Senate Rejects Thune Amendment on Concealed Weapons

The Senate today rejected Sen. John Thune's amendment to the defense spending bill that would allow people with concealed weapons permits in one state to bring them into another state that allows concealed weapons permits. 48 states (all but Illinois and Wisconsin) provide concealed weapons permits.

The measure failed by 2 votes, 58 to 39. (60 votes were needed.) Score one for the gun control lobby. I think the objections to the bill are specious -- and in the case of NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg, verge on hysteria.

"This is about as anti-police, pro-gun trafficker piece of legislation that has ever come before the United States Senate," said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg Tuesday.


What the law would have provided:

The gun proposal would have made 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 would not have established national standards for concealed weapons permits and would not allow those with permits to carry weapons into Wisconsin and Illinois.

Backers, led by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said truckers and others with concealed weapons permits should be able to protect themselves when they cross into other states. Opponents countered that the measure would force states with strict procedures for getting permits to accept permits from states with more lax laws.

As a strong supporter of the individual right to bear arms and the Second Amendment, I'm sorry the amendment was defeated, but I don't think it should have been tagged on to the defense spending bill to begin with. Neither should the hate crimes law have passed this way. Why can't we just have amendments that deal with the topic? And if we're not going to do it that way, why doesn't someone introduce an amendment to the defense spending bill equalizing crack and powder cocaine penalties, which just could pass, since Obama and the DOJ support it? (Update: The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security passed a crack -powder penalty equalization bill today. Details here.

Update: Kudos to Colorado Rep. Mark Udall for supporting the Amendment. His office released this statement (received by e-mail, no link yet):

Since 2003, Colorado has had a relatively relaxed reciprocity statute recognizing the conceal-carry permits of 27 other states. Our experience over the last six years does not lead me to conclude that passage of this amendment would raise the risk of unlawful gun smuggling or other criminal acts. It allows Coloradans to travel elsewhere once they have obtained a concealed permit in our state. It does not encourage irresponsible behavior or absolve anyone from criminal prosecution in Colorado if they use a gun in the commission of a crime.
< Obama Presser Time Changed: NBC Said Susan Boyle Interview Too Important | Chinese Factory Worker Leaps to Death Over Missing iPhone >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Insisting on single-subject bills (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:20:01 PM EST
    would have the effect of shutting down the government.

    And unlike you, I am happy that this amendment failed. The extent of the reasonable limits you can put on gun possession should not be dictated by the rural west.

    Rollcall (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:23:44 PM EST

    Gillibrand is taking her new constituency (and primary challenge) seriously. Interesting that Casey and Specter split. Specter is a creature of Philadelphia; Casey is not.


    I agree (none / 0) (#3)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:28:05 PM EST
    if a state wants to extend this sort of recipocity it can.  

    Why on earth would a state (none / 0) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:05:29 PM EST
    that bans concealed handguns want to allow people from states that do to carry their concealed weapons in?  Makes no sense.

    I think you miss the point. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:17:27 PM EST
    I think the point is that state A would allow CW permit holders from state B to carry a CW in state A w/o being required to get a state A CW permit.

    And visa versa.


    It sure sounds like (none / 0) (#25)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:14:00 PM EST
    this bill would not have overridden any out-and-out bans on concealed weapons, from the explanation I'm getting in the comments.

    it wouldn't (none / 0) (#47)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:07:13 PM EST
    Hm? (none / 0) (#9)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:48:14 PM EST
    How would that shut down government? It works just fine in other countries.

    Attaching totally unrelated amendments is a stain on democracy. The US is the only country I know of that has these ridiculous amendments.


    Other countries don't pass budgets? (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:53:39 PM EST
    Honestly, if you want to stop this, you have to get rid of the US Senate, which moves like molasses. I am all for that BTW.

    Sure (none / 0) (#17)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:00:40 PM EST
    A budget is a pretty broad thing, but at least it can still be narrowed down to "allocate money for this or not". And it can be broken down in to parts that are related (e.g. don't attach an education amendment to a defense budget).

    This particular amendment had nothing to do with either defense or allocating money, so obviously it had no place here. There appear to be many such amendments every year. It should be possible to at least weed out those.

    I agree on the Senate.. its main task seems to be to not get anything done. And it's not even proportionally elected (originally because of a concession to smaller states during the writing of the constitution). It kinda sucks.


    Having elected representatives (none / 0) (#12)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:54:58 PM EST
    is itself a stain on democracy.  I personally am willing to accept a certain degree of staining.

    There are many states within the US that function just fine on a single-issue model, but I agree with andgarden that running a nation of 300 million people is too complicated to expect that every single nuance will be voted on independently.  There's not enough hours in the day for Congress to follow that kind of protocol, to give each of these independent measures a real debate, and still get the people's work done.

    If you want to eat sausage then it needs to be made somehow.  Legislative horse-trading doesn't have pretty results, but it keeps everything from coming to a standstill.  As an aside, I hope I didn't just make horses into sausage with that analogy.


    Don't Austrians and the French eat horse sausage? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:57:11 PM EST

    I don't understand your argument. (none / 0) (#18)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    You are saying that, because running a large country is complicated, it is OK to have totally unrelated amendments, making things even more complicated and costing more time?

    Also, claiming size as an excuse seems to be somewhat strange. Congress (mainly the Senate) is way too complicated procedurally, and I don't see how the size of the US has anything to do with that.

    I wonder how things work in this regard in India, the largest democracy in the world.


    You have NO IDEA how complicated (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:10:27 PM EST
    it would be to properly reform the legislative branch. Even many so-called progressives stridently defend the Senate.

    I don't agree (none / 0) (#24)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:12:54 PM EST
    that it would be less complicated and faster to put each item into a standalone bill.  In fact I think it would be completely unworkable.

    It would require a Constitutional amendment (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:15:36 PM EST
    anyway. The House and Senate can rewrite their own rules whenever they find it convenient.

    Seems to me (none / 0) (#30)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:23:42 PM EST
    that someone who wants to abolish the Senate and add a bunch of new judges to the Supreme Court is not really in a position to object that someone else's proposed reforms would be procedurally difficult to effectuate!

    Piecemeal reforms around the edges (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:26:30 PM EST
    would likely be just as difficult as the real solutions I support.

    But I recognize that what I want to do will be very difficult. I always have.


    I dunno (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:19:36 PM EST
    Don't you think it would be easier and more efficient if a Senator (staffer) had to read and digest a 20 page bill on one item rather than a 1000 page bill with multiple items that may or may not contradict each other? Then you could have votes on 20 bills in a day....

    Do you know how long it takes to bring (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:22:17 PM EST
    a bill to a vote in the Senate?

    Totally unworkable.


    Well, obviously (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:27:51 PM EST
    You'd have to change the whole system.

    But part of the problem is those huge bills that no one reads with unrelated matters in them is where they stick all the pork and pet projects - the public won't find out about them, right?

    If you streamlined bills, markups wouldn't take as long, committee hearings wouldn't take as long, and maybe, just maybe, the taxpayers might save some money in the process and things would actually get done.

    It only takes a long time to get a bill to the floor because of procedures and "that's the way we always do it" attitude.


    The first thing you'd have to do (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:31:10 PM EST
    is massively increase the staff available to committees and member of Congress.

    Why? (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:34:42 PM EST
    If their staffs can sort through 1100 page stimulus bills (for which no one STILL really knows everything that's in there), why would you need more staff to read through 20 page bills?

    I can read through and better digest more docs with fewer pages than one long document.


    Honestly, I reject 100% the argument (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:38:21 PM EST
    that have unrelated matters in a bill makes any difference whatsoever. But if you want the legislators to know what they're voting on, they need bigger staffs than they had in the 1940s.

    You don't think (none / 0) (#44)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:40:09 PM EST
    35-60 people per Senator could do the work?

    I'm fine this didn't pass (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:55:35 PM EST

    The GOP sure luvs state rights... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:35:36 PM EST
    ...up until it involves God, guns and gays.

    Bloomberg is like that on guns 24/7/365 (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by scribe on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:52:48 PM EST
    An absolute screecher.

    Frankly, I could take him a little more seriously on guns if his cops were a little slower to use them to pop people.  A big story in NYC the last week is that of the 49 y/o Army veteran (that seems to be all he did with his life, and years ago) who was killed by an undercover cop for telling the cop to get off his mother's stoop.

    Mind you, the cop was undercover doing a drug deal/bust, and the now-dead guy came out from inside and (reasonably believing the undercover to be a real dealer) told him to get his dealing butt off the stoop.  Cop says "no", scuffle ensues, cop shoots guy.

    Then there are the screechers in Jersey.  Jersey City's mayor and police have been on an anti-gun crusade for a while, but they will somehow figure out a way to turn a Bonnie and Clyde shootout last week into more anti-gun propaganda.  In short, the cops were staking out a pair of alleged armed robbers - Bonnie and Clyde, we'll call them - who they believed were involved in robbing a Jiffy Lube guy and capping him with a shotgun.  Bonnie and Clyde had a car, and were expected to come out to move it (to avoid the street sweeper) first thing in the morning.  The cops were late setting up the stakeout, or Clyde was early.  Clyde made the cops, dropped his robe (he wore ethnic robe-y clothes), pulled his shotgun and opened up.  

    By the time things were over, five cops had been shot and Bonnie and Clyde were dead.  All before 7 am.  Busting into Bonnie and Clyde's apartment, one of the cops too two shotgun rounds in the face.  He was removed from life support yesterday.  Another took one to the neck and is expected to recover, and the others have already been released.  The shootout ended when the cops stormed Bonnie and Clyde's apartment.

    The autopsies revealed that Clyde had over 30 holes in him and they dug 19 bullets out of him.  Bonnie only had two holes and one bullet in her, but that bullet was "at the base of her skull".

    In other words, the cops dumped their clips into Clyde "to make sure" and executed Bonnie.  The cops fired at least 50 rounds, all told.

    That's the only conclusion which can reasonably be drawn when the county prosecutor releases the autopsy and says "the results speak for themselves".

    And the police see no reason to second-guess themselves or change any procedures.

    So, yesterday, an officer from the same Jersey City police department shot and killed a woman in her home when responding to a domestic disturbance call.  She allegedly was waving a knife around.  Per the Mayor and police:

    Mayor Jerramiah Healy, at a press conference late last night at the Jersey City Medical Center, said: "The wife had psychiatric issues in the past and wasn't taking her medication."

    By the time police got to the apartment, the husband was in the hallway and the wife had locked herself inside the apartment and chained the door, and police had to use boltcutters to get in the door, Healy said.

    So, you lock youself in when not taking your meds, and wind up shot - multiple times - to death.

    In small, confined spaces of city apartments, these cops can't shoot straight or, when they do, they expend military-style "volume of fire" to make sure they kill you, so they don't have to do more paperwork later.  

    Don't get me wrong - Jersey City is, in many respects, a town as rough or rougher than some of the worst parts of NYC.  I knew someone once who lived in JC and, in addition to being mugged, was made to dance in the manner of the old cowboy movies - his mugger pulled a 9 mm and shot it at his feet demanding a dance.  

    I don't much care for the idea of people carrying concealed weapons around, more because having a gun is an open invitation to use it.  And, once used, it cannot be un-used.  But, by the same token, I am far more afraid of the police going into combat mode for no reason, or no good reason, at all, than I am of some guy who thinks whatever his fears are justify his packing heat.  

    As to the crossing state lines aspect of this - I supported Thune's idea.  The complex of state laws is so viciously complicated that, as a lawyer, I will not advise anyone about how to comply with gun laws.  Then, there is the whole issue of cops - less educated on the niceties of the law - busting someone who is traveling legally from one state to another, merely because the guy (even legally) has a gun with him.  Because it's a gun.

    Spoken as only a lawyer can speak (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:07:13 PM EST
    There is one thing I find striking as a military dependent too while witnessing all this accepted police brutality.  Very often the military is portrayed as a subculture more on the brutal side of life.  If drug dealers happened to be housed on a post though, and even if they opened fire on an MP or two or three, at this time I can't fathom any kind of shoot'em up mow em down police action that would be employed.  If such a show of police force took place on a military base or post the investigation that would follow would be mind blowing I think.

    Glad this failed (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:00:00 PM EST
    What is the point of states devising their own rules if they can be overridden so easily by travellers?

    There's a right to bear "Arms" (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:24:07 PM EST
    because SCOTUS has said so.  The text isn't clear on that.

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

    commas, passive voice, what the Hell does it mean?  Whatever SCOTUS says it means period.

    Personally, I am ok with hunters having rifles, and homeowners pistols in their homes.  I draw the line at semi-automatics, machine guns, bazookas, grenade launchers, ICBMs etc.  

    And a question, are unconcealed pistols OK in these states, you know like in Gunsmoke?  Seems like it makes more sense than allowing concealed weapons, at least I'd be able to identify & avoid the gun nuts.

    semi-automatics (none / 0) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 05:16:30 PM EST
    are, essentially, guns that fire one time every time you pull the trigger, until they run out of ammo, of course.

    That describes the majority of guns made since, oh, the late 1800's or something.

    Automatics are, essentially, machine guns.


    Wisconsin (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 05:52:31 AM EST
    No concealed carry except retired cops, but open carry's legal almost anywhere.

    I don't really understand (none / 0) (#4)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:28:50 PM EST
    The gun proposal would have made 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.

    This kind of sounds like "concealed weapons permits are valid, except where they're not."  I feel like I'm missing the point of the amendment altogether.

    What it means (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:33:53 PM EST
    There are two types of controls on concealed weapons permits:  who can get them and where they can take the guns.  The amendment said that if Texas, for example, allows a person to take a gun into a church, that doesn't mean a Texan can take a gun into a Washington church where such an activity would be prohibited.

    However, if Alaska allows misdemeanor sex offenders to get permits, those permits are still valid in Washington even if that Alaskan would never qualify for a WA state permit.

    This amendment was a pretty flagrant violation of state's ability to control who gets a permit.  If Thune wanted to take that right away from states and set a national standard, he should have introduced that bill.  Not try to backdoor weak standards upon states that have some reasonable requirements.


    I thought (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:40:19 PM EST
    Republicans were all about states' rights?  

    "Let the states decide!"


    Heh, I just had a less than great thought (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:24:17 PM EST
    I'll give Republicans their recognized in every state concealed weapon permit if they give me my recognized in every state gay marriage.  I feel like the computer from WarGames, "Want to play a game?"  It is likely that at some point the gun legislation would have to be overturned, but I'm not certain when gay marriage would ever prove to be so dangerous we'd have to overturn that legislation.

    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:40:28 PM EST
    I guess it depends on the extent to which states differ on who is allowed to carry a concealed weapon.  If the differences were relatively minor, then the analogy to a driver's license might be appropriate.  Sounds like the differences are rather more severe than that.

    I'm pro-gun myself but I'm also in favor of local control.  If a given restriction has been found constitutional, I'm not particularly happy about the federal government trying to override it through the back door.


    They vary pretty widely (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:52:19 PM EST
    Vermont and Alaska allow anyone to carry concealed weapons.  Other states prohibit those who have misdemeanor convictions.  Some require a certain amount of training.  Some give local officials wide latitude to deny or issue permits.

    So all you would need is a permit (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:59:34 PM EST
    to carry in Alaska or Vermont, and you would be good in all fifty.  This isn't legislation I'm interested in furthering.

    Don't believe you even need a permit (none / 0) (#22)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:10:43 PM EST
    in Vermont, and probably not in Alaska.  As far as I know, we have no gun regulations in VT at all, except for the federal requirement to register.  Don't believe we had even that much before the federal law.

    Interestingly, both VT senators voted against this bill.  Good for them.  Every state is different, and what works well in VT doesn't work at all in Massachusetts or NY, and vice versa.  If states get to make their own gun laws, they should be allowed to make them stick for everybody within the state's boundaries.

    This was an absolutely idiotic bill, and I'd be very surprised if it would have passed constitutional muster.


    Basically (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:39:27 PM EST
    Vermont doesn't issue permits so their residents actually aren't covered by reciprocity agreements (cause you need a permit to have reciprocity).  Alaska does but basically they give them to everyone.

    Interestingly, some states also give permits to non-residents.  Right now, that's so non-residents can carry in those states.  If Thune had passed though, you would have had venue shopping.  IE someone doesn't qualify in California so they drive to Arizona, get one there and voila!  they are legally entitled to carry a concealed weapons in their home state of CA.

    The amendment would not have allowed concealed carry in WI or IL, the two states with out and out bans.


    What works in VT (none / 0) (#35)
    by CST on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:34:32 PM EST
    sure doeasn't work in MA.  Although I hear more about the problems with people buying guns in NH than VT.  Maybe because it is closer to Boston and guns aren't such a problem in western MA.

    I have no problem with VT gun laws, I think it works for them.  Kinda like letting 12 year olds drive tractors.  I wouldn't want those laws around here because there are other factors at play.


    Totally different cultures (none / 0) (#49)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:23:33 PM EST
    And I think you're right that western Mass. is more similar in attitude to Vermont.  It's pretty simple, really, just rural versus non-rural.  Guns are just another tool in rural areas, like a good splitting maul.  There's very little crime of any kind because people know each other too well, and frankly, there's not a whole lot to steal, or much of anything to spend it on if you do.

    Every 5 or 10 years, there's a little rash of clumsy home burglaries, the state police come in and poke around a little and find the group of 3 or 4 young men who are responsible, take them away, and all is quiet again for another 5 or 10 years.


    Aha, that is a good (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by eric on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:55:49 PM EST
    point.  If you look at this bill as simply allowing people with a permit to go to other states that allow concealed weapons, it sounds reasonable.  For example, if somebody with a South Dakota permit wants to go to North Dakota, which also allows guns, it sounds reasonable.  But your example about WHO get the permit is a good one.  I know, for example, that some states are more strict about the training that one gets before getting the permit.

    Carry permits (none / 0) (#54)
    by Mutt001 on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 04:04:00 PM EST
    I think that all carry permits should be a federal thing.  And it should be strict. No felons, or mentally unstable people. All though that last one would be hard to set a standard for.  But I believe all states should allow non-concealed carry for any legal gun owner.  The key word here is LEGAL.  No mater how many laws are made, the criminal will still break them an have guns. If 2 out of 3 people are carrying concealed, do you think that the criminal is going to chance robbing one of them?  Most likely not. An most people who do carry are not right-wing crazes just looking for a gun fight. Most are lawyers, off duty cops or other law enforcement, and even most of your politicians. And even just your average joe.

    Um...except (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 04:30:34 PM EST
    Even police officers, who undergo lots of training and practice on their sidearms, and who are trained to react in stressful situations, miss most of the time when they shoot.  It does not make me feel safer to think any Tom, Dick, Harry, Bubba Jo, or Buffy is packin' heat.

    And (none / 0) (#61)
    by eric on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:18:56 PM EST
    many of us, most of us probably, don't WANT to carry a weapon.

    Public urination (none / 0) (#23)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:11:29 PM EST
    However, if Alaska allows misdemeanor sex offenders to get permits, those permits are still valid in Washington even if that Alaskan would never qualify for a WA state permit.

    That makes perfect sense. You would not want someone convicted of public urination carrying a pistol in WA, even though they do so in Alaska without causing the slightest problem.


    Hey (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:41:02 PM EST
    If you don't like the law in WA, lobby your legislature. Otherwise, don't backdoor undermine that state's laws.

    It would have made life easier (none / 0) (#20)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:05:48 PM EST

    It would have made life easier if it did pass.  It is not easy to find out if a state recognizes my Minnesota permit.  There are a few web sites that offer such info, but they are not official.  

    Seriously? (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:42:42 PM EST
    Google search:  concealed carried reciprocity.  6th result.

    That is very nice, but not authoritative (none / 0) (#45)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:40:55 PM EST

    That list does not carry the force of law.  If the outfit putting this together made a mistake, this table won't get you (or me) off the hook for a weapons violation.  

    Is the need to be packing a CONCEALED (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:13:15 PM EST
    weapon across state lines that overwhelming?

    I've known people (none / 0) (#51)
    by DeanOR on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:26:56 PM EST
    who think they have to carry a gun every time they go to the grocery store or library in a peaceful community. They're itching to kill someone who offends them. They are right-wing fanatics who think private property is the only law that should be recognized. They're not members of their State National Guard; they think they can be their own army, which is not what the Constitution had in mind. One of them blew his brains out because a woman wouldn't go out with him. They're crazy and dangerous. They shouldn't get a permit in any State, let alone be assumed to be in compliance with other States' laws.

    Gun control does't make anyone safe. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Mutt001 on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:50:16 PM EST
    These Politicians that only think with their wallets have no idea what it takes to be safe in this corrupt world anymore. They don't have to worry about security because they have an armed guard or are armed them selves.  Any one who thinks guns are dangerous needs a reality check.  Cars are way more dangerous than guns.  There are almost 30,000 auto related deaths each year.  There are 11,000 homicides each year.  But most of these are done by criminals.  Not law abiding citizens.  The FBI estimates that each year gun ownership in America stops over 150,000 violent crimes and 450,000 home invasions. The FBI says even people without guns in there homes benefit from this as many criminals are deterred form committing home invasions due to fears of armed home owners. So do guns help make us safe? You decide, but the numbers don't lie.  

    Right (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by CST on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:54:29 PM EST
    that's why places like Canada and Europe have such high rates of gun crime.

    Right. (none / 0) (#58)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 05:18:03 PM EST
    And the reason is solely the different gun laws.

    you can support it all day long, (none / 0) (#56)
    by cpinva on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 05:05:25 PM EST
    As a strong supporter of the individual right to bear arms and the Second Amendment

    and you'll still be wrong. show me anywhere in the constitution that the author's intended, other than as part of a "well regulated militia", that individuals have an unqualified right to weapons ownership.

    i'll spare you the research, there isn't one.

    all that aside, how many people truly need concealed weapons, for purposes of self-protection? as well, how many of them have the training and experience necessary to handle those weapons, in a tense situation, correctly?

    again, i'll spare you the research: damn few. that's why newspaper boys end up getting shot by idiots with guns.

    Rejecting the Thune Amendment ...? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Twobirdsflying on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 07:04:27 AM EST

    I'm quite sure there's a great deal of horse trading when it comes to lining up support for any given amendment. However, I have to admit that I was befuddled as to way the votes  to pass the Thune Amendment were not there.
    The Thune Amendment does nothing more than require reciprocity between the states, something that is currently optional. It does not relieve the holder of a carry permit from complying with the host state's concealed carry regulations. Under the Thune Amendment if John and Jane Doe hold a valid concealed firearms permit, from their home state of New Hampshire, and they travel to the State of New York, New York would be required ONLY to recognize that John and Jane Doe have a license to carry a concealed firearm. The amendment does not relieve John and Jane Doe from compliance with the State of New York's regulations governing the when, where and how a concealed firearm can be carried. Any suggestion that a State's rights are infringed by passage of Thune is simply not true!
    The opposition paints this image of cities turned into shooting galleries with gunfights at saloons and the OK Coral. This is sheer partisan baloney, and simply false assertions.
    I commend those members of Congress, Republican and Democrats, who supported passage of the Thune Amendment. However, to the ones that did not I ask this.
    What do say to an Indiana or Ohio voter, traveling by car, on business or pleasure, when they are arrested in the State of New York for carrying a concealed firearm in their vehicle, simply because the State of New York does not recognize the individual's Indiana or Ohio carry permit? Is that what you want to see, innocent and honorable people turned into felons?
    The Thune Amendment prevents this sort of thing from happening.
    Would anyone out there go along with rejecting reciprocity for driver's licenses, because that is what it amounts to - left or right orientation. Get with it people!