Congress to vote on Nat'l CCW Nov. 15

[torgo1968]

This is all academic. It's very unlikely to get enough votes for bare passage in the Senate, and there's absolutely no way it would be by a veto-proof margin if it did. Which leaves it to be vetoed.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[canav844]

Unfortunately, and I do think that this is one of those times that SCOTUS really blew it, the only entity that has any possibility of overriding this position is the congress.

SCOTUS could have another case where they change modify or override that decision from over 100 years ago. And considering how much has changed between then and now it's a decent possibility the court would reach a different conclusion in today's world; esp following Heller and McDonald. The current makeup of SCOTUS does lean pro gun.

This is all academic. It's very unlikely to get enough votes for bare passage in the Senate, and there's absolutely no way it would be by a veto-proof margin if it did. Which leaves it to be vetoed.

If you read the Brady material, they want every single gun owner to be permitted and tracked (because that means no constitutional carry, and gun ownership isn't a right is a privilege permitted by the government, and it's one more step before owning a gun), so there are lines in the Brady book that could be used to appease those that are typically anti gun when it comes to permits, while making appeals to gun owners. Even Rep. Giffords was known for promoting nation wide permitting (she just had other anti gun stipulations she wanted enacted)

And the house co-sponsors, while more republican than democrat are a mix, so it's not one of those straight up and down the party line situations, this is an area where there is middle ground. Because it doesn't change how permits are done, I'll agree that getting the votes is a long shot, but by expanding the effectiveness of those permits, they move one step closer to cementing a permit system; making more like drivers licenses where it is an ingrained requirement that isn't generally disputed, in need.

[Sailor man]

It will pass in the house the senate will be another story and then you have obamas veto. My gut feeling is thatvit will pass in both and Obama will pocket veto it. A pocket veto is if the congress is in session and the pres. Vetoes it will become law in 10 days as long as congress is still in session. This way Obama does not offend the pro or anti gun people. it would be about time. Pity the poor ccw person who accidentally strays across a state border and is lucky enough to be caught. I'm sure it happens (people straying) more than you or I know. Anybody against this bill is either anti ccw or never leaves their home state. And anyone who feels this is bad should never drive out of their state either because this is exactly what the FEDS did with their driver licenses years ago and guess what they(the FEDS) never took your drivers licence . You know why because they did not issue it JUST like your ccw permit.

[maat]

I'm still waiting to see the legislation that nulified the 2nd amendment. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" specifically requires that Congress give the states the right to prevent US citizens from carrying as they please, through the amendment process.

Where is the amendment that nullifies/modifies the 2nd amendment?

[xXxplosive]

NRA Instructor.....20 yrs. and CCL holder.............I say....LET IT FLY........otherwise states like NJ, NY, Ma, Md, will never see it also if it does pass it will finally allow the non-believers to see the truth about CCL and crime reduction.....I'm for it.

[noway2]

I'm still waiting to see the legislation that nulified the 2nd amendment. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" specifically requires that Congress give the states the right to prevent US citizens from carrying as they please, through the amendment process.

Where is the amendment that nullifies/modifies the 2nd amendment?

The 2nd amendment can't be overridden with simple legislation. That is part of the point to the constitution, which has a definitive amendment process. Should such an amendment be placed in this legislation, it should be dealt with accordingly. It is often said that we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of good and to me, this is one of those cases. I have yet to see any reasonable argument against this legislation other than fear, uncertainty, and doubt, about what MAY happen or the general keep the govt out of everything line. Besides, having a lack of good legislation is no guarantee that there won't be bad legislation in the future.

[maat]

The 2nd amendment can't be overridden with simple legislation. That is part of the point to the constitution, which has a definitive amendment process. Should such an amendment be placed in this legislation, it should be dealt with accordingly. It is often said that we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of good and to me, this is one of those cases. I have yet to see any reasonable argument against this legislation other than fear, uncertainty, and doubt, about what MAY happen or the general keep the govt out of everything line. Besides, having a lack of good legislation is no guarantee that there won't be bad legislation in the future.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

If Congress believed that there was an urgent need for states to have this power, it would have proposed an amendment allowing them to do so.

The amendment process is the key to chaining down Congress/government from taking away the rights of men. This process has been ignored by numerous Acts giving government power it was never meant to have.

This is why we have a socialist state as apposed to a free country. Gun rights are just one of many rights stolen from American citizens.

[noway2]

What I am saying is that the 2nd amendment of the constitution can't be overturned by simple legislative means, i.e. an amendment to a piece of legislation as it requires a constitutional amendment (process) which involves ratification by the states. An attempt to do so would undoubtedly go before the courts, which should declare such a law unconstitutional. This would be different than an amendment to a particular bill, which could turn good legislation into bad legislation. Should this happen, I would hope that the bill's supporters would object strongly. Though it doesn't seem like it at times, the representatives are supposed to represent our interests too. The 'sticky' part to this whole process is that the courts have ruled that the 2nd, like most rights, is not without limitation and unfortunately, concealment has been ruled as a valid limitation that does not violate the 2nd. As someone else pointed out, this decision was a long time ago (something that I wasn't aware of) and the societal culture has changed a lot in the last 100 years or so. Today, concealed carry would likely be the norm, whereas in the past it may have been considered to be dishonorable and the act of a common criminal.

[maat]

What I am saying is that the 2nd amendment of the constitution can't be overturned by simple legislative means, i.e. an amendment to a piece of legislation as it requires a constitutional amendment (process) which involves ratification by the states. An attempt to do so would undoubtedly go before the courts, which should declare such a law unconstitutional. This would be different than an amendment to a particular bill, which could turn good legislation into bad legislation. Should this happen, I would hope that the bill's supporters would object strongly. Though it doesn't seem like it at times, the representatives are supposed to represent our interests too. The 'sticky' part to this whole process is that the courts have ruled that the 2nd, like most rights, is not without limitation and unfortunately, concealment has been ruled as a valid limitation that does not violate the 2nd. As someone else pointed out, this decision was a long time ago (something that I wasn't aware of) and the societal culture has changed a lot in the last 100 years or so. Today, concealed carry would likely be the norm, whereas in the past it may have been considered to be dishonorable and the act of a common criminal.

It is entirely possible to have a proper amendment to the 2nd amendment. IMO, as of now, the 2nd amendment is the law of the land. This to me means that Chicago cannot prevent me from carrying a weapon.

Personally, I am open to an amendment that allows states to enact limited regulation of carry. I personally believe that no amendment could eliminate the intent of the 2nd amendment. The most important aspect of this issue is the limitation on Congress to usurp rights through Acts.

[SamF]

We need to pass this bill. It does not limit states rights any more than the Constitution already does. SCOTUS has recently declared that the 2A applies to the states and this bill is just a cease and desist order to those state that continue to infringe on our right to bear arms.

Yes, the 10A says that anything not covered in the constitution is left to the states and the people but - news flash - the 2A is part of the Constitution so the Feds can tell the states to stop violating our rights.

[ksholder]

It is entirely possible to have a proper amendment to the 2nd amendment. IMO, as of now, the 2nd amendment is the law of the land. This to me means that Chicago cannot prevent me from carrying a weapon.

Personally, I am open to an amendment that allows states to enact limited regulation of carry. I personally believe that no amendment could eliminate the intent of the 2nd amendment. The most important aspect of this issue is the limitation on Congress to usurp rights through Acts.

Your personal preferences notwithstanding, once an amendment process begins, it is all in the table. I would prefer that they leave the 2A alone, thanks. What needs to happen is the court needs to be out in its place. Constitutionally, it is 1/3 of the government and co-equal with the other 2/3s. In practice, the courts have declared themselves superior to the Congress and Executive branch and nobody has challenged them.

[paching]

I'm all for it. Let's git'er done!

[OldVet]

My FL CWFL allows me to carry in those states that I might normally visit. It really doesn't matter whether the Feds"allow" it or not.

[AKsrule]

senate and prez won't let this happen

DITTO senate and prez won't let this happen.

[jem102]

Your personal preferences notwithstanding, once an amendment process begins, it is all in the table. I would prefer that they leave the 2A alone, thanks. What needs to happen is the court needs to be out in its place. Constitutionally, it is 1/3 of the government and co-equal with the other 2/3s. In practice, the courts have declared themselves superior to the Congress and Executive branch and nobody has challenged them.

Exactly the problem and the left have become masters of "seeding" the courts at all levels with no challenge.