our forefathers rolling in their graves
This is a discussion on our forefathers rolling in their graves within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Concealed arms reciprocity rejected by Senate - Yahoo! News
WASHINGTON – In a rare win for gun control advocates, the Senate on Wednesday rejected a ...
July 22nd, 2009 03:38 PM
our forefathers rolling in their graves
Concealed arms reciprocity rejected by Senate - Yahoo! News
WASHINGTON – In a rare win for gun control advocates, the Senate on Wednesday rejected a measure allowing a person with a concealed weapon permit in one state to also hide his firearm when visiting another state.
The vote was 58-39 in favor of the provision establishing concealed carry permit reciprocity in the 48 states that have concealed weapons laws. That fell two votes short of the 60 needed to approve the measure, offered as an amendment to a defense spending bill.
Opponents prevailed in their argument that the measure violated states rights by forcing states with stringent requirements for permits to recognize concealed weapons carriers from states that give out permits to almost any gun owner.
"This is no minor shift in policy," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., whose state requires people to be fingerprinted, get gun training and to undergo a federal background check before issuing permits. "It in fact would be a sweeping change and I think with some deadly consequences."
The vote reversed recent trends where Republicans and gun rights Democrats from rural states joined to push pro-gun rights issues and block gun control legislation.
Congress this year voted to restore the rights of people to carry loaded weapons into national parks and the Senate moved to effectively eviscerate the tough gun control laws of the District of Columbia.
Congress has also ignored urgings from President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to revive a ban on military-style weapons that expired in 2004.
The concealed weapons measure, promoted by the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America, would have made a concealed weapon permit from one state valid in the 47 other states with permit laws. Only Wisconsin and Illinois have no carry permit laws.
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the sponsor, said it would not provide for a national carry permit, and that a visitor to another state would have to obey the limitations of that state, such as bans on concealed weapons in restaurants or other places.
"Law-abiding individuals have the right to self-defense," even when they cross state lines, Thune said, citing the example of truck drivers who need to protect themselves as they travel.
Opponents, however, said the 48 states with permits have a broad range of conditions for obtaining those permits: some such as Alaska and Vermont, give permits to almost all gun owners. Others, such as New York, have firearm training requirements and exclude people with drinking problems or criminal records.
New York Democrat Charles Schumer raised the possibility of his state having to accept gun carriers from states that have few or no restrictions. Thune's proposal, he said, 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."
Thune shot back that if a person from South Dakota with a carry permit visited Central Park in New York City, "Central Park will be a much safer place."
Other opponents said the proposal infringed on states' rights, usually an important principle for gun rights groups. Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said it would override the laws of 11 states — California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island — and the District of Columbia — which do not allow carry permit reciprocity with other states.
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., another sponsor, reminded his colleagues that the NRA and Gun Owners of America were scoring the vote, meaning it would be considered in their election evaluation of lawmakers.
NRA 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.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said Mississippi residents can get a permit without any training, including ever shooting a pistol on a range. These permit holders could carry firearms in New York City, where police have broad discretion to deny permits, or Dallas, where permit applicants must undergo at least 10 hours of training.
"It is critical to our efforts that people who enter our state abide by the laws of our state which have supported the progress we are making," Newark, N.J., mayor Cory Booker said in a statement. "This is not a law that will in any way support our efforts to create a safer Newark."
Megatron: Power flows to the one who knows how. Desire alone is not enough.
July 22nd, 2009 03:41 PM
Our fore fathers began rolling in their graves during the Clinton years and than again at the last election.
Blessed be the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight.
Senior Instructor for Tactical and Defensive of Texas
July 22nd, 2009 03:48 PM
true.. guess we don't have a second amendment
Megatron: Power flows to the one who knows how. Desire alone is not enough.
July 22nd, 2009 03:52 PM
I think the date when the rolling began was more either 1937, or 1860. Take your pick.
Originally Posted by Reborn
"Trust in God with hand on sword"
-Inscription on my family's coat of arms from medieval England
---Carry options: G26/MTAC, PF9/MiniTuck, PPK/Pocket, USP40/OWB---
---NOTE: I am not an expert. If I ever start acting like a know-it-all, please call me on it immediately.
July 22nd, 2009 05:01 PM
Amen Brotha!! My vote is 1860!! (see my signature #1)
Originally Posted by GWRedDragon
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin
Steps in the stripping of State's Rights/Sovereignty
1. War of Northern Agression 2. Coersion to ratify the 14th Amendment 3. Ratified 17th Amendment
July 22nd, 2009 05:10 PM
I think they are spinning and puking,this is not what they ever envisioned for this great nation,everything from gang violence,to racism,to welfare,to government bailouts,It's disgusting
"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
--Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .
July 22nd, 2009 05:18 PM
I think only applying reciprocity for resident permits would have helped the bill, and I believe it was purposely excluded, so pro-gun republicans and democrats could go home and quote their pro-gun record. I think it is all political BS, and both sides knew going in this had nothing to do with actually making a law. For most of the Senate (both the Rs and Ds) this was just a way to strengthen your base (pro-gun or anti-gun) depending what side their district agrees with.
I'm hit or miss issue. I support the bill, however as it was writen, I see how it does infringe on state's rights.
Ironically, you can just look at District of Columbia v. Heller and see that there is a balance, and see DC v. Heller supports the right 2A, but not the right to CC, as the often stated as "pro-gun" court acknowledges reasonable limitations (not summing up my beliefs, just what I think was a summary of the decision).
In order to have it not infringe on state rights it would have had to have written in requirements like non-resident permits, only permits that require back ground checks, limitations on type of firearm that can be carried, etc. At that point it starts to become less about reciprocity and starts to lead to a national standard.
July 22nd, 2009 05:23 PM
Guys, it only needed 2 more votes. It easily passed by a simple majority.
No one should be surprised that NY or WI, or IL folks voted against.
The state's rights thing is a red herring. There is only one practical issue--Would I as a license holder have been better off if this had passed? The answer is yes!
The rest doesn't matter much.
July 22nd, 2009 05:27 PM
A few points about National Reciprocity, at This time, and per This Amendment.
Three things were pointed out by "anti" Senators:
1. Some states allow Permits to be issued to persons with, conceivably, multiple DUI convictions.
2. Some states allow Permits to be issued to persons with, conceivably, single or multiple Domestic Violence convictions.
3. Some states allow Permits to be issued to persons with, conceivably, no assurance of any kind that the Permittee can handle/shoot a pistol.
2nd Amendment allows all of the above to carry concealed. States can Restrict (but NOT deny, totally) as they see fit. I'm pretty sure that I would rather not have a person carrying in Kansas that falls under #1 or #2 above. And, rudamentary "training" is not so bad, either.
Though I would, personally, like to see something on the National level (like DL's), let the individual States work out Reciprocity.
Just my $0.02.
"Leave the gun. Take the cannolis."
SIG SAUER P220 Elite Stainless & P238
July 22nd, 2009 05:29 PM
For the most part, I agree Hopyard. There was a state's rights issue, but in the end, that issue (easilly reworded) was used to divert from the more significant issues.
Originally Posted by Hopyard
I still think, overall, it was a BS vote, designed to give those in power on both sides of the issue something to take home. I don't think the majority of the Rs and Ds who voted wanted anything more then a talking point to take back for future elections.
For example, pro-gun Rs can show how close it was, pro-gun Ds can demonstrate that they are pro-gun, and anti-gun Ds show how important it was they were there to stop the bill. In addition, I think the Ds from anti-gun districts wanted this vote, so they could provide a back door support to the Ds who could vote pro-gun in pro-gun districts. You get to keep your D majority on other issues.
July 22nd, 2009 05:51 PM
This Sucks I really wanted this to pass
The only decent news was that the final vote of 58-39 shows there was more people in support of it than not.........
Kimber Eclipse Target 2
Glock 19 (3rd Gen)
Kahr PM9 (wife's edc)
NRA Life Member
July 22nd, 2009 06:02 PM
58-39! That was closer than I really thought it would be!
EOD - Initial success or total failure
July 22nd, 2009 06:11 PM
I second that
i think it is impossible to say you support states rights and they vote for this legislation. While it sounds good for your pro ccw cause, there would be to many laws to know and abide by. I would rather stick with my florida permit and have the states decide with who they want resiprocity with instead of congress or the senate forcing them to abide by it.
Originally Posted by Thanis
July 22nd, 2009 06:17 PM
I can only add this in response... The Federal Government, or any government for that matter really doesn't view "Rights" the same way you and I do. They view rights as PRIVILEDGES granted to us by the government. I hate to break it to you, but what the government giveth, the government taketh away eventually. This bill is nothing more than granting the government more control.
I suspect, had this passed, then a few short years from now, if even that long, we would be looking at the Federal Government dictating what training etc... is required, compliments to our congress trashcritters.
"My God David, We're a Civilized society."
"Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
-The Mist (2007)
July 22nd, 2009 06:37 PM
Originally Posted by rstickle
No, was not close at all.
Originally Posted by Slim_45
No one who voted one way or the other was at risk. This was written a certain way, so that it would 'look" close, but would not pass. This is a huge win for anti-gun. They get to make it look like it was close, every anti-gun from an anti-gun district just help re-elect themselves, and the pro-gun Ds know it, because it helped them in their pro-gun district look pro-gun. The Rs need anything they can get, and don't want to lose a seat in middle ground districts, and would not want this to pass, just want to show how they voted.
Normally, a bill is written, to get as much support as possible. This was not. One simple word change, resident, in theory would have changed the outcome. Don't be fooled, this is one of those votes used to wind us up. Shame on (most of the Senate) Rs and Ds.
I'm not questioning that the overall senate is pro-gun, I'm just stating the majority that are pro-gun (Rs & Ds) are only pro-gun because they want to keep their seat.
By BIKERIDER in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
Last Post: March 2nd, 2009, 07:56 PM
Search tags for this page
4th of july our forefathers would be rolling in their graves
forefathers rolling in thier graves images forefathers rolling in thier graves
forefathers rolling over in grave
forefathers stand on gun rights
four fathers rolling in graves
our forefathers are rolling in their graves
our forefathers would roll over in their graves
our four fathers would roll over in their graves
what our forefathers said about gun control
where did the quote our forefathers are spinning in their pervebial grave
why are forefathers are rolling in thier graves
Click on a term to search for related topics.