. Purely ceremonial...
I so hope this passes. I almost can't believe that anyone had the balls to do it.
Well, he did have the balls to take on and take out Daschle. The old establishment, both in my state and out, said it couldn't happen. Will the bill pass, I don't know, but I have to give my senator some credit for trying.
decodeddiesel
07-21-09, 17:12
Just got a call on my voice mail from some group urging me to contact my senators and ask to the vote in favor of the bill.
I do hope it passes, but it's a long shot. Even then it would have to make it across Obama's desk without a veto which would be virtually impossible.
decodeddiesel
07-21-09, 17:21
It would be nice to carry next time I go to Vegas, or out to see my Mom in Connecticut.
I do hope it passes, but it's a long shot. Even then it would have to make it across Obama's desk without a veto which would be virtually impossible.
That's why they're trying to tack it on to a larger, important bill as an amendment. It would never pass as its own bill and it would get vetoed even if it did. If it becomes part of a huge, "must pass" piece of funding legislation then it becomes much harder for the President to veto it.
It's a tactic that, unfortunately, is a two way street. The weenies in Congress try to tack gun control amendments onto bills all the time.
Just got a call on my voice mail from some group urging me to contact my senators and ask to the vote in favor of the bill.
I do hope it passes, but it's a long shot. Even then it would have to make it across Obama's desk without a veto which would be virtually impossible.
It's an amendment to a defense authorization bill, so Obama would have to veto the entire bill to veto the amendment. Since he let the national parks carry amendment fly, I can't imagine this would stop him from signing the bill, especially since he got the F-22s deleted like he and Gates wanted.
CALSHOOTER
07-21-09, 20:39
Hard to believe there's a fight in DC for the people. Please fight on.:)
What do you all think of this? Do you think it will pass?
AP By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer Jim Abrams, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – Gun control and gun rights advocates are heading for another clash with a Senate vote on a measure that would allow people with concealed weapons permits to carry those hidden weapons into other states.
Backers, led by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., say truckers and others with concealed weapons permits should be able to protect themselves when they cross into other states. Opponents say the measure would force states with strict procedures for getting permits to accept permits from states with more lax laws.
The Senate has scheduled a vote Wednesday on the measure, which Thune offered as an amendment to a major defense policy bill. Under an agreement reached among Senate leaders, 60 votes will be needed to approve the amendment.
The vote comes a day after the Senate completed what is probably the most controversial issue connected to the defense bill, voting 58-40 to eliminate $1.75 billion in the $680 billion bill that had been set aside for building more F-22 fighters. President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates campaigned hard for removing the money, saying the Pentagon had enough F-22s and the money could be spent on more pressing defense needs.
The gun proposal would make concealed weapons permits from one state valid in other states as long as the person obeys the laws of other states, such as weapons bans in certain localities. It does not establish national standards for concealed weapons permits and would not allow those with permits to carry weapons into Wisconsin and Illinois, the two states that do not have concealed weapons laws.
"Law-abiding South Dakotans should be able to exercise the right to bear arms in states with similar regulations on concealed firearms," Thune said. "My legislation enables citizens to protect themselves while respecting individual state firearms laws."
National Rifle Association chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox said the last two decades have shown a strong shift toward gun rights laws. "We believe it's time for Congress to acknowledge these changes and respect the right of self-defense, and the right of self-defense does not stop at state lines," he said.
Gun control groups were strongly in opposition.
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens during a two-year period ending in April, according to a study by the Violence Policy Center. "It is beyond irrational for Congress to vote to expand the reach of these deadly laws," said the center's legislative director, Kristen Rand.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the bill would "incite a dangerous race to the bottom in our nation's gun laws." He said his own state, which has strict gun control laws, would have to accept concealed weapons permits from states such as Arizona, which issues permits to people with drinking problems, or Alaska, where people with violent misdemeanor convictions can get permits.
"Folks in Minot, N.D., and New York are going to have different conceptions about what's right for their locality," said Jim Kessler, vice president for policy at Third Way, a centrist think tank that supports gun rights. "In some states you have to show a real need" to get a permit, he said. "In other states you have to show that you can stand on two feet."
So far this year gun rights advocates have had the clear advantage in Congress. They managed to attach a provision to a credit card bill signed into law that restores the right to carry loaded firearms in national parks, and coupled a Senate vote giving the District of Columbia a vote in the House with a provision effectively ending the district's tough gun control laws.
House Democratic leaders, unable to detach the two issues without losing the support of pro-gun Democrats, abandoned attempts to pass the D.C. vote bill.
Moved to the correct area.
montanadave
07-22-09, 08:02
First, let me clarify my position. I possess a concealed carry permit and am pleased the state of Montana has reciprocity with surrounding states. My concern regarding this amendment is of a more ideological flavor.
I'm going to assume that many, if not most, gun rights supporters would also back this amendment--an amendment which clearly seeks to override the legislative prerogative of individual states with a federal mandate.
However, many of those who would support this particular amendment would (and here I'm going to make another assumption) strongly object to the federal government intervening in state's rights when it comes to other issues. These might include recognition of same sex marriages, access to abortion, medical marijuana, and a host of other issues where individual states have differed sharply.
I'm not interested in opening up the whole "constitutional rights" argument--many of the issues I have alluded to have been adjudicated at the supreme court level.
My question is simply this: Why do many abandon their state's rights position whenever the federal government offers them something they like but quickly resume their state's rights advocacy when the feds mandate something they find objectionable? Such actions seem to be based more upon convenience rather than principle.
However, many of those who would support this particular amendment would (and here I'm going to make another assumption) strongly object to the federal government intervening in state's rights when it comes to other issues. These might include recognition of same sex marriages, access to abortion, medical marijuana, and a host of other issues where individual states have differed sharply.
My concerns exactly. The states seemed to be handling it just fine on their own. Why do we need federal intervention? And, if passed, won't it open the door to other intervention regarding states rights?
My concerns exactly. The states seemed to be handling it just fine on their own. Why do we need federal intervention? And, if passed, won't it open the door to other intervention regarding states rights?
I agree with 100% in principle, but the reality is that Congress has been shitting on any notion of state sovereignty for a long time. Certainly since the 1930s and really ever since the Civil War. They are going to do shit like this whether we like it or not. So your options are to stand on principle and lose 99% of the time, or accept the reality and use their views, however warped and demented, to get favorable gun policies enacted.
John Clark
07-22-09, 09:07
I so hope this passes. I almost can't believe that anyone had the balls to do it.
They don't want a repeat of the big turnover in 1994 that was partly caused by passing the AWB next year so they are throwing us a few bones now.
So Schumer is currently arguing that if a police officer in New York stops someone and discovers a gun in their car that right now they know that the person has a license for it. If the bill passes he says they then won't have any idea if the gun is legal.
What?
That makes no sense at all. Big suprise.
The amendment is cosponsored by Senators John Barasso (R-WY), Mark Begich (D-AK), Robert Bennett (R-UT), Tom Coburn (R-OK), John Cornyn (R-TX), John Ensign (R-NV), Michael Enzi (R-WY), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Pat Roberts (R-KS), and David Vitter (R-LA).
http://thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=26677f6a-9285-43c0-8659-f390c282867e&Month=7&Year=2009
CarlosDJackal
07-22-09, 10:11
I am very weary of this legislation. The problem I have with it is that once it passes, the Federal Government can then start dictating what the "standards" might be to allow law-abiding citizens to obtain CCWs.
They can make the standards so unobtainable, that having a law that allows nationwide CCW a moot point because only the well-connected and wealthy would be allowed to obtain a CCW.
I'm afraid that this law might pave the way into turning the whole country into a "May Issue" situation.
And here comes Feinstein with her typical "Ignore the facts and instead believe me just because" gun safety diatribe. Apparently, California is the only state in which a felon can't get a gun. She is also detailing the California requirements for a concealed carry permit (which are the same, essentially, as everywhere else except that the granting of a permit is up to the local law enforcement).
Now again, she is stating that there are many other states where convicted criminals can obtain a permit. Really?
I am very weary of this legislation. The problem I have with it is that once it passes, the Federal Government can then start dictating what the "standards" might be to allow law-abiding citizens to obtain CCWs.
They can make the standards so unobtainable, that having a law that allows nationwide CCW a moot point because only the well-connected and wealthy would be allowed to obtain a CCW.
I'm afraid that this law might pave the way into turning the whole country into a "May Issue" situation.
A possibility, yes. But listening to Thune it sounds like (for now) the state's gun laws are what still apply to how a gun can be carried in a state.
Whoops, now people are going to conceal carry assault weapons in California and use this amendment to traffic guns to Mexico. Gun traffickers have concealed carry permits to transport weapons? I didn't know that.
Now she's trotting out pictures of all the permit holders that have shot people. Nice.
The problem I have with it is that once it passes, the Federal Government can then start dictating what the "standards" might be to allow law-abiding citizens to obtain CCWs.
They can make the standards so unobtainable, that having a law that allows nationwide CCW a moot point because only the well-connected and wealthy would be allowed to obtain a CCW.
I'm afraid that this law might pave the way into turning the whole country into a "May Issue" situation.
I understand your concerns and share them, but I hope it works the same way as driving does, where different states impose different restrictions, rules & regulations concerning drivers licenses and yet you can still drive anywhere in the U.S. using your own state license but abiding by different traffic laws.
The thing that strikes me in the debate is the smoke and mirrors which are used by those against the amendment versus the simple statements of fact being used be those for the amendment.
Feinstein, Schumer, etc... make up a bunch of things that could happen if this amendment passes while Jim Webb (D-Virginia in favor of the amendment) just reads right from the amendment how it doesn't allow any of the things that Feinstein/Schumer are saying the amendment will do.
Due to his low approval rating in Nevada and the fact that he's about to be ousted, Senate Majority Leader Harry Ried (D-NV) is supporting the bill in hope of getting reelected.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25193.html
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/07/21/reid-to-support-thune-gun-amendment-but-wont-say-why/
:D
Interestingly enough, Barrasso, the repub. senator from Wyoming is in favor of the amendment when his state's AG was going to repeal the reciprocity for a bunch of states earlier this year.
Due to his low approval rating in Nevada and the fact that he's about to be ousted, Senate Majority Leader Harry Ried (D-NV) is supporting the bill in hope of getting reelected.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25193.html
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/07/21/reid-to-support-thune-gun-amendment-but-wont-say-why/
:D
I'll accept his help today and still hope he gets ousted in the next election. ;)
Littlelebowski
07-22-09, 10:59
The thing that strikes me in the debate is the smoke and mirrors which are used by those against the amendment versus the simple statements of fact being used be those for the amendment.
Feinstein, Schumer, etc... make up a bunch of things that could happen if this amendment passes while Jim Webb (D-Virginia in favor of the amendment) just reads right from the amendment how it doesn't allow any of the things that Feinstein/Schumer are saying the amendment will do.
Webb's one of the good guys in this department.
Last time I checked Obama couldn't do anything about the National Parks carry bill because Bush was in office. However, you still can't carry because of that silly environmental impact study that someone in the administration said needed to be done.
It's an amendment to a defense authorization bill, so Obama would have to veto the entire bill to veto the amendment. Since he let the national parks carry amendment fly, I can't imagine this would stop him from signing the bill, especially since he got the F-22s deleted like he and Gates wanted.
I think some of the Dems are trying to give us the bone, not slip us any. It would seem that there are alot who don't like the amendment.
Hard to believe that Republicans were smart enough to steal a play from the Democratic playbook.
They don't want a repeat of the big turnover in 1994 that was partly caused by passing the AWB next year so they are throwing us a few bones now.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-22-09, 11:14
The only thing that makes me nervous about national regulations on CCW is that if they can pass positive legislation, they can pass negative legislation. Mandate training minimums, more restrictions on places and such. It will not get better.
This has no chance of standing even if it gets signed, someone will file an EPA claim or something.
Charles Schumer (D-NY) says he'll filibuster the bill:
A posse of Dems led by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are threatening to filibuster a controversial amendment that would allow licensed handgun owners to carry their weapons into states that have similarly carrying laws.
Schumer, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Frank Lautenberg are (D-NJ) are trying to block the amendment, sponsored by South Dakota Republican John Thune, that would allow gun owners to supersede state and local laws restricting their transportation.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who is running for reelection next year, represents a state where gun rights are sanctified -- hasn't actively opposed Thune.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/Schumer_Ill_fillibuster_Thune_gun_amendment_.html
Last time I checked Obama couldn't do anything about the National Parks carry bill because Bush was in office. However, you still can't carry because of that silly environmental impact study that someone in the administration said needed to be done.
I'm not sure I understand your statement above...
As far as I know, Obama signed the credit card overhaul bill into law on May 22, 2009. The bill included an amendment that allows carrying in national parks and wildlife refuges when it goes into effect in early 2010.
I'm just commenting on the fact that Obama signed the credit card overhaul bill, even with Tom Coburn's national parks carry amendments intact.
Last time I checked Obama couldn't do anything about the National Parks carry bill because Bush was in office. However, you still can't carry because of that silly environmental impact study that someone in the administration said needed to be done.
You will be able to carry in national parks in February or March. The law was passed with the credit card reform law in May.
IIRC the environmental impact study came from a lawsuit earlier this year to block the Bush administrations change.
decodeddiesel
07-22-09, 11:35
Voting now.
Doc, are you watching TV or is there some internet source which has these developments?
montanadave
07-22-09, 11:35
I haven't been counting the votes but I believe both Tester and Baucus from Montana, both democrats, have voted "aye" on the amendment. I think it's going to pass.
meisterhau
07-22-09, 11:39
cspan.com - cspan live feed 2 has it.
Not exactly action-packed and riveting... but it's there.
EDIT:
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN2_wm.aspx
I just heard thet Gillibrand voted no. So much for her pro gun stance.
decodeddiesel
07-22-09, 11:40
Got it, thanks!
Looks like it's passing so far to me as well. Proud of Democrat Senator Udall from Colorado.
Only 58 votes aye. Amendment failed.
meisterhau
07-22-09, 11:45
Looking forward to a list of votes.
montanadave
07-22-09, 11:47
Spoke too soon. And I missed the civics lesson about needing 60 votes to pass. I was under the impression a simple majority was going to carry this measure.
Senate rejects pro-gun measure on concealed weapon
By JIM ABRAMS (AP) – 6 minutes ago
WASHINGTON — Gun control proponents scored a rare victory as the Senate rejected the carrying of concealed weapons across state lines.
The 58-39 vote Wednesday defeated a measure giving people with concealed weapons permits the right to carry their firearms into other states that have similar gun laws. Sixty votes were needed to approve the provision, an amendment to a defense spending bill.
It is an unusual setback for the gun rights side, which has been able to muster majorities of Republicans and pro-gun Democrats to move its agenda through both the Bush and Obama administrations. Opponents say the concealed weapon proposal would force states with tough gun laws to accept gun-carrying visitors from states with weaker laws.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
:mad:
Not a bad showing for a very good concept.
By an amazing coincidence , the vote was followed by very good speech opposing Judge Sotomayor's confirmation -- because of her 2nd Amendment position.
I was under the impression that due to the environemental impact study a federal judge put an injunction into place that has killed the national parks CCW thing until sometime to be determined. Did I miss something?
You will be able to carry in national parks in February or March. The law was passed with the credit card reform law in May.
IIRC the environmental impact study came from a lawsuit earlier this year to block the Bush administrations change.
I'm glad it didn't pass. If the states want widespread reciprocity, let them seek permission from Congress to form a compact as they did with driver's licenses. The states who want to participate can enter voluntarily, the ones that don't want to can stay out of it; 5 states aren't in the Driver's License Compact, and two states don't allow for concealed carry. None of us want California, Illinois, and New York to force their policies on the nation through federal legislation, so why is it okay if it's something we like?
The right to keep and bear arms is written into the US and most state constitutions. The manner in which they are kept and borne is a detail for the states to decide.
-B
The states who want to participate can enter voluntarily, the ones that don't want to can stay out of it; 5 states aren't in the Driver's License Compact, and two states don't allow for concealed carry.
-B
I hadn't heard of this before, what 5 states are they and what exactly does that mean to Joe Citizen?
Littlelebowski
07-22-09, 13:19
I was under the impression that due to the environemental impact study a federal judge put an injunction into place that has killed the national parks CCW thing until sometime to be determined. Did I miss something?
Yup. Obama signed CCW in the parks back into law when he signed the credit card agreement.
Link for our newest, all powerful mod (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/05/national_parks_gun_law_take_ef.html) :D
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-22-09, 13:31
I'm glad it didn't pass. If the states want widespread reciprocity, let them seek permission from Congress to form a compact as they did with driver's licenses. The states who want to participate can enter voluntarily, the ones that don't want to can stay out of it; 5 states aren't in the Driver's License Compact, and two states don't allow for concealed carry. None of us want California, Illinois, and New York to force their policies on the nation through federal legislation, so why is it okay if it's something we like?
The right to keep and bear arms is written into the US and most state constitutions. The manner in which they are kept and borne is a detail for the states to decide.
-B
I agree, and I know it probably isn't popular. I know sticking to a principle when the opposition is not so encunmbered is not smartpolitics, but I see this bill kind of like opening the door to national CCW regulations. Good try, when you fall a few short, I start to wonder about the people who cross the line like COs Udall, is he really for it, or he knew it would fail so this keeps $100 bucks in my pocket for whoever runs against him. How did Bennett vote? I saw him the other week at a local pool with his daughter. I expected SS in coat and tie in the pool with him.
Looking forward to a list of votes.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00237
Littlelebowski
07-22-09, 14:15
The below is who voted against the Thune Amendment.
NAYs ---39
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 3
Byrd (D-WV)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Mikulski (D-MD)
meisterhau
07-22-09, 14:22
I guess I'm not quite certain how to feel about the votes from IL (2 against), and from Wisconsin (split 1&1).
I guess, in a way, I wish they hadn't had a counted vote, since they (these states) won't be affected. Yeah, I know that's not how it works...
I'm glad at least one of these votes went to the "yea" category - holding out hope yet that the state will change it's mind and let its citizens (me included), exercise their 2A rights.
At any rate, I suppose that's getting a bit off track...
decodeddiesel
07-22-09, 14:42
Dodd is a POS. He makes me glad I don't live in CT anymore.
Lieberman...yeah "I'm an independent now" :rolleyes: Yeah, OK.
Lugar (R-IN) and Voinovich (R-OH), are you ****ing serious? RINO RINO RINO!
Gillibrand was a let down, especially considering her positive NRA rating.
Conversely though I am proud of my senator, Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) for voting aye.
decodeddiesel
07-22-09, 14:47
I hope everyone understands where the road would have led us if this had gotten pass. In order to make all states happy they would have had to apply the strictest standards available on CCW. Imagine getting a California version of CCW laws. :rolleyes:
You're probably right ZDL. I could see this backfiring horribly on us.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-22-09, 14:48
As I understood it, because it is outlined in the constitution, it is not the states right to regulate it. Am I wrong?
Isn't this the whole 'incorporation' issue that is headed for the Scotus? Some states said Heller only applies to federal (DC) laws not to state laws, while others say that it does cover state laws since it has been incorporated because of later amendments. I'm sure you lawyers are crying right now reading my summary.
You're probably right ZDL. I could see this backfiring horribly on us.
Quite possibly. How about just going back to the good ol' fashioned 2nd Amendment?
decodeddiesel
07-22-09, 14:52
Quite possibly. How about just going back to the good ol' fashioned 2nd Amendment?
That would be the day wouldn't it?
BTW your avatar is out of control bro!
Phone picture sent to me from the store to see if I approved of the new bikini... Can't wait to get on the boat this weekend :D
I was under the impression that due to the environemental impact study a federal judge put an injunction into place that has killed the national parks CCW thing until sometime to be determined. Did I miss something?
The rule change for carrying in national parks was to take affect in January of this year. A lawsuit was brought to block the change because the rules for the change were not followed. When the law was past in May it made the rule change and the impact study moot.
I hadn't heard of this before, what 5 states are they and what exactly does that mean to Joe Citizen?
Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Tennessee, and Massachusetts. The second part of your question I couldn't answer. It took me a couple times to get enough correct answers to get my driver's license. :D
As I understood it, because it is outlined in the constitution, it is not the states right to regulate it. Am I wrong?
The right to keep and bear arms is described in the US Constitution (and most state constitutions); how arms are kept and borne is not. The US Constitution doesn't care if you're allowed to carry them concealed or openly (or both), as long as you can carry them. Granted, this requires a strict reading of the US Constitution, which as we know is not a strong-point of quite a few politicians and Supreme Court justices throughout history. In fact, this is a point of clarification that I think would be worthy of an Amendment, maybe something to the effect of: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, in a manner prescribed by the ________, shall not be infringed." Fill in the blank with "United States" or "States" and call it a day (I would strongly prefer States). No confusion whatsoever where the ultimate authority concerning how arms may be kept and borne lies.
For what it's worth, the DC v. Heller ruling has no affect whatsoever on the States. It was a case of a lower federal law being in conflict with a higher federal law. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision that the District was out of sync with the 2nd Amendment and that their laws did in fact infringe upon the right of residents to keep and bear arms.
Now if I can just get people to stop saying "states rights"...
-B
woodandsteel
07-22-09, 15:32
The below is who voted against the Thune Amendment.
NAYs ---39
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 3
Byrd (D-WV)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Thanks for the list. I was going nuts trying to find this.
NinjaTactics
07-22-09, 15:33
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/us/politics/23guns.html?hp
Let the record show that Dick Lugar is still an asshat.
How many days suspension you want? 7 or 10? :D
Yup. Obama signed CCW in the parks back into law when he signed the credit card agreement.
Link for our newest, all powerful mod (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/05/national_parks_gun_law_take_ef.html) :D
Thanks for the list. I was going nuts trying to find this.
I think that Lieberman, the two Rs, Gillibrand, and any Democrat from reasonably conservative gun friendly places really need to hear about it from their constituents
Yelling at Schumer and Feinstein won't make a difference, but some of these others may.
This will come up again.
Make sure they know people will die because of their vote.
decodeddiesel
07-22-09, 17:39
I think that Lieberman, the two Rs, Gillibrand, and any Democrat from reasonably conservative gun friendly places really need to hear about it from their constituents
Yelling at Schumer and Feinstein won't make a difference, but some of these others may.
This will come up again.
Make sure they know people will die because of their vote.
I agree.
I also liked Sen. Thune's remarks on the bill's defeat. Keep your eyes on this guy folks, I have a sneaking suspicion we are seeing a major GOP player in the making.
CALSHOOTER
07-22-09, 19:43
I heard the bill was defeated today so the anti gun nuts are happy today:mad:
You do not have a God given right to marijuana, abortion, or gay marriage.
You do have a God given right to a firearm. A state restricting a man from his rights is unconstitutional.
K.L. Davis
07-22-09, 20:22
Amen to that. They are the official C-squares of law enforcement. Weren't ever real cops, stopped carrying years ago, and probably don't even load their guns. Purely ceremonial...
I agree completely that the IACP does not come even close to voicing the opinion of law enforcement officers -- but what the hell is up with "the c-squares of law enforcement"? I am at a loss here, that one went right over my head :(
You do not have a God given right to marijuana, abortion, or gay marriage.
You do have a God given right to a firearm. A state restricting a man from his rights is unconstitutional.
This seems to come out of left field as marijuana, abortion and gays marrying have nothing to do with this topic.
This seems to come out of left field as marijuana, abortion and gays marrying have nothing to do with this topic.
My response was to the other thread before it got merged into this one.
You do have a God given right to a firearm.
What does God have to do with it? I thought it was the second amendment.
The Constitution does not give or grant rights to anyone. It outlines the authorized powers of government and limits their actions as per the letter of the law. (Which is why the term 'state rights' bothers me; government bodies don't have rights.)
-B
Heavy Metal
07-22-09, 22:52
I was under the impression that due to the environemental impact study a federal judge put an injunction into place that has killed the national parks CCW thing until sometime to be determined. Did I miss something?
Overrode by the amendment to the credit card bill.
Will come into effect in a few months.
30 cal slut
07-22-09, 22:58
Somebody just posted on TOS that Sen. Thune is going TRY AGAIN!
If this is the case we need to hammer the NO voters ASAP.
Somebody just posted on TOS that Sen. Thune is going TRY AGAIN!
If this is the case we need to hammer the NO voters ASAP.
I hope he does. 2 votes shy with 3 non-voters is close. I still can't believe both senators in Colorado, Nebraska AND Kansas all voted yea. I have a feeling this will get crushed in the house with the total number of anti-state representation but would like to see it at least clear the senate as a sign that we're moving in the right direction.
I also find it humorous how states who don't allow CCW at all get a vote on a bill that would have NO bearing on their state anyway.
The Constitution does not give or grant rights to anyone. It outlines the authorized powers of government and limits their actions as per the letter of the law. (Which is why the term 'state rights' bothers me; government bodies don't have rights.)
Maybe I was confused by the fact that the Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.
I assume this was in response to my post asking what God had to do with it. I am still trying to understand the "God given right to own a firearm" comment. What does God have to do with me owning a firearm?
Robb Jensen
07-23-09, 06:15
Maybe I was confused by the fact that the Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.
I assume this was in response to my post asking what God had to do with it. I am still trying to understand the "God given right to own a firearm" comment. What does God have to do with me owning a firearm?
It's a civil right. The founders said that certain rights were given to people by their creator (we Christians call this creator 'god'.) The 2nd Amendment recognizes this right and protects it.
Example from the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
The right = it pre-existed the Constitution:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Basically what gotm4 and others are saying is that we have certain rights endowed upon us. Those rights are not granted by the state nor do we rely on the state for them. The Bill of Rights confers this.
Maybe I was confused by the fact that the Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.
I assume this was in response to my post asking what God had to do with it. I am still trying to understand the "God given right to own a firearm" comment. What does God have to do with me owning a firearm?
Submariner
07-23-09, 08:20
Basically what gotm4 and others are saying is that we have certain rights endowed upon us. Those rights are not granted by the state nor do we rely on the state for them. The Bill of Rights confers this.
It Bill of Rights confers nothing; it affirms the pre-existing right.
Lack of sleep phucks with my vokabularee.
It Bill of Rights confers nothing; it affirms the pre-existing right.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.