Senate-democrats-battle-concealed-weapons amendment

[AZRedhawk44]

OYHRT?

Wassat?

[geronimotwo]

i'm so ticked (particularly with gillibrand) that neither of my senators (ny) voted for this.  i wasn't aware of the bill untill reading the news that it didn't pass.  i called them both and told them how i felt about their decision.  especially since my inlaws are in NJ.  i hace a ccw in ny, and almost no other state will reciprocate.

[Lennyjoe]

Damn, 2 votes short.  I hope they try again.

Voinovich is a POS.  I hate the fact that he's from Ohio, being than I'm a born and raised Buckeye!

[freakazoid]

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.

This is something that has been confusing me. I hear about how certain amendments need to be incorporated, or something like that, so that they apply to the states.

i hace a ccw in ny, and almost no other state will reciprocate.

Same for me. I have a South Dakota license and very few states will recognize it. And the one I need most to because of family, Kansas, does not. I was pretty ticked when I heard about the voting on the news.

[Monkeyleg]

Until the 2nd is incorporated, this is a states rights issue. While I'd like to see nationwide reciprocity, there's a lot of things I wouldn't want the feds to force states to accept, even though they're doing it all the time.

[MicroBalrog]

Until the 2nd is incorporated, this is a states rights issue. While I'd like to see nationwide reciprocity, there's a lot of things I wouldn't want the feds to force states to accept, even though they're doing it all the time.

Part of very PURPOSE of the 14th Amendment was (according to the Congressional debates at the time of the acceptance) to guarantee the gun rights of freedmen against the state governments.

[Standing Wolf]

Part of very PURPOSE of the 14th Amendment was (according to the Congressional debates at the time of the acceptance) to guarantee the gun rights of freedmen against the state governments.

Sotomayor's going to fix that for us, I'm sure.

[Matthew Carberry]

Remember, the Rights in the BOR pre-date the Constitution, by definition they apply to all citizens, the BOR merely lists them to reinforce that they may not be infringed by the Feds.

This amendment though, isn't "violating states rights" through incorporation of the enumerated restriction on the Feds onto the states, instead it is iterating that the RKBA is a pre-existing right of all citizens of the US and thus cannot be violated by individual states as that right falls under the inherent Privileges and Immunities (from any level of government infringement) of citizens.

[Monkeyleg]

It was my impression that the Second Amendment is not incorporated under the Fourteenth. Am I wrong?

[Matthew Carberry]

It was my impression that the Second Amendment is not incorporated under the Fourteenth. Am I wrong?

I'm not going to be able to explain this correctly.

The 2nd doesn't grant a positive due process right and thus need incorporation, the thinking is that it is an inherent right of US citizenship as explained by the Privileges and Immunities clause.

So the Feds enforcing it against the states isn't an assault on the state's assumed freedom to regulate, as no such freedom exists; the Feds are protecting the pre-existing freedom from restrictions the states should be respecting amongst themselves regardless.

[HankB]

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.

I'm surprised - astonished, actually - that those two batty women from Maine (Snowe & Collins) voted for it, since they're the poster-children for RINOs.

Also noticed that Arlen Spector voted against it . . . which is no surprise.

[Monkeyleg]

Well, carebear, at least you're honest. You didn't explain it correctly (or understandably).

[Desertdog]

Vote the ones who voted 'Nay' out of office in the next election.

'Gun rights' defeat may have political repercussions
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 7/23/2009 8:00:00 AM
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=615740


The Libertarian Party is urging voters to hold 39 senators accountable at the ballot box for voting yesterday against their gun rights.

Yesterday the Senate fell two votes short of the 60 needed to pass an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would have allowed people with concealed carry permits in their states to carry guns in all other states that have concealed carry laws. Fifty-eight senators, including Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), supported the amendment; 39 voted against, including Republicans Dick Lugar (Indiana) and George Voinovich (Ohio). (See roll call vote)
 
Donny Ferguson, communications director for the Libertarian National Committee, says he is troubled that 39 senators believe Americans' constitutional rights end at the state line.
 
"Your freedom to worship doesn't vary from state to state, your freedom to speak freely doesn't vary from state to state, your freedom to be free of unreasonable search and seizure is universal -- so why not gun rights?" he asks.
 
"It's very simple -- and especially since the people often targeted by criminals are truckers and travelers, it just seems like it would be common sense for states to honor one another's concealed carry permits."
 
Ferguson predicts voters will throw politicians out of office for voting against their gun rights. He points out that Harris Wofford of Pennsylvania lost his Senate reelection bid in 1994 because of his support for the assault weapons ban.

[Monkeyleg]

I have no doubt that politics is played the same in DC as it is in Madison, Wisconsin.

My guess is that the Democrat leadership allowed Democrat senators from strongly pro-gun districts to vote for the bill, and that the leadership had an exact count on the votes. It will give the Dem's who voted for the bill bragging rights in November 2010.

That's the way it worked for the CCW bill here in WI, twice.

[AZRedhawk44]

"Your freedom to worship doesn't vary from state to state, your freedom to speak freely doesn't vary from state to state, your freedom to be free of unreasonable search and seizure is universal -- so why not gun rights?" he asks.

Alaska carry for everyone, then.

I'm shocked to see the Libertarian party take this tactic.

I agree with Monkeyleg about the exact count before-hand.  I'm willing to bet a few RINO's came our way in the 58 count, knowing it would only end up being 58 and not 60.

If this rider were to be its own legislation with a 51 threshold... I'd expect about 10 of those 58 votes to shrivel up and disappear.

[Matthew Carberry]

Well, carebear, at least you're honest. You didn't explain it correctly (or understandably).

Part of my practice for law school.  If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em.

[Standing Wolf]

Ferguson predicts voters will throw politicians out of office for voting against their gun rights.

I won't predict it, but certainly advocate it.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

More likely the vote will have no repercussions at all, and politicians will see that gun rights aren't much of a third rail.

[Jamisjockey]

Parallel discussions, merged.