Interstate Concealed-Carry Bill Could Defy Filibuster

[bobbyw24]

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/07/21/Gun-rights-amendment-divides-Dems/UPI-73471248175625/

WASHINGTON, July 21 (UPI) -- A measure that would let gun owners carry weapons across state lines could threaten the filibuster-proof edge Democrats have in the U.S. Senate, observers note.

The Republican-backed language, introduced by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., would override stricter laws of many jurisdictions, giving preference to states with looser standards, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

Thune offered the amendment Monday to the defense authorization bill. The language would allow people to carry concealed firearms across state lines as long as they "have a valid permit or if, under their state of residence ... are entitled to do so."

On two gun-rights measures this session, Republicans peeled off votes moderate Democrats elected from states with strong Second Amendment traditions. In May, 27 Democrats supported eased restrictions on firearms in state parks and in February, 22 Democrats joined Republicans to freeze the District of Columbia's pursuit for House voting rights by demanding the legislation also relax D.C. gun restrictions.

In a statement, Thune characterized his amendment was a crime-prevention tool, the Post said.

"Since criminals are unable to tell who is and who is not carrying a firearm just by looking at a potential victim, they are less likely to commit crimes when they fear that they may come in direct contact with an individual who is armed," he said.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who pledged to filibuster the amendment, said it scuttled states' rights.

"Each state has carefully crafted its concealed-carry laws in the way that makes the most sense to protect its citizens," he said. "To gut the ability of local police and sheriffs to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense."

[Krugerrand]

From a states' rights perspective I agree with Schumer. But, of course the Constitution comes first ... so sorry Schumer, I go with Tune on this one.

[acptulsa]

Attempting to spread the wealth, I guess--let's see if we can get some of the safety and security we enjoy to gun control states in spite of themselves. Fascinating that it turned Schumer into a states' rights activist. I didn't know anything could do that...

[__27__]

"To gut the ability of local police and sheriffs to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense."

Fuck you Schumer. Fascist pig.

[bobbyw24]

Senate to vote on concealed weapons measure

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
2 hrs 2 mins ago

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.
___
On the Net:
Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

[tangent4ronpaul]

It failed - 2 votes short in Senate. :(

-t

[Son of Detroit]

I'm one of the biggest pro-gun advocates you'll find. My family owns many guns, and I'm going to get a concealed carry permit when I'm old enough.

However, I'm 100% against this. I don't care what the issue is, I don't advocate giving the federal government even more power over the states.

I just think of it this way: If this were the other way around, and the bill was calling for the national ban of concealed carry, that would be terrible beyond belief. If this bill was passed, then I wouldn't doubt it that later on some liberal scumbags TRY to ban it nationally. The opposition couldn't argue for state's rights, because it had already been established that the federal government has power over the states in this issue because of this bill right here.

[Brown Sapper]

I'm one of the biggest pro-gun advocates you'll find. My family owns many guns, and I'm going to get a concealed carry permit when I'm old enough.

However, I'm 100% against this. I don't care what the issue is, I don't advocate giving the federal government even more power over the states.

I just think of it this way: If this were the other way around, and the bill was calling for the national ban of concealed carry, that would be terrible beyond belief. If this bill was passed, then I wouldn't doubt it that later on some liberal scumbags TRY to ban it nationally. The opposition couldn't argue for state's rights, because it had already been established that the federal government has power over the states in this issue because of this bill right here.

Its not that it going to the federal level its that it is infringing on the second amendment. I oppose anyone infringing my right to bear arms, whether the state or federal.

[john_anderson_ii]

As a serious gun advocate, hunter, ammunition reloader and gun collector I feel I have to weigh in on this one.

I do not want a mandatory level of reciprocation between the states on gun permits. I have a legal, practical, and philosophical reason behind this.

1.) The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated under the 14th. Until the Civil War, the Constitution was an agreement, a contract, between the Several States, The People and the Federal government. What that means is that the Federal government is not allowed to restrict firearm ownership. Unless there is a provision in your State's constitution, then there is nothing which should stop your state, county or municipality from developing it's own provisions. I'm sure gun-unfriendly states would bring this law to SCOTUS, and there the law would be struck down on the State's rights grounds, or the 2nd Amendment would be incorporated! If 2A is incorporated that would give the Fed Gov't laws the ability to trump laws like Montana's new firearm law. Incorporation was a mistake, a huge mistake, and this law could very well lead to the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment. I know the Federal Government illegally regulates firearm ownership via the commerce clause, but incorporation of 2A would effectively legitimize this behavior.

2.) Think of the practicality of this in the future. If this law passes, you can bet the ATF will be placed in charge of regulating and normalizing CCW requirements, sort of like how the DOT regulates Driver's license requirements. That means the executive, whoever happens to be in office and all their prejudices, will be the one's setting up the requirements. Will me, as a CCW holder, need to purchase lawsuit insurance, attend a 20 hour class, and get the blessing of the Director of the FBI? Will all States eventually be normalized to the lowest common denominator in rules for carry? For example will Arizonan CCWs only be valid while carrying reduced capacity magazines to satisfy Californian interests?

3.) Philosophically I don't like my representatives telling people in other states what to do any more than I like representatives from New York and California telling us Arizonans how to behave. I think Illinois, New York and California will learn the lesson the hard way as crime continues to rise in those States while it plummets in Arizona Utah, Texas, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to carry while visiting my aunt in California, but I think the representation of the people of California has more of a say than my wants.


Alternatively I'd like to see governors and legislatures of every state with a constitutional provision for the right to keep and bear arms, along with gun friendly states with no such provision, work together to develop reciprocity agreements. The less gun friendly states might learn a thing or two from that process.

[FSP-Rebel]

Fuck you Schumer. Fascist pig.
Lol.

[Kotin]

Thune is badass..

[RforRevolution]

Attempting to spread the wealth, I guess--let's see if we can get some of the safety and security we enjoy to gun control states in spite of themselves. Fascinating that it turned Schumer into a states' rights activist. I didn't know anything could do that...

I literally lol. I feel almost sick to my stomach that I agree with Schumers defense of states rights although for clearly different reasons than him.

[raystone]

I'm one of the biggest pro-gun advocates you'll find. My family owns many guns, and I'm going to get a concealed carry permit when I'm old enough.

However, I'm 100% against this. I don't care what the issue is, I don't advocate giving the federal government even more power over the states.

I just think of it this way: If this were the other way around, and the bill was calling for the national ban of concealed carry, that would be terrible beyond belief. If this bill was passed, then I wouldn't doubt it that later on some liberal scumbags TRY to ban it nationally. The opposition couldn't argue for state's rights, because it had already been established that the federal government has power over the states in this issue because of this bill right here.


+1

[Endgame]

He sure didn't give a fuck about state's rights when he was pushing the AWB through. Decentralization of power via state's rights is good, but Bill of Rights is more important. This would be about restoring the "bear arms" part of the 2a.

[Time for Change]

I dont really understand this issue...

Currently many reciprocity agreements exist between the states allowing concealed carry.

If the agreements already exist, What exactly does this measure provide that is not already in place?

[RM918]

Yeah, /now/ they give a rat's ass about 'state's rights'. Such horsecrap. I don't abide by the state's rights arguments in this because it impedes on the Second Amendment.

It's also funny and frustrating to see the sort of reactions to this. I think on CNN when they brought it up, the anchor introduced it in a concerned voice as, 'legislation that some fear could lead to a lawless society in which shootouts are common'. The exact same tone of voice I heard on MSNBC when they just broke the news about Ron Paul's first money bomb, emphasizing he was an 'isolationist' and had raised 'millions of dollars' like she was announcing Hitler rose from the grave.

And further ridiculousness at people taking 'offense' at the legislation because of the recent cop killings, like those people could ever get concealed carry permits.

[Krugerrand]

I dont really understand this issue...

Currently many reciprocity agreements exist between the states allowing concealed carry.

If the agreements already exist, What exactly does this measure provide that is not already in place?

it would have covered states that don't have agreements.