PDA

View Full Version : "Senate rejects law on carrying concealed weapons"


M198
07-22-2009, 9:27 AM
via CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/22/concealed.weapons/index.html)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate narrowly rejected a measure to allow people to carry concealed weapons from state to state Wednesday.
A Miami, Florida, gun store offers concealed weapons training.

A Miami, Florida, gun store offers concealed weapons training.

The vote was 58 to 39. The amendment needed 60 votes to pass.

The measure would have required each of the 48 states that allow concealed firearms to honor permits issued in other states.

It was the first significant defeat this year for the gun lobby.

The concealed weapons proposal was an amendment to a larger defense appropriations bill, introduced by Sen. John Thune, a South Dakota Republican.

Supporters of the measure argued it would help deter criminals; opponents claimed it would endanger innocent people by effectively forcing most of the country to conform to regulations in states with the loosest gun ownership standards.

Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican who is a co-sponsor of the amendment, argued Wednesday that gun licenses should apply across state lines, like driver's licenses.

"People travel," he said on CNN's "American Morning."

"We have truck drivers on our roads, people traveling for vacation in their vehicles, and if you have a license... you should be able to use that license in other states. It should apply like a driver's license," he said.

He argued that concealed weapons deter crime.

But Republican Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City and an opponent of the law, said the proposed amendment would trample on states' rights.
Don't Miss

* House passes law to allow concealed weapons in national parks

"Wyoming shouldn't be subject to New York state laws, and we're going in that direction," he said. "What's right for the people of Wyoming isn't necessarily right for the people of New York and vice versa."

Bloomberg insisted that guns do not make people safer.

"There's no evidence that if you have a gun, you're safer. Quite the contrary. If you have a gun at home, [you are] something like 20 times more likely to have somebody in your house killed," he said on "American Morning."

"We have to protect our policemen, protect our citizens. We can't have all these guns, and it's reasonable to have each state make their own laws," he said.

The issue has blurred Capitol Hill's usual partisan lines. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, is one of several Southern and Western Democrats who supported the measure. Others Democrats opposed it.

Before this vote, gun control advocates faced a setback when President Obama signed a credit card bill that included a provision allowing people to carry guns in national parks.

Liberty1
07-22-2009, 9:29 AM
First try and we came close. It will pass later.

Hey and there has been some progress, we've even gotten to Bloomberg:

"... If you have a gun at home, [you are] something like 20 times more likely to have somebody in your house killed," he said on "American Morning."


That's down from 43 times (or "something like" that)!!!

b.faust
07-22-2009, 9:33 AM
"There's no evidence that if you have a gun, you're safer. Quite the contrary. If you have a gun at home, [you are] something like 20 times more likely to have somebody in your house killed," he said on "American Morning."

[/I]

OMG something like a 1000+ times more likely that your firearm might also steal your credit card number and order all kinds of Teflon coated "man killer" ammo and a fancy shoulder thing that goes up. It'll threaten children when you're not home to watch it and probably also leads to global warming studies might say if we did some. Every time you clean your gun, an innocent child in some distant country dies of starvation, something like 20 times a DAY.


See, I could be a dips**t politician too.


B

MKE
07-22-2009, 9:38 AM
"There's no evidence that if you have a gun, you're safer. Quite the contrary. If you have a gun at home, [you are] something like 20 times more likely to have somebody in your house killed," he said on "American Morning." :rolleyes:

I have read this line so many times...does anyone know exactly where this research came from? This figure that's being used is just utter bs.

Anyone have the list of senators who voted against?

KylaGWolf
07-22-2009, 9:38 AM
You know I really hate when they pull a statistical number out their arse. I just wish the damn lawmakers would do some serious research but then they would have to admit they aren't doing what they should be.

PEBKAC
07-22-2009, 9:39 AM
I think he mis-spoke...I believe he meant criminals in your home are 20 times more likely to die if you have a gun in house. ;)

vorpar
07-22-2009, 9:43 AM
via CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/22/concealed.weapons/index.html)

"There's no evidence that if you have a gun, you're safer. Quite the contrary. If you have a gun at home, [you are] something like 20 times more likely to have somebody in your house killed," he said on "American Morning."
[/I]

They never read the statistic the right way:

"People who are 20 times more likely to die from violence in their homes tend to buy a gun."

Liberty1
07-22-2009, 9:44 AM
:rolleyes:

I have read this line so many times...does anyone know exactly where this research came from? This figure that's being used is just utter bs.

Anyone have the list of senators who voted against?

I'm sure Prof. John Lott has addressed it or for that matter Prof. Eugine Voloch.

Cameron
07-22-2009, 9:45 AM
Maybe he should have better concealed the amendment?

dfletcher
07-22-2009, 9:46 AM
Here's a link to who voted and how - the nonvoters were Byrd and Kennedy and Mikulski, I'd expect Kennedy & Mikulski to vote have voted no. I assume Byrd & Kennedy were too ill, don't know why Mikulski could not vote.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00237#position

That weasel Lugar (R-IN) voted no, virtually all the no votes were Democrats including someone who calls himself pro 2nd, Senator Leahy. And new Democrat Specter voted no, hope he's soon gone from office. Interesting that Harkin continues to survive in IO.

Twenty Democrats (including Reid) voted yes, that's not too bad.

kennisonxgs
07-22-2009, 9:46 AM
First try and we came close. It will pass later.

Hey and there has been some progress, we've even gotten to Bloomberg:

"... If you have a gun at home, [you are] something like 20 times more likely to have somebody in your house killed," he said on "American Morning."


That's down from 32 times (or "something like" that)!!!

He's actually right.

The intruder in your house is the one that's killed though. Which means that your probability of surviving a home invasion is 20x higher if you have a gun.

.454
07-22-2009, 9:47 AM
Elections have consequences.

kalguns
07-22-2009, 9:56 AM
So close, yet so far

rbgaynor
07-22-2009, 9:58 AM
Elections have consequences.

Yep. Back in 2006 Senator Allen's (R-VA) CCW reciprocity bill never even made it out of committee, this one nearly passed.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S3275:

Decoligny
07-22-2009, 9:58 AM
First try and we came close. It will pass later.

Hey and there has been some progress, we've even gotten to Bloomberg:

"... If you have a gun at home, [you are] something like 20 times more likely to have somebody in your house killed," he said on "American Morning."


That's down from 32 times (or "something like" that)!!!

Well, I suppose the logic is sound.

If you have a gun at home, and home is the only place that the particular gun is kept, if someone is killed by that gun, it is highly likely that the person who is killed by that gun would be in your house (unless you are shooting out of your windows).

Example: Criminal/Murderer/Rapist who makes the mistake of breaking into a home where a gun is kept is many times more likely to be killed by a gun than the Criminal/Murderer/Rapist who breaks into a home where there is no gun.

7x57
07-22-2009, 10:00 AM
The original number was "43 times," and it came from a thoroughly discredited piece of academic fraud by Arthur Kellermann. GunCite has a writeup (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html), and if you read it and follow the links you can get started understanding how he cooked his data. But it's enough to know that all he did was compare *deaths*. That means, among other things, that he does not count defensive uses not ending in death. Given that the vast majority of successful defensive uses do not involve firing a shot, this means that essentially his calculation begins by ignoring defensive uses.

This is "banana republic vote-counting math": if you don't count 95% of the votes for the opposition party, the generalissimo gets re-elected in a landslide.

7x57

MKE
07-22-2009, 10:01 AM
Here's a link to who voted and how - the nonvoters were Byrd and Kennedy and Mikulski, I'd expect Kennedy & Mikulski to vote have voted no. I assume Byrd & Kennedy were too ill, don't know why Mikulski could not vote.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00237#position

That weasel Lugar (R-IN) voted no, virtually all the no votes were Democrats including someone who calls himself pro 2nd, Senator Leahy. And new Democrat Specter voted no, hope he's soon gone from office. Interesting that Harkin continues to survive in IO.

Twenty Democrats (including Reid) voted yes, that's not too bad.

I see that little slimeball Al Franken got his vote in. Having two of our senators didn't help...no wonder people outside of our state hates California.

M. D. Van Norman
07-22-2009, 10:02 AM
If I recall correctly, the Kellermann study did not control for whether or not the household gun was used in the crime. In any case, the particular statistic is not correlated correctly.

glbtrottr
07-22-2009, 10:05 AM
Interesting thoughts on Kennedy.

In the household, we have Massachusetts CCW's - they're called LTC's. Not sure how he would have voted.

Shame on the republican traitors...freaking Lugar moron.

highpowermatch
07-22-2009, 10:10 AM
they kept mentioning how other states CCW are just given to you because you are a gun owner. Is this true, certain states just issue them if you own a gun??????

berto
07-22-2009, 10:13 AM
Interesting thoughts on Kennedy.

In the household, we have Massachusetts CCW's - they're called LTC's. Not sure how he would have voted.

Shame on the republican traitors...freaking Lugar moron.

Kennedy would have voted NO. Has he ever failed to support a gun control measure? Today's no show doesn't count.

rbgaynor
07-22-2009, 10:16 AM
they kept mentioning how other states CCW are just given to you because you are a gun owner. Is this true, certain states just issue them if you own a gun??????

Effectively it is for Alaska and Vermont - since neither state requires a license for CCW.

giarcpnw
07-22-2009, 10:19 AM
Time to fire the two republicans that voted no. They cost us the win.

C

chiefcrash
07-22-2009, 10:19 AM
I love how most of the antis i've met say gun owners should have a license like we license drivers...

and yet, when we try to make those permits apply like driver's licenses, they start complaining again...





hmmmm....

AndrewMendez
07-22-2009, 10:19 AM
What did this specifically mean for Us? Could we carry here with a Utah CCW?

dfletcher
07-22-2009, 10:19 AM
Interesting thoughts on Kennedy.

In the household, we have Massachusetts CCW's - they're called LTC's. Not sure how he would have voted.
Shame on the republican traitors...freaking Lugar moron.

As a transplanted Yankee I am certain how he would have voted - it would have been no. Remember he has always supported gun contol and years ago supported a proposed statewide ban on handguns in the Commonwealth.

sorensen440
07-22-2009, 10:25 AM
Wow this came much closer then I ever thought it would

Liberty1
07-22-2009, 10:25 AM
What did this specifically mean for Us? Could we carry here with a Utah CCW?

Not here or in IL and WI, but in the 47 other states, yes

Gray Peterson
07-22-2009, 10:36 AM
As far as I know, Lugar and Voinovich were retiring. They've generally always been anti-RKBA.

Right now, there's a Democratic primary between Arlen Spector and Joe Sestak. Pat Toomey is on the Republican side. Should ask Sestak if he supports this bill. If he does, good bye Spector.

6172crew
07-22-2009, 10:40 AM
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---58
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)
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)

tom_92673
07-22-2009, 10:41 AM
My thoughts are that maybe it's better if they don't know if we have firearms or not. Not to sound too tinfoil here, but If it's a constitutional right to bear arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, perhaps not knowing if I have a gun or not will keep them honest. I'm not promoting any illegal activity here, but I know that I'm a much more polite driver in a violent area when I think someone might shoot me if I do something stupid. Just a thought.

While I would have liked to see this pass to avoid having to worry about being able to carry concealed, and I'm appalled at the idea that the senate wants to tell me when I can protect myself and when I can't, I'm just saying, maybe CCW's are a form of gun control that we don't need period.

M198
07-22-2009, 10:41 AM
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Nay

Anyone see something wrong with this line. Democrat from Obama-land votes yes, Republican votes no. Weird.

bubbapug1
07-22-2009, 10:42 AM
very close vote....maybe next time

KylaGWolf
07-22-2009, 10:42 AM
What did this specifically mean for Us? Could we carry here with a Utah CCW?

No we wouldn't have been able to carry on a Utah permit.

KylaGWolf
07-22-2009, 10:46 AM
Yeah I have to agree we were so close. I still think a massive recall to DiFi and Boxer would be a good idea right now since they seem to ignore the federal law says that 2A exists. They are federal representatives.

sorensen440
07-22-2009, 10:53 AM
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Nay

Anyone see something wrong with this line. Democrat from Obama-land votes yes, Republican votes no. Weird.
Those who have been paying attention realize there are anti gun republicans and pro gun democrats

Its part of the reason the political threads here were so destructive to the cause

RomanDad
07-22-2009, 10:57 AM
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Nay

Anyone see something wrong with this line. Democrat from Obama-land votes yes, Republican votes no. Weird.

And the stranger thing is, this is already the law in Indiana.... They ALREADY recognize EVERY other state's CCW permit (including PUERTO RICO and The U.S. Virgin Islands for pete's sake!)... SO the bill would have had ZERO impact on their constituents....

Seems like a good time to send Dicklugar some love notes.

KylaGWolf
07-22-2009, 11:00 AM
And the stranger thing is, this is already the law in Indiana.... They ALREADY recognize EVERY other state's CCW permit (including PUERTO RICO and The U.S. Virgin Islands for pete's sake!)... SO the bill would have had ZERO impact on their constituents....

Yep, also I wonder if the three not voting were done to sit and watch if they had enough votes to pass to have the three non-voters to step up and vote to hose the bill regardless.

tango-52
07-22-2009, 11:00 AM
And the stranger thing is, this is already the law in Indiana.... They ALREADY recognize EVERY other state's CCW permit (including PUERTO RICO and The U.S. Virgin Islands for pete's sake!)... SO the bill would have had ZERO impact on their constituents....
Actually, the impact would have been to IMPROVE the benefits of a CCW to their constituents. Idiots!

Theseus
07-22-2009, 11:05 AM
I don't see this as a "States Rights" issue.

The State can still not issue CCW's. All this would have done is require the state to honor the license like it would a DL, marriage license.

If you pass the BAR in one state is it also good in ALL states?

THT
07-22-2009, 11:08 AM
The one thing I saw as a problem with this bill was that it would have set a precedent that the federal government can mandate and regulate CCW. So today they can say if you have one state's permit, all states have to recognize it but who's to say they won't then limit it or abolish it altogether tomorrow? Or am I being too :TFH:?

nat
07-22-2009, 11:10 AM
Those who have been paying attention realize there are anti gun republicans and pro gun democrats

Its part of the reason the political threads here were so destructive to the cause


Exactly.

RomanDad
07-22-2009, 11:20 AM
The one thing I saw as a problem with this bill was that it would have set a precedent that the federal government can mandate and regulate CCW. So today they can say if you have one state's permit, all states have to recognize it but who's to say they won't then limit it or abolish it altogether tomorrow? Or am I being too :TFH:?

Youre being too tinfoil hat.

No precedent is needed for Congress to regulate interstate commerce. They do it all the time and have been doing so significantly for 80+ years.

And people traveling from one state to another are by definition "engaged in interstate commerce" (except in rare cases where one just jumps across a state line for a minute or two and then jumps back without buying food, water, gas using the roads and services, etc.)

All the amendment said was that if a State issues its OWN citizens CCW, it has to recognize the CCW of OTHER states citizens while they are visiting the state, but on their OWN terms (for the same reason a state recognizes other state's Driver's Licenses, but expect them to obey THE visited State's speed laws. If California suddenly announced they would no longer recognize the DLs of Nevadans, the Congress would step in five minutes later and ***** SLAP them back into shape, because of the negative impact it would have on interstate commerce.) It didn't say states had to even ISSUE permits.... It just said if you recognize ANY you have to recognize them ALL. There is no opposite to this, whereby they reach in and restrict CCWs that ARENT in interstate commerce, and if they were inclined to do so, they wouldnt need THIS AMENDMENT to pave the way for them..... Theyd just do it.

dansgold
07-22-2009, 11:31 AM
I'm a a bit confused ... a 60 vote majority is required for an amendment? Can someone explain this to me?

odysseus
07-22-2009, 11:37 AM
And the stranger thing is, this is already the law in Indiana.... They ALREADY recognize EVERY other state's CCW permit (including PUERTO RICO and The U.S. Virgin Islands for pete's sake!)... SO the bill would have had ZERO impact on their constituents....

Seems like a good time to send Dicklugar some love notes.

Which makes one think there is backstage wheeling and dealing going on, since none of that is consistent with the will of the people they represent.

M198
07-22-2009, 11:46 AM
Not sure about the bar exam but gay couples from Hawaii or Mass aren't recognized, but driver's lic. are.

Hunter4life1990
07-22-2009, 11:55 AM
"Senate rejects law on carrying concealed weapons"

well then we'll just have to reject the senate come november then huh? :)

berto
07-22-2009, 11:56 AM
I'm a a bit confused ... a 60 vote majority is required for an amendment? Can someone explain this to me?

Senate rules require 60 votes to end debate. Once the Senate considers an issue on the floor no other business can occur on the floor until the issue is voted on or tabled. The rule was created to end filibusters and force an up or down vote so the Senate can proceed with other business.

dustoff31
07-22-2009, 12:07 PM
Time to fire the two republicans that voted no. They cost us the win.

C

Really? 39 Senators voted no. Why was it the two republicans who cost us the win? One could just as easily say California (Boxer and Feinstein) cost us the win.

But yeah, it is time to fire all those who voted no. Like that's going to happen.

Para45
07-22-2009, 12:15 PM
Which makes one think there is backstage wheeling and dealing going on, since none of that is consistent with the will of the people they represent.

This is exactly the case and it's total BS that they still have their seats. This vote alone is a great example of how corrupt it is in DC and how all the behind-the-scenes wheelin' and dealin' is traitorous to the people they're supposed to represent--so much for being a government for, by & of the people :mad:

Maestro Pistolero
07-22-2009, 12:28 PM
It's at the top of the reader's choice and the editor's picks.

Let's not forget that the amendment did pass, 58 to 38. It just did not have the votes to overcome the threat of a veto. 48 states already have concealed carry permit issue. No less than 40 of them are mandatory issue, meaning if you pass the background check and the course, the permit must be issued. Most of the concealed carry states already have reciprocity with most other such states.

What is astounding is the doomsday rhetoric that measures like this continues to inspire:

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, and generally a supporter of gun rights, said she opposed Mr. Thune’s amendment because it infringed on states and cities. “The Thune amendment would invite chaos in our cities,” she said.

"The passage of this amendment would have done more to threaten the safety of New Yorkers than anything since the repeal of the assault weapons ban,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer.

The so-called assault weapons ban was not repealed, Senator Schumer, it was allowed to expire, because everyone knows it didn't and couldn't deliver as promised The so-called assault weapon ban outlawed certain semi-automatic rifles with military-style cosmetic features unrelated to the performance characteristics of the firearm.

Violent crime has steadily dropped before, during and since the expiration of the ban. Gun accidents are now at an all-time low, while gun and ammunition sales are at an all-time high. Finally, rifles of all types have a statistically insignificant role in gun violence, according to the FBI uniform crime report. This issue is nothing more a political football kicked around to distract voters from the ineptitude of our leaders to fix the more pressing problems of joblessness, poverty, rampant foreclosure, and health care.

In every single state that has passed concealed weapon permit legislation, 48 out of 50, the same old chicken little dialog erupts. Alas, the sky does not fall, the old West doesn't reappear, and blood does not "run in our streets". What does happen where lawful citizens carry? Violent crime, especially gun crime plummets at a disproportionate rate. Home invasions, rapes, robberies, gay bashing, all fall in numbers wherever lawful, trained, and screened citizen exercise their gun rights.

The assertion by Feinstein and Bloomburg that the demise of this measure will save lives is undermined by the facts. Indeed, lives will be lost, rapes and robberies will be committed, and gay bashing will proceed unhindered by any fear that the victims may successfully resist the attacker.

In the next term, the Supreme Court of the United States will step in again where congress has failed, by incorporating (applying) the Second Amendment to the states as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals already has done in Nordyke vs Alameda County (2009).

One day soon, a lawful, peaceable gun owner will be able to enter the Kingdom of New York with his legally transported, locked, unloaded handgun, without risking a felony, as is the case in New York at present. New York State will not issue the required pistol permit under any circumstances to a non-resident. Forget about a carry permit, even if it's unloaded and locked in your hotel safe, you are now facing a felony. This is the complete and utter disregard for the 2nd amendment that exists in New York, and Illinois. Policies such as this will fail any constitutional standard of review.

As the Heller vs DC court indicated and as common sense dictates, "keep" means own, store, transport, and possess, and "bear" means carry. Plain and simple. The scope of the Heller case happened to be limited to possession in the home. But some confuse the scope of that case with a restriction on the right. This is a misunderstanding that gun control extremists are seizing upon to spin the meaning of the Heller ruling. But no other fundamental constitutional right ends at your doorstep, and the courts will have plenty of opportunity to clarify the extent of permissible restrictions going forward.

Take a deep breath, folks. Nationwide, licensed concealed carry is coming, and it's going to be OK, really it will. The sky will not fall, nor will the old West reappear, and blood will not run in our streets. We don't have to guess about the outcome. There are 40 states that already have mandatory issue for CCW licenses, and there are 8 more states that have discretionary licensing. Together, 48 States have demonstrated in the last decade that licensed, concealed carry works, that public safety and security is enhanced, and that as a public policy, it measurably suppresses violent crime.

Americans have demonstrated once again that we can be trusted with our own safety and security. And that we can and must be trusted with our liberty.

sorensen440
07-22-2009, 12:36 PM
Really? 39 Senators voted no. Why was it the two republicans who cost us the win? One could just as easily say California (Boxer and Feinstein) cost us the win.

But yeah, it is time to fire all those who voted no. Like that's going to happen.
Because you expect it from most of the democrats

ilbob
07-22-2009, 12:41 PM
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Nay

Anyone see something wrong with this line. Democrat from Obama-land votes yes, Republican votes no. Weird.

You need to understand how this works. Senators who are not real worried about re-election will trade votes with someone who is. Its entirely possible Lugar switched votes with someone who wanted to vote no but had to vote yes for political reasons.

It would never have come up for a vote if it was really as close as it sounds.

Political theater.

In any case it is as bad a law as the so called LEO Safety Act. The federal government does not have the power to to do this, and more than it had the power to grant certain government employees a nationwide special privilege.

dfletcher
07-22-2009, 12:57 PM
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Nay

Anyone see something wrong with this line. Democrat from Obama-land votes yes, Republican votes no. Weird.

They're close together, but I think Indiana is not Obamaland, really. At least not yet. Indiana is to Illinois what New Hampshire is to MA - with the advantage that alot of people from Illinois aren't moving to Indiana.

I suspect Bayh voted yes because he had to & figured his vote would not be decisive, Lugar because he could.

hoffmang
07-22-2009, 2:13 PM
In any case it is as bad a law as the so called LEO Safety Act. The federal government does not have the power to to do this, and more than it had the power to grant certain government employees a nationwide special privilege.
The Federal government absolutely has the power to do this under both the "full faith and credit" clause or alternatively under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.

-Gene

dfletcher
07-22-2009, 2:16 PM
The Federal government absolutely has the power to do this under both the "full faith and credit" clause or alternatively under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.

-Gene


Article 4, Section 2 - evidently sufficient enough for slave owners those many years ago, but not good enough for us now. :(

GoodEyeSniper
07-22-2009, 2:22 PM
So, do the senators who think that this takes away from states' rights, also think that desegregation took away from states' rights? If California didn't let citizens from Arizona practice free speech here, would they be for that, since it's the states' right to decide?

jimh
07-22-2009, 2:22 PM
Guys, forcing votes like this is so important. It makes the senators vote and then they can be held accountable come election time.

Next time around, I bet it passes....

press1280
07-22-2009, 2:26 PM
I could see states like NJ and NY get around this(if it had passed) by declaring concealed carry illegal, and voiding all outstanding permits. I suspect after incorporation, NY and NJ's laws are next on the hit list.

RomanDad
07-22-2009, 2:30 PM
I could see states like NJ and NY get around this(if it had passed) by declaring concealed carry illegal, and voiding all outstanding permits.

That wouldnt happen in New York for sure....

dfletcher
07-22-2009, 2:51 PM
So, do the senators who think that this takes away from states' rights, also think that desegregation took away from states' rights? If California didn't let citizens from Arizona practice free speech here, would they be for that, since it's the states' right to decide?


I think if you take most of the votes at face value, those who are progun voted in favor and those who are antigun voted against the amendment and the concept of state's rights probably didn't enter the equation.

I think, had state's rights been emphasized, we most probably would have lost Republican votes and, in theory gained Democratic votes from those who favor federal control of pretty much everything. I'm sure there was some finessing of individual votes - maybe Bayh would have voted against it if his vote was decisive. Leahy being from VT and a gun owner can probably get away with alluding to state's rights as an excuse. But I think for the most part this was a simple "guns good = yea/guns bad = nay".

Always very interesting when the subject at hand is at variance with underlying principle.

glockwise2000
07-22-2009, 2:59 PM
So close.... So when is the next time they could submit to vote for this law again?

Gator Monroe
07-22-2009, 3:03 PM
Were there any other weasles other than Lugar we should know about ( No Votes by Blue Dogs of note or GOP members ??)

dfletcher
07-22-2009, 3:11 PM
Were there any other weasles other than Lugar we should know about ( No Votes by Blue Dogs of note or GOP members ??)

Voinovich from Ohio I think, from what I read he's not well thought of by gunowners. Specter is a former Republican turned Democrat, voted no. And last year's favorite "he could almost be a Republican" Senator Lieberman voted no.

AEC1
07-22-2009, 3:14 PM
Keep bringing it up,it will pass eventually...

Gator Monroe
07-22-2009, 3:19 PM
Keep bringing it up,it will pass eventually...

Nationwide end to CCW will pass first (If we don't make the 10 midterms like 94)

Maestro Pistolero
07-22-2009, 3:51 PM
58 senators COULD hold up the defense bill very easily. Like the credit card bill, Obama wants/needs this to pass. I'm not totally sure we've seen the last of this.

GettinReady
07-22-2009, 4:25 PM
Would've been cool having my brother carry while visiting from Vegas....

SAN compnerd
07-22-2009, 4:53 PM
I still have the Fox news page up from this morning that talks about this and there is some FUD in there about "CCW permit holders killing 7 cops and 44 citizens during a two year period ending in April" from a study by the Violence policy center. Anyone know where these stats came from? Any truth to this or just pure FUD?

bulgron
07-22-2009, 4:59 PM
I still have the Fox news page up from this morning that talks about this and there is some FUD in there about "CCW permit holders killing 7 cops and 44 citizens during a two year period ending in April" from a study by the Violence policy center. Anyone know where these stats came from? Any truth to this or just pure FUD?

I don't know where the stats come from, but there must be tens of millions of CCW permit holders nationwide at this point. Surely there must be some number of those with criminal inclinations. No population is 100% immune from infiltration by the less-than-honorable.

The important thing to ask is:

1. Is that stat true; and
2. Would the people who committed those crimes have NOT been carrying a gun in the absence of a CCW. I'll bet the answer is 'no'.

Swiss
07-22-2009, 5:02 PM
Am I the only one here who has a problem with some untrained, un-vetted, out-of-state yokel running around my town with a CCW?

I'd like a bill like this to pass but only if there's a national standard that CCW holders must meet.

SAN compnerd
07-22-2009, 5:06 PM
I found this in another thread in this forum that debunks the VPC's 'study'.
http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d21-Lies-damn-lies-and-VPC-statistics

bulgron
07-22-2009, 5:12 PM
Am I the only one here who has a problem with some untrained, un-vetted, out-of-state yokel running around my town with a CCW?

I'd like a bill like this to pass but only if there's a national standard that CCW holders must meet.

I don't have any problem with "untrained, un-vetted, out-of-state yokels running around my town with a CCW." If those people can be trusted in Oklahoma city, or Las Vegas, or Miami, or Seattle, or Pittsburgh with a gun, then why not in YOUR town? What is it about YOUR town that suddenly makes their training insufficient, anyway?

Theseus
07-22-2009, 5:12 PM
Am I the only one here who has a problem with some untrained, un-vetted, out-of-state yokel running around my town with a CCW?

I'd like a bill like this to pass but only if there's a national standard that CCW holders must meet.

I disagree. Everyone should have the right to carry openly or concealed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know how to use a gun safely and properly. In fact, I see more "experts" doing stupid $(*&* than I do people I train. Everyone, everywhere, at anytime should carry. If not for them then for the country.

anthonyca
07-22-2009, 5:17 PM
Which makes one think there is backstage wheeling and dealing going on, since none of that is consistent with the will of the people they represent.

As if our will is what they are representing.

Swiss
07-22-2009, 5:30 PM
I agree everyone should have the right to carry but I also believe that right requires special responsibilities, such as being trained to avoid confrontations.

Assuming that what the press says is true, that some states have no restrictions on CCW issuance, then this training is missing. Not OK with me.

bodger
07-22-2009, 5:37 PM
Am I the only one here who has a problem with some untrained, un-vetted, out-of-state yokel running around my town with a CCW?

I'd like a bill like this to pass but only if there's a national standard that CCW holders must meet.

As long as I could have my own CCW, I guess I could live with it. I'm pretty well trained.
I do see your point however, although I am not as vehemently opposed.

Sometimes when I'm at the range, what I see makes me think the lack of fireams training and discipline is not a good thing.

DedEye
07-22-2009, 5:44 PM
As long as I could have my own CCW, I guess I could live with it. I'm pretty well trained.
I do see your point however, although I am not as vehemently opposed.

Sometimes when I'm at the range, what I see makes me think the lack of fireams training and discipline is not a good thing.

Same goes for every day of driving I've ever done.

Here's an article (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml) that many will enjoy given Bloomberg's continued idiocy.

GM4spd
07-22-2009, 5:53 PM
Do you really think if that bill passed--Obama would sign it?:rolleyes: Pete

bodger
07-22-2009, 5:53 PM
Same goes for every day of driving I've ever done.

Here's an article (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml) that many will enjoy given Bloomberg's continued idiocy.
Very true on the driving example. In fact, the range is far safer than the Interstate 5 freeway I take to get to it.

Theseus
07-22-2009, 5:57 PM
To me, requiring training is not that different than requiring the ability to read to vote. I should not have to "qualify" and neither should anyone else.

berto
07-22-2009, 6:00 PM
Am I the only one here who has a problem with some untrained, un-vetted, out-of-state yokel running around my town with a CCW?

I'd like a bill like this to pass but only if there's a national standard that CCW holders must meet.

As opposed to the possibly untrained but politically connected CA resident with an ill gotten CCW running around your town? Or the felon who can't be bothered with such niceties as training and CCW permits?

A national standard created and maintained by a government that frequently seeks to curb our rights does not make me feel warm and fuzzy. Imagine DiFi writing the training requirements you're subject to and deciding the when, where, and cost of that training. No thanks.

ke6guj
07-22-2009, 6:00 PM
Do you really think if that bill passed--Obama would sign it?:rolleyes: PeteIt would have been attached to the defense appropriations bill, which would have been hard for him to veto for just the CCW amendment. Just like the guns in parks amendment to one of the "must pass" stimulus? bills got it signed off on as well.

Swiss
07-22-2009, 6:12 PM
With nearly all states allowing CCW and many making it relatively easy to obtain, I doubt DiFi would have much influence. All I'm talking about is a set of *minimum* standards that all issuing agencies must meet.

Theseus
07-22-2009, 6:14 PM
With nearly all states allowing CCW and many making it relatively easy to obtain, I doubt DiFi would have much influence. All I'm talking about is a set of *minimum* standards that all issuing agencies must meet.

I agree, and the minimum standard be that you are able to buy a gun.

berto
07-22-2009, 6:26 PM
With nearly all states allowing CCW and many making it relatively easy to obtain, I doubt DiFi would have much influence. All I'm talking about is a set of *minimum* standards that all issuing agencies must meet.

Minimum standards don't really answer your concerns about the out of state yokels if the default is to the standard of the yokels' home states. If the standard is any higher then we're screwing our compatriots in other states for our own benefit.

MP301
07-22-2009, 6:43 PM
Am I the only one here who has a problem with some untrained, un-vetted, out-of-state yokel running around my town with a CCW?

I'd like a bill like this to pass but only if there's a national standard that CCW holders must meet.

This is a silly statement. What about the local untrained, unvetted criminal idiot running around your town with a gun? Oh wait, they wouldnt do that without a permit, now would they?

Is it just me, or do you think that one shouldnt have the right to protect themselves if they dont conform to your views of what a person should be or where they live??

Equal rights should mean exactly that, even if you dont it....

Shotgun Man
07-22-2009, 6:48 PM
I don't see this as a "States Rights" issue.

The State can still not issue CCW's. All this would have done is require the state to honor the license like it would a DL, marriage license.

If you pass the BAR in one state is it also good in ALL states?

No, being a member of the bar in one state does not authorize you to practice law in another state. You have to gain admittance to that state's bar. Some states have strict requirements, e.g., your law school had to be up to snuff, you need a sponsor, you have to take their bar exam, etc.

Other states are pretty liberal in their admissions and offer reciprocity, but I'm pretty sure for all states at the very least you have to apply for admittance.

It kinda makes sense-- state laws differ vastly. The government has a legitimate interest in regulating the practice of law. Practicing law is not an expressly enumerated fundamental right.

It is a sad day. If I was a senator, if the damn amendment did not pass, I now would not vote for this otherwise stupid bill. Screw them.

ETA: I forgot-- I thought the amendment was attached to some hate crime legislation, not a defense appropriation bill. Can we try again this legislative session by adding it to another bill?

SimpleCountryActuary
07-22-2009, 7:08 PM
OMG something like a 1000+ times more likely that your firearm might also steal your credit card number and order all kinds of Teflon coated "man killer" ammo and a fancy shoulder thing that goes up. It'll threaten children when you're not home to watch it and probably also leads to global warming studies might say if we did some. Every time you clean your gun, an innocent child in some distant country dies of starvation, something like 20 times a DAY.


See, I could be a dips**t politician too.


B

Actually there's a recent charge on my card by the CMP that I don't recall. I think the M1 rifles have conspired to order some Greek 30-06.

bodger
07-22-2009, 8:10 PM
This is a silly statement. What about the local untrained, unvetted criminal idiot running around your town with a gun? Oh wait, they wouldnt do that without a permit, now would they?

Is it just me, or do you think that one shouldnt have the right to protect themselves if they dont conform to your views of what a person should be or where they live??

Equal rights should mean exactly that, even if you dont it....
You make the best point and one that a lot of people either forget or aren't aware of to begin with.
Unvetted, untrained yokels running around concealing would be an improvement to what is the most prevalent concealed weapons carrier now, which is the criminal. The more people who can legally conceal, the safer the streets is my opinion.

rabagley
07-22-2009, 9:19 PM
:rolleyes:

I have read this line so many times...does anyone know exactly where this research came from? This figure that's being used is just utter bs.

Anyone have the list of senators who voted against?

This was a study done by Kellerman and the statement is:

"A gun is 43 times as likely to be used to kill you or someone you know as to be used in self-defense."

Here's the debunking:

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/suter-fa.html

My own memory of what's seriously wrong with the study: Fundamentally, it was done in inner-city Detroit where most of the shootings were drug dealers offing each other. Not exactly the demographics of most law abiding gun owners.

Now to the even more egregious flaws.

First of all, the drug dealers killing each other "knew each other", and therefore counted in the 43x of "you or someone you know". That represented 37x of the 43x, actually.

Second, there were a number of gun suicides during the study period, which represented most of the remainder.

We're down close to 1:1 and we've only looked at cases where the shooter had control over the gun and reliably hit his target.

Third, the only uses of a gun that counted as self-defense was if the gun was fired and the police were called as a result. Somewhere between 100 and 200 defensive presentations of a gun occur for every defensive shot fired, yet none of those defensive presentations were counted or even estimated.

Kellerman is a window-licking short-bus-riding waste of a college degree, yet his crap study gets raised as the automatic indictment of civilian gun ownership in any debate with the anti's.

Werewolf1021
07-23-2009, 1:39 AM
I threw up a little. Not just because the 2 repubs voted no (pretty bad though) but there are 39 traitors who decided that self defense is not a natural right to human beings.

Every one of those people needs to be strung up and flogged for crimes against humanity. This is the one of the few times I have wished anyone to be held up at gun point, and have an opportunity to take down the criminal scum with a firearm. Then hopefully they would realize their folly of reasoning. However they would probably just hug the criminal and gladly hand over their wallet/purse and tell them that they support them in their endeavors and wish them well on future holdups.

Of course, it was a close vote. That is VERY encouraging, at least to me. I think we all should email the supporting senators and thank them. It is a simple gesture that should have a good effect on future votes. As for Boxer, if I ever meet her in person I will raise my arm in salute (how high is the grass in germany one mind you.) and tell her "FK you.... MA'AM!"

Spearo
07-23-2009, 2:29 AM
I watched this during my lunch break. What a bunch of FUD. Some guy comes out and says... "Lives were saved by this bill not passing, plain and simple".:rolleyes:

Do these people do any research into anything that may require thought?
Or they just give their biased opinion on it instead.

artherd
07-23-2009, 3:18 AM
I am astounded and impressed by how close we came. Next time Gadget, Next Time...


:D :D :D

rrr70
07-23-2009, 3:25 AM
Do these people do any research into anything that may require thought?
Or they just give their biased opinion on it instead.

That would require them to do something. And that's too much to ask. What do you excpect from bunch of idiots who vote for the bills they don't even read.

M. D. Van Norman
07-23-2009, 6:39 AM
Nationwide end to CCW will pass first.…

I don’t think so anymore. The consequences would be too high for at least the next 10 years, and after that, we should have a fair amount of constitutional case law on our side.

http://mdvannorman.blogspot.com/2009/07/victory-in-defeat.html

1BigPea
07-23-2009, 11:10 AM
Here's another traiter. I hope the NRA is giving her a F rating now...


New York: Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay

yellowfin
07-23-2009, 11:21 AM
Here's another traiter. I hope the NRA is giving her a F rating now...


New York: Gillibrand (D-NY), NayWe're in a bit of a bind over Gillibrand, actually. She knows we can in theory do worse from NY so she plays that card as a lose-lose for us and a win-win for her. She uses the threat of McCarthy replacing her and someone just as bad being run against her so she figures pro gun people have to vote for her. At the same time she gets the other side too, sucking up to Schumer and Bloomberg and being their puppets so she gets the benefit of their money and political machines. It's a huge risk to run kicking her out that she's pretty sure we're not willing to take and don't want to waste the resources on top of it. We're mad we have someone who merely votes for and passively approves the stuff Schumer and Feinslime run, but we sure don't want another one who originates it and puts a powerful force behind it.

mtptwo
07-23-2009, 11:46 AM
Funny how conservatives only care about state's rights when it suits them ;)

Personally, I feel that this amendment was bad because it lacked any across the board requirements. If it called for a state wide leveling of the bar on CCW requirements, then I can see it, but requiring state who has stringent requirements to allow carrying from those states that require nothing is wrong and wholly counter productive to the notion of "state's rights". Full faith and credit lolz.

Now if the amendment called for and outlined a country wide federal permit that allowed carry in all states, then I would be behind it.

yellowfin
07-23-2009, 11:51 AM
Now if the amendment called for and outlined a country wide federal permit that allowed carry in all states, then I would be behind it. The problem with that is that such could have its price set at $2000-20000, take two years to get, and require qualification a Navy SEAL couldn't pass. You know as well as I do that the wrong people in office would do that in 2 seconds flat to kill off CCW for everyone by doing that. Think I'm wrong? Three words for you: National Firearms Act. You tell me how many people bought suppressors or MG's legally paying a $200 tax stamp in 1935. That's exactly what the federal government would do with CCW if they got their hands on it.

ilbob
07-23-2009, 11:55 AM
The Federal government absolutely has the power to do this under both the "full faith and credit" clause or alternatively under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.

-Gene

I don't buy the full faith and credit argument one bit. The federal government does not require any other state issued license to be accepted by another state.

I might buy the argument under the 2nd and 14th.

mtptwo
07-23-2009, 12:17 PM
The problem with that is that such could have its price set at $2000-20000, take two years to get, and require qualification a Navy SEAL couldn't pass. You know as well as I do that the wrong people in office would do that in 2 seconds flat to kill off CCW for everyone by doing that. Think I'm wrong? Three words for you: National Firearms Act. You tell me how many people bought suppressors or MG's legally paying a $200 tax stamp in 1935. That's exactly what the federal government would do with CCW if they got their hands on it.

No doubt, but steamrolling over state's rights isn't a way to do it.

M198
07-23-2009, 12:57 PM
As opposed to the possibly untrained but politically connected CA resident with an ill gotten CCW running around your town? Or the felon who can't be bothered with such niceties as training and CCW permits?

A national standard created and maintained by a government that frequently seeks to curb our rights does not make me feel warm and fuzzy. Imagine DiFi writing the training requirements you're subject to and deciding the when, where, and cost of that training. No thanks.

It takes months to get a passport for a natural born citizen. The process for a CCW from the feds would be unbearable but.........................at least Californians would be able to get one.

KylaGWolf
07-23-2009, 1:02 PM
I am more for just making CA a shall issue state instead of the myriad of county permits that is now in place. Even if one is lucky enough to get a CCW for their county doesn't mean they can go where they want in the state and still carry.

DParker
07-23-2009, 2:35 PM
I am more for just making CA a shall issue state instead of the myriad of county permits that is now in place. Even if one is lucky enough to get a CCW for their county doesn't mean they can go where they want in the state and still carry.

You are misinformed. A CCW issued anywhere in CA is good throughout the entire state unless restricted by the issuer. My Madera County permit is good statewide.

Werewolf1021
07-23-2009, 2:43 PM
You are misinformed. A CCW issued anywhere in CA is good throughout the entire state unless restricted by the issuer. My Madera County permit is good statewide.

I think he was saying that it should be shall issue for every county, not just a few like Kern or Calaveras.

yellowfin
07-23-2009, 4:31 PM
No doubt, but steamrolling over state's rights isn't a way to do it.
Exactly where in states rights is the right to abuse and repress people? This is EXACTLY where anti gun laws fall in line with all other civil rights abuses, yet the others were addressed as such. Why is it somehow alright for New York and California to hate gun owners? Because we're not a "protected class?". It's just substituting one hate for another.

AEC1
07-23-2009, 6:52 PM
I agree, and the minimum standard be that you are able to buy a gun.

How can there be a minimum standard to a "Right" This is not driving. This is an enumerated right.

DO we have a minimum standard to Vote? To speech? To religon? no. The only minimum standard should be to legally own a gun.

vladbutsky
07-23-2009, 7:22 PM
Wayne LaPierre Speaks Out on National Right to Carry Bill

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32105554#32105554

hoffmang
07-23-2009, 7:51 PM
I don't buy the full faith and credit argument one bit. The federal government does not require any other state issued license to be accepted by another state.

I might buy the argument under the 2nd and 14th.

Bob,

Since 1790, Congress has required state court judgments to be enforced. Today that is 28 U.S.C. § 1738. The Defense of Marriage Act works under the FF&C Clause in the negative.

As such, it's pretty clear that the FF&C clause does empower congress to pass CCW reciprocity. The 14th certainly does as the right to bear arms does not exist at the whim of a state.

-Gene

Paindoc
07-23-2009, 8:11 PM
To me, requiring training is not that different than requiring the ability to read to vote. I should not have to "qualify" and neither should anyone else.

Theseus is very on the mark here. 2A is a RIGHT long pre-dating the US Constitution, and to impose any form of test or training is to transform that RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE conferred by the State.

Theseus
07-23-2009, 8:14 PM
Funny how conservatives only care about state's rights when it suits them ;)

Personally, I feel that this amendment was bad because it lacked any across the board requirements. If it called for a state wide leveling of the bar on CCW requirements, then I can see it, but requiring state who has stringent requirements to allow carrying from those states that require nothing is wrong and wholly counter productive to the notion of "state's rights". Full faith and credit lolz.

Now if the amendment called for and outlined a country wide federal permit that allowed carry in all states, then I would be behind it.


How can there be a minimum standard to a "Right" This is not driving. This is an enumerated right.

DO we have a minimum standard to Vote? To speech? To religon? no. The only minimum standard should be to legally own a gun.

Actually, we do have a minimum standard to vote. And if you read what I said, exactly what I said is what you said. The minimum standard to the right to keep and bear arms should be merely the ability to buy a gun.

Maestro Pistolero
07-24-2009, 1:47 AM
This really does need to happen in the courts. If we start down the road of needing an act of congress every time we want to exercise a specifically enumerated constitutional right, the constitution will soon become meaningless.

ilbob
07-25-2009, 6:21 AM
Bob,

Since 1790, Congress has required state court judgments to be enforced. Today that is 28 U.S.C. § 1738. The Defense of Marriage Act works under the FF&C Clause in the negative.

As such, it's pretty clear that the FF&C clause does empower congress to pass CCW reciprocity. The 14th certainly does as the right to bear arms does not exist at the whim of a state.

-Gene

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.


State court judgments were one of the things the FFC clause was specifically intended to enforce.

Nothing in there about licenses.

As for the defense of marriage act, its a piece of legislation that defines marriage and then enforces that definition on the states. It would seem from the actual text of the FFC clause that congress does have that power.

Note that the DOMA is not about marriage licenses, and does not attempt to ban same sex marriages. It only allows others states to ignore the so called marriage if they so choose, while compelling the federal government to do so.

One might argue that the "public acts" part of the clause might apply, since CC permits are issued by authority of such an act. But read them carefully, and I think you will find that every states CC act only exempts people with CC permits from enforcement action when not in compliance with that state's laws banning concealed carry. There is no way to twist that to claim that a state permit issued to allow you to not comply with certain provisions of that state's law somehow allows you to not comply with another state's laws.

The 2A/14A route is legitimate and congress has the explicit power to handle it that way. Why screw around with a mechanism that is at best dubious when the power is clearly there by another route?

However, IMO, it would need to have a mechanism that forced ALL states to provide for CC. Otherwise it is extending some kind of privilege to a non-resident over a resident, which is not something the 14th appears to give congress power to do.

tcrpe
07-25-2009, 6:23 AM
OMG something like a 1000+ times more likely that your firearm might also steal your credit card number and order all kinds of Teflon coated "man killer" ammo and a fancy shoulder thing that goes up. It'll threaten children when you're not home to watch it and probably also leads to global warming studies might say if we did some. Every time you clean your gun, an innocent child in some distant country dies of starvation, something like 20 times a DAY.


See, I could be a dips**t politician too.


B

:rofl2::rofl2: