PDA

View Full Version : Two Great Pro-Gun Amendments In The Senate


hagar
02-25-2009, 7:28 PM
Two Great Pro-gun Amendments In The Senate
-- But Harry Reid stands in our way

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Wednesday, February 25, 2009


Thank you for all your activism so far!

Senator John Ensign of Nevada offered his amendment to repeal D.C.'s
draconian gun ban today.

But Senators John Thune of South Dakota and David Vitter of Louisiana
have also stepped up to the plate. They filed an amendment that would
result in REAL national concealed carry reciprocity -- without adversely
affecting no-permit states like Alaska and Vermont.

So now the battle lines are drawn! By the end of the week, the Senate
will vote on whether to rule these two pro-gun amendments out of order.

The vote could come on a so-called "cloture" motion to cut off debate
(and thus kill the Ensign and Thune/Vitter amendments). Moreover, if the
underlying bill is then passed, the virulently anti-gun jurisdiction of
the District of Columbia will be rewarded with a voting member of the
House of Representatives.

But first, a little background on the two amendments:

You've all heard of the various "microstamping" proposals crafted by the
anti-gunners to ban guns and ammunition nationwide.

The anti-gunners would do this by serial number "microstamping"
requirements which are so onerous that guns (or ammunition) would become
prohibitively expensive in all 50 states.

In the wake of the Heller case, the District of Columbia's reaction to
the Supreme Court's decision declaring its gun laws unconstitutional was
to pass legislation which will, as a practical matter, continue its
current policy of denying gun licenses to its citizens. But, to add
insult to injury, it added a whole bunch of additional anti-gun
provisions.

One was a requirement that most guns used for self-defense be capable of
"microstamping" a cartridge with a unique serial number. Aside from
being useless for identifying any criminal who pockets his spent brass,
this provision would, even if it were technologically possible, make
guns so expensive that no one would buy them.

If a few more liberal jurisdictions follow suit, this could start a
chain reaction so that gun manufacturers will eventually be forced to
manufacture ALL guns to meet the new microstamping standards.

The Ensign amendment would completely repeal D.C.'s gun ban and, in the
process, help stave off the push for microstamping.

Next, the Thune/Vitter amendment on concealed carry reciprocity is an
idea whose time has come. Why should your right to self-defense stop at
the state line?

But it must be the right kind of national reciprocity. It must protect
states like Alaska and Vermont which do not require a permit to carry
concealed at all and it must be done in a Constitutional manner that
protects State's rights.

The Thune/Vitter amendment would do these things -- it is REAL national
reciprocity.

But the problem is this: Nevada Senator Harry Reid has moved to cut off
debate on the D.C. bill -- using a parliamentary maneuver known as a
"cloture" petition -- for the sole purpose of ruling such pro-gun
amendments out of order.

You see, Barack Obama and the liberals who run Congress hate guns. They
hate guns so much that they would probably be willing to kill the
District's voting representative in order to preserve the District's gun
ban.

The next two days are crucial. While there will be votes in the Senate
throughout the day on Thursday -- which may include either of the two
pro-gun amendments -- it is likely that the true focus will be on
Friday's cloture vote.


ACTION: Contact your two Senators and urge them to vote AGAINST cloture
on S. 160 until the Senate has had an opportunity to vote for all
pro-gun amendments. As usual, you can use the Gun Owners Legislative
Action Center at http://gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators
the pre-written message below.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

I urge you in the strongest terms to vote against cloture on S. 160
until senators have had an opportunity to vote on pro-gun amendments,
such as those offered by Senators Ensign and Thune.

The issue is not whether to give D.C. a voting representative. The
issue is whether to impose a "gag rule" on those who oppose the
District's efforts to use its draconian gun laws to undermine gun rights
in other states.

Cloture -- invoked for the cynical purpose of protecting D.C.'s anti-gun
laws and to silence other pro-gun voices -- is not a vote on D.C.
representation. It is a vote against the Second Amendment.

Please let me know you do not favor silencing pro-gun voices. Please do
not vote for cloture until those voices are heard.

And once debate is allowed to continue, I ask that you vote in favor of
the Ensign amendment to repeal the District's gun ban, as well as the
Thune amendment for national concealed carry reciprocity.

Sincerely,


****************************

BillCA
02-25-2009, 8:36 PM
Anyone have the slightest hope that DiFi or Boxer would pay any attention to their constituents on this matter? :rolleyes:

Librarian
02-26-2009, 9:54 AM
No.

Write'em anyway. Make it short and sweet; no point in expending a lot of effort.

The text of the amendments to S160 is online at Thomas (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN00160:). (presuming that link is not subject to bitrot...)

deleted by PC police
02-26-2009, 10:05 AM
These two bills don't have a snowballs chance in hell of passing with our current government.

DDT
02-26-2009, 10:15 AM
I don't get giving DC a vote in the house. I thought that would require a comstitutional amendment

Cypren
02-26-2009, 10:33 AM
I don't get giving DC a vote in the house.

If you stop and think about the political voting patterns of DC, it makes perfect sense why a Democrat-controlled Congress with a Democrat President would try to give DC representative status.

I thought that would require a comstitutional amendment

The size of the House is fixed by Public Law 62-5 (passed in 1911), which set the House at 433 members with some additional provisions for adding more as new states were added (until 1960, there were 437; after that census it was reduced to 435, where it has stayed to the present day). The Constitution's only restriction on apportionment and total size is that no state may have more than one representative per 30,000 citizens and that every state must have at least one.

This is really just a naked attempt by the Democrats to gain two free seats in the House as leverage against a backlash in 2010. The gun provisions attached by the Republicans are an attempt at a poison-pill that will kill the bill off.

CA_Libertarian
02-26-2009, 11:27 AM
Anyone have the slightest hope that DiFi or Boxer would pay any attention to their constituents on this matter? :rolleyes:

Maybe we could talk them into taking a day off... no vote is better than a "no" vote.

dfletcher
02-26-2009, 12:16 PM
I'll tell you what I don't get - how the folks in NV keep returning someone like Harry Reid to the Senate. I lived there when he was a Rep - OK, a guy can get so far representing a small part of the state - but the whole state? How does that happen?

DDT
02-26-2009, 2:01 PM
If you stop and think about the political voting patterns of DC, it makes perfect sense why a Democrat-controlled Congress with a Democrat President would try to give DC representative status.



The size of the House is fixed by Public Law 62-5 (passed in 1911), which set the House at 433 members with some additional provisions for adding more as new states were added (until 1960, there were 437; after that census it was reduced to 435, where it has stayed to the present day). The Constitution's only restriction on apportionment and total size is that no state may have more than one representative per 30,000 citizens and that every state must have at least one.

This is really just a naked attempt by the Democrats to gain two free seats in the House as leverage against a backlash in 2010. The gun provisions attached by the Republicans are an attempt at a poison-pill that will kill the bill off.

I understood WHY they would like to give 2 seats away to DC I didn't know that they had the authority. Thought that was clear in my post.

DDT
02-26-2009, 2:06 PM
I still don't see how that can happen without an amendment to the constitution:
The Constitution of the United States of America
Article 1
Section 2 - The House

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.



Representatives must be "chosen" by the people of the STATES. And they must live in the STATE they represent.

How do they plan to get around this? They can change the number of representatives but not what they represent. They MUST represent a STATE.

Timberline
02-26-2009, 6:17 PM
These two bills don't have a snowballs chance in hell of passing with our current government.

Senate Bill passed, along with Ensign's amendment. Now to house-senate conference.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/26/national/w134127S07.DTL&tsp=1

I do wonder how Ensign would feel about a Senator from, say, Maine, attaching an amendment that outlawed prostitution in Carson City. Yes, gun control should be lifted in D.C., but I don't like Ensign's tactics. On the other hand, props to the man for working to put guns in the hands of Black Democrats!

yellowfin
02-26-2009, 7:32 PM
Maybe they'll try again to tack on the reciprocity provision.

vrand
02-26-2009, 7:47 PM
Anyone have the slightest hope that DiFi or Boxer would pay any attention to their constituents on this matter? :rolleyes:

Those 2 communists... :rofl2:

digitalCajun
07-20-2009, 2:34 PM
Sure enough, the Thune-Vitter amendment is back again! This time it's part of the annual defense authorization bill. See <http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5061>.

stag1500
07-20-2009, 2:56 PM
Does the Thune-Vitter amendment only cover home state CCW permits or does it cover every valid CCW permit?

digitalCajun
07-20-2009, 6:05 PM
Looks like it covers home state only, at least from the NRA's language. I haven't read the amendment itself.

Maestro Pistolero
07-20-2009, 6:17 PM
Hold up Sotomayor's vote until both of these are signed into law.

hoffmang
07-20-2009, 7:39 PM
Here is the language:


SA 1618. Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Barrasso, and Mr. Coburn) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1083. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:

(1) The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(3) Congress has previously enacted legislation for national authorization of the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(4) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms to individuals, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without need for a permit.

(5) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

(6) Congress finds that the prevention of lawful carrying by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

(7) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(8) Congress therefore should provide for the interstate carrying of firearms by such individuals in all States that do not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by their own residents.

(b) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:``926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

``(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof--

``(1) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that--

``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes;

``(2) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that--

``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

``(b) A person carrying a concealed firearm under this section shall--

``(1) in a State that does not prohibit the carrying of a concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes, be entitled to carry such firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern the specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a resident of the State; or

``(2) in a State that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, be entitled to carry such a firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a person issued a permit by the State in which the firearm is carried.

``(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or permit issued to a resident of the State.

``(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to--

``(1) effect the permitting process for an individual in the State of residence of the individual; or

``(2) preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.''.

(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

``926D.

Interestingly:
1. CA residents would not be able to carry in CA on a UT permit.
2. CA residents would be able to carry everywhere except CA, WI, IL, and DC on a UT permit.

-Gene

Aegis
07-20-2009, 7:46 PM
Here is the language:



Interestingly:
1. CA residents would not be able to carry in CA on a UT permit.
2. CA residents would be able to carry everywhere except CA, WI, IL, and DC on a UT permit.

-Gene

In essence, this legislation is useless to people in California who want to carry in state. How are things going with the cases to force LOC or CCW in CA since it appears we still have incorporation in the 9th?

hoffmang
07-20-2009, 7:51 PM
You should expect a motion from our side shortly in Sykes.

-Gene

yellowfin
07-20-2009, 8:14 PM
In essence, this legislation is useless to people in California who want to carry in state. How are things going with the cases to force LOC or CCW in CA since it appears we still have incorporation in the 9th? There will be a demand to reconcile the illogical and absurd not to mention awkward position that everyone except CA residents can carry in CA which is no one's fault but the anti gun political complex of CA itself.

KylaGWolf
07-20-2009, 8:42 PM
Oh would be sweet if they pass but I can say for a fact our CA reps will vote against it :(. Although I am all for contacting every single member of the committee and saying I want these to pass.

I clicked on the link that Librarian was so nice to put up and this is what I found....the part on No. 3 had me blinking but my brain is fried looking at other stats at the moment so afraid to hope. LOL

3 . District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)[S.160.ES]


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.160:

Irrational Voice
07-20-2009, 9:43 PM
Here is the language:



Interestingly:
1. CA residents would not be able to carry in CA on a UT permit.
2. CA residents would be able to carry everywhere except CA, WI, IL, and DC on a UT permit.

-Gene

Don't WI, IL, and DC all permit concealed carry by retired police officers? Aren't those "citizens" as defined in the law?

hoffmang
07-20-2009, 9:46 PM
Don't WI, IL, and DC all permit concealed carry by retired police officers? Aren't those "citizens" as defined in the law?

I may be incorrect about DC as they do actually have a "carry permit" that's just never granted but would qualify as allowing CCW. IL and WI do not, in and of themselves at the state law level, allow retired police officers to carry. Federal law does that instead.

-Gene

mfmayes49
07-20-2009, 9:49 PM
Not a chance in hell, we know how they stand on guns

M198
07-20-2009, 10:09 PM
Some funny things in that bill. First, the law that gives DC the power to pass gun bans is the "Act to prohibit the killing of wild birds and wild animals in the District of Columbia" from 1906. What's that saying, give them an inch, they take a mile? A hunting law is used to ban handgun ownership in our nations capitol. Nice! Second, the law prohibits the city from passing a law banning, effectively banning or cause undue hardship in the obtaining of "any firearm neither prohibited by Federal law nor subject to the National Firearms Act." That of course means that they will have stores selling AR-15's in DC wayyyyyyyyyyyy before Californian's get the chance to have real AR15's. And AK's. And any hangun they want. This bill also kills any registration beyond federal mandates for DROS forms. It's a gun owners wet dream bill. I might have to move to DC.

Irrational Voice
07-20-2009, 11:11 PM
I may be incorrect about DC as they do actually have a "carry permit" that's just never granted but would qualify as allowing CCW. IL and WI do not, in and of themselves at the state law level, allow retired police officers to carry. Federal law does that instead.

-Gene

Thanks, didn't realize that retired cops in IL and WI had to rely on LEOSA to carry.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-21-2009, 5:17 AM
I still don't see how that can happen without an amendment to the constitution:
The Constitution of the United States of America
Article 1



Representatives must be "chosen" by the people of the STATES. And they must live in the STATE they represent.

How do they plan to get around this? They can change the number of representatives but not what they represent. They MUST represent a STATE.



Indeed they must. So, IF Ensign's amendment stays, & IF the bill passes, there's going to be challenges filed in court. With just a little luck, the part giving DC Representatives will be stricken as unconstitutional (because it clearly is such) while the other part (banning DC's ability to pass anti-gun laws) will stay. Won't that be both funny AND good for us?

As for CCW reciprocity, allowing outsiders to carry while CA residents could not is a situation that wouldn't last long. I don't see even our legislature allowing that.

The Raisuli

Nevermore
07-21-2009, 7:12 AM
I still don't see how that can happen without an amendment to the constitution:
The Constitution of the United States of America
Article 1

Representatives must be "chosen" by the people of the STATES. And they must live in the STATE they represent.

How do they plan to get around this? They can change the number of representatives but not what they represent. They MUST represent a STATE.
This is correct -- hence why there's a campaign to modify the Constitution to give DC residents a vote in Congress. At the moment, the DC Representative in the House is a non-voting member. He or she can yak all day, but in the end, what happens to DC is up to the other House members. DC has zero presence in the Senate.

Untamed1972
07-21-2009, 8:48 AM
Here is the language:



Interestingly:
1. CA residents would not be able to carry in CA on a UT permit.
2. CA residents would be able to carry everywhere except CA, WI, IL, and DC on a UT permit.

-Gene

So if someone was a dual state resident for example....say AZ.....would they be able to carry in CA on an AZ permit even though they're a resident of CA also?

Untamed1972
07-21-2009, 11:33 AM
In all honesty though if this passed I dont see CA just throwing up their hands and saying "Oh Well." I see alotta outta state carriers getting jacked up over it.

The first thing CA LEOs are gonna ask anyone they stop with outta state plates is if they have any weapons, if they say yes, then the fun will begin. Kinda like "e" checks to the extreme.

hamster
07-21-2009, 11:54 AM
Here is the language:



Interestingly:
1. CA residents would not be able to carry in CA on a UT permit.
2. CA residents would be able to carry everywhere except CA, WI, IL, and DC on a UT permit.

-Gene

So would a CA resident with some other state's CCW (not UT) be allowed to carry in CA?

Untamed1972
07-21-2009, 12:10 PM
So would a CA resident with some other state's CCW (not UT) be allowed to carry in CA?


I think the point is you must have a permit from your state of residence to be able to carry in your state of residence.

When out of state, other states would be required to accept a valid permit from any other state, but to carry at home you must have a permit from your home state.