Author Topic: Senate-democrats-battle-concealed-weapons amendment (Read 7557 times)

Lennyjoe · « **on:** July 21, 2009, 08:12:45 PM »

Just heard about this today. Senator Thune of South Dakota proposed the amendment. Good on him.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/senate-democrats-battle-concealed-weapons-amendment/

A controversial amendment to the Senate defense planning bill that would allow people to carry concealed weapons across state lines has set off a firestorm on both sides of the gun control debate.

Democrats were scrambling to defeat the proposal by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., ahead of a Wednesday vote on the measure. Thune argues the amendment, which has 21 Senate co-sponsors, will help reduce crime.

"My legislation enables citizens to protect themselves while respecting individual state firearms laws," Thune said in a written statement last week after he offered the legislation.

Opponents say the legislation would allow people to carry concealed weapons into states where they would otherwise be ineligible to do so.

"This amendment is another attempt by the gun lobby to put its radical agenda ahead of safety and security in our communities," Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said in a written statement.

"If you walk down the street in New York ... you can have the solace of knowing that if someone has a gun on them they've gone through a rigorous police background check. After this bill, you can have no such comfort," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Sunday.

Currently, 48 states allow concealed weapons. Thune's amendment would not allow people to carry concealed weapons into the two states -- Wisconsin and Illinois -- that do not permit them.

In states that do allow concealed weapons, Thune's amendment would require anyone crossing state lines to abide by the rules of the state they are in -- such restrictions include the types of locations where a firearm can be carried.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence disputes the claim that allowing residents to carry concealed weapons reduces crime. It also warned that because some states have lax gun restrictions, people who've received no weapons training or who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors or sex offenses against minors would be able to carry concealed weapons across America.

Pro-gun organizations like the National Rife Association dismiss such objections as scare tactics.

"Now is the time for Congress to recognize that the right to self-defense does not end at state lines," the group said in a statement.

A Democratic aide told FOXNews.com that if passed, Thune's amendment could make it harder for the overall $680 billion defense authorization bill to pass. The aide said Schumer, Lautenberg and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., are trying to prevent the amendment from coming to a vote, and foes could attempt a filibuster.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #1 on:** July 21, 2009, 08:18:13 PM »

Quote

or who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors

They're "misdemeanors" rather than "felonies" for a reason.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #2 on:** July 21, 2009, 08:20:34 PM »

I believe a misdemeanor can be enough to disqualify you from having a concealed carry permit. Concealed weapons permits often carry a higher standard for eligibility than mere ownership or possession of a firearm.

That said, I'll be shocked if this amendment becomes law. The Democrats have more than enough votes to block it.

S. Williamson · « **Reply #3 on:** July 21, 2009, 08:25:22 PM »

Quote

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence disputes the claim that allowing residents to carry concealed weapons reduces crime. It also warned that because some states have lax gun restrictions, people who've received no weapons training or who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors or sex offenses against minors would be able to carry concealed weapons across America.

I in no way condone such a crime, but what the heck does that have to do with self-defense?

Quote

"If you walk down the street in New York ... you can have the solace of knowing that if someone has a gun on them they've gone through a rigorous police background check. After this bill, you can have no such comfort," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Sunday.

BAAAAHAA HA HA!!!

Did they finally unionize the gangs and dealers?

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #4 on:** July 21, 2009, 08:31:54 PM »

Quote

I in no way condone such a crime, but what the heck does that have to do with self-defense?

IANAL, but sexually molesting a minor is a felony - and as such, wouldn't this deny people gun rights, period?

I assume there are some less-heinous offenses that are misdemeanours, but the Brady press release makes it sound as if the bill will spam the streets with pedophiles armed to the teeth.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #5 on:** July 21, 2009, 09:00:30 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on July 21, 2009, 08:31:54 PM

IANAL, but sexually molesting a minor is a felony - and as such, wouldn't this deny people gun rights, period?

I assume there are some less-heinous offenses that are misdemeanours, but the Brady press release makes it sound as if the bill will spam the streets with pedophiles armed to the teeth.

Yes, it usually is. But the Brady Campaign and VPC doesn't like to confuse the issue with facts.

Standing Wolf · « **Reply #6 on:** July 21, 2009, 09:58:42 PM »

Maybe the rest of us should stop honoring New York drivers' licenses.

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #7 on:** July 21, 2009, 10:49:36 PM »

Quote

That said, I'll be shocked if this amendment becomes law. The Democrats have more than enough votes to block it.

The NRA and certain Republicans are putting the Dem's who won conservative districts in 2006 in a spot. They can go against Pelosi and Reid, or they can get beat up by the NRA in next year's elections in many districts where the NRA is a serious presence.

The Democrat congress members who won the conservative districts should have heeded the old adage to be careful what you wish for. Now they have to be fairly conservative yet obey very liberal bosses. I almost feel sorry for them.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #8 on:** July 21, 2009, 11:32:50 PM »

Quote from: Monkeyleg on July 21, 2009, 10:49:36 PM

The NRA and certain Republicans are putting the Dem's who won conservative districts in 2006 in a spot. They can go against Pelosi and Reid, or they can get beat up by the NRA in next year's elections in many districts where the NRA is a serious presence.

The Democrat congress members who won the conservative districts should have heeded the old adage to be careful what you wish for. Now they have to be fairly conservative yet obey very liberal bosses. I almost feel sorry for them.

I'm skeptical. I'll wait and see how the vote goes down.

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #9 on:** July 21, 2009, 11:45:39 PM »

You're skeptical about the amendment passing? So am I, but the NRA will have some fun with those who voted against it.

They were supposed to do the same with a CCW bill here in WI this year, but there's been nothing yet. The purpose is to put certain Democrats on the spot, as our governor is in a pretty weak position.

Standing Wolf · « **Reply #10 on:** July 22, 2009, 06:11:46 AM »

Quote

The Democrat congress members who won the conservative districts should have heeded the old adage to be careful what you wish for. Now they have to be fairly conservative yet obey very liberal bosses. I almost feel sorry for them.

Feel sorry for moral and intellectual parasites? Not me, thanks. The term "conservative Democrat" impresses me as being a lot like "honest communist:" if you skip the fake adjective and concentrate upon the noun, you'll soon get to the crux of the matter.

Every elected representative should live in fear all day, every day.

Lennyjoe · « **Reply #11 on:** July 22, 2009, 07:00:39 AM »

Fox just reported that the Senate is voting on it today.

Nightfall · « **Reply #12 on:** July 22, 2009, 02:33:26 PM »

They won, amendment died.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32078707/ns/politics-capitol_hill

Schumer said it was "the most dangerous piece of legislation to the safety of Americans when it comes to guns since the repeal of the assault weapons ban." Sooo... you're saying it wasn't dangerous at all?

Regolith · « **Reply #13 on:** July 22, 2009, 02:42:06 PM »

They only won by two votes. It went 58-42 (it needed 60 votes to pass). This might have a chance again sometime in the future.

El Tejon · « **Reply #14 on:** July 22, 2009, 02:49:46 PM »

We now know who is with us and who is not.

I believe the computer term is "pinging".

HankB · « **Reply #15 on:** July 22, 2009, 02:54:12 PM »

Though a number of Democrats supported this, we can "thank" GOP Senators Lugar (R-IN) and Voinovich (R-OH) for voting "NAY."

(Note that it failed by two votes.)

El Tejon · « **Reply #16 on:** July 22, 2009, 03:01:08 PM »

Dick Lugar=>poster boy for term limits

TechMan · « **Reply #17 on:** July 22, 2009, 03:18:10 PM »

Quote from: HankB on July 22, 2009, 02:54:12 PM

Though a number of Democrats supported this, we can "thank" GOP Senators Lugar (R-IN) and Voinovich (R-OH) for voting "NAY."

(Note that it failed by two votes.)

Voinovich is lame ducking it until his term is over in 2010. He is also a RINO. I will be glad when he is gone from the Senate.

Kwelz · « **Reply #18 on:** July 22, 2009, 03:33:58 PM »

Quote from: El Tejon on July 22, 2009, 03:01:08 PM

Dick Lugar=>poster boy for term limits

I have half my county chairs down here in the 9th district already calling wanting to know what we can do about it. A lot of people are really pissed right now.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #19 on:** July 22, 2009, 03:38:50 PM »

Lets not forget the 2004 Presidential election. The Gay Marriage amendment riled up the (R) base, which came out in droves to vote against the people who'd voted against it. Helped reelect GWB.
I'd say this is a simliar tactic. About time the (R)'s play dirty with the (D)'s.

AZRedhawk44 · « **Reply #20 on:** July 22, 2009, 04:27:15 PM »

Quote from: JamisJockey on July 22, 2009, 03:38:50 PM

About time the (R)'s play dirty with the (D)'s.

And what do you libertarian leanings say to you about this bill?

To me it smacks of an end run around States' Rights and the 10th amendment. It also attempts to derail the careful precedents being established by Alan Gura.

I'm rather glad it failed, personally. I don't want Dianne Feinstein giving me "permission" to carry a gun via the Senate.

I see it as my right.

If DiFi gives it to me via flimsy US code, she can take it away just as easily.

If SCOTUS establishes it as an incorporated inalienable right then compares CCW permits to drivers' licenses, I'll never have that challenged by VPI/Brady.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #21 on:** July 22, 2009, 05:17:05 PM »

Quote

To me it smacks of an end run around States' Rights and the 10th amendment. It also attempts to derail the careful precedents being established by Alan Gura.

The 14th Amendment is explicit in stating that the rights and privileges applied via the Constitution apply in all the states.

In addition, there is judicial precedent even predating the 14th amendment where judges used the Bill of Rights as a bludgeon against abusive state governments.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #22 on:** July 22, 2009, 05:32:48 PM »

Quote from: AZRedhawk44 on July 22, 2009, 04:27:15 PM

And what do you libertarian leanings say to you about this bill?

To me it smacks of an end run around States' Rights and the 10th amendment. It also attempts to derail the careful precedents being established by Alan Gura.

I'm rather glad it failed, personally. I don't want Dianne Feinstein giving me "permission" to carry a gun via the Senate.

I see it as my right.

If DiFi gives it to me via flimsy US code, she can take it away just as easily.

If SCOTUS establishes it as an incorporated inalienable right then compares CCW permits to drivers' licenses, I'll never have that challenged by VPI/Brady.

States' rights have been trampled on for years. Interstate commerce and all.
But I do agree with you.
But make no mistake, this was a political ploy. If the (R)'s are doing what I think they are, we should expect to see more of them in the next year, attacks on Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Anti-Gun laws.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #23 on:** July 22, 2009, 06:29:35 PM »

Quote from: HankB on July 22, 2009, 02:54:12 PM

Though a number of Democrats supported this, we can "thank" GOP Senators Lugar (R-IN) and Voinovich (R-OH) for voting "NAY."

(Note that it failed by two votes.)

Effing Dick Lugar. Shoulda known.

Leatherneck · « **Reply #24 on:** July 22, 2009, 06:49:22 PM »

A pox on the RINO's houses. I'm surprised slightly that both VA Senators voted for it. I didn't think Warner and Webb had the balls.

Two votes is close enough where Thune can append it to some oyhrt bill, if he's a mind to.

TC

News:

Author Topic: Senate-democrats-battle-concealed-weapons amendment (Read 7557 times)