Has the Thune amendment been voted on yet?


PDA






HOME DEPOT GEORGE
July 22, 2009, 02:12 PM
I've had c-span on but haven't seen anything

If you enjoyed reading about "Has the Thune amendment been voted on yet?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jorg Nysgerrig
July 22, 2009, 02:13 PM
Yep:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gCqmfBFtxCgKGn5vzrfe-MHs9ZyAD99JJRR00

CoRoMo
July 22, 2009, 02:13 PM
I don't think so. I'm streaming AM radio, and the news breaks only mention that the issue is being debated on the floor. Of course a vote could be called for at the drop of a hat.

Edit:
I guess I'll defer to Jorg's simultaneously posted info. Shot down.

HOME DEPOT GEORGE
July 22, 2009, 02:14 PM
mods could you please correct my spelling in the title

Nuke8401
July 22, 2009, 02:15 PM
Missed by 2 votes.

http://www.politico.com/congress/

Kwanger
July 22, 2009, 02:16 PM
Rejected....check out Google News homepage, theres a link to a CNN article 10 mins ago.

HOME DEPOT GEORGE
July 22, 2009, 02:18 PM
Does this mean that the whole defense bill it was attached to was defeated?

CoRoMo
July 22, 2009, 02:20 PM
No, just the Thune amendment was killed, i.e. failed to get attached to the defense spending bill.

armoredman
July 22, 2009, 02:21 PM
No, just the amendment. Frankly, I am stunned we made it this far in this Congress. Look for it again next year. And ol' UpChucky caught lying on video again, about Vermont issuing permits to 16 year olds, (no permits needed in Vermont), that 16 year old Vermont gangbangers would bring in bags of guns to sell on NYC streets, (newsflash, UpChuckie, gangbangers don't care about gun laws, and are carrying on your streets anyway!), and he stated in print that Alaska is issuing permits to violent misdemeanors, (no permit needed in Alaska either, last time I checked), plus insulting my home state, too.

Jorg Nysgerrig
July 22, 2009, 02:22 PM
Alaska issuing permits to violent misdemeanors, (no permit needed in Alaska either, last time I checked)
Alaska issues permits, although they aren't required in the state.

neverjeg
July 22, 2009, 02:23 PM
Republicans, George Voinovich of Ohio and Dick Lugar of Indiana both voted no. If those two would have voted yes it would have hit 60 and passed.

You folks in Ohio and Indiana need to remember this come election time. But I wonder,
would it really have been a great idea to give the federal government a "way in"? Would this not have given them a tool to start restricting at a federal level the right to carry?

HOME DEPOT GEORGE
July 22, 2009, 02:27 PM
In a way it is good because certain states that are anti but still have concealed carry like NY,NJ etc would be locking up a lot of people for violations like hollow points,carrying too close to a school even if you were on the highway passing by,unapproved weapons for the particular state etc. For the record these are just hypothetical situations that might happen if the feds shove a law down the throat of highly anti states.

Nuke8401
July 22, 2009, 02:30 PM
"Both Arkansas Democrats voted yes, but Mark Pryor had initially voted no and then changed his vote at the very end to "yes" when it was clear he wouldn't be a decisive vote."

A real stand on your principal kind of guy.

damien
July 22, 2009, 02:37 PM
We got 58 votes in the Senate. 51 is still the bar in the Senate for a non-filibustered bill. So it failed a cloture vote, I assume, if I understand the process right?

I am impressed we got 58 votes. Having succeeded on National Park Carry and very narrowly failed on this, I wonder what is "in between" that we should be working for next.

P.S. The other side will never be able to put together 60 votes with the current Senate membership to reauthorize the semi-auto ban.

Kwanger
July 22, 2009, 02:39 PM
"Both Arkansas Democrats voted yes, but Mark Pryor had initially voted no and then changed his vote at the very end to "yes" when it was clear he wouldn't be a decisive vote."

A real stand on your principal kind of guy.
Sounds like it!

cbrgator
July 22, 2009, 02:44 PM
Where can I find who voted for/against the Thune Amendment?

JImbothefiveth
July 22, 2009, 02:46 PM
Can we get a list of people who voted no? I think the one who flip-flopped may also need to be voted out.

JImbothefiveth
July 22, 2009, 02:50 PM
Alright, I'm building a list here, of Senators not already mentioned that voted no.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) No surprise there
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)

Nuke8401
July 22, 2009, 02:51 PM
I can't help with the count, seems like NRA news would be the first on this but???? Maybe not so much.

JImbothefiveth
July 22, 2009, 02:53 PM
The following Senators voted yes:
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)

The following Senators voted no:
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)



Byrd (D-WV),
Kennedy (D-MA, and Mikulski (D-MD) didn't vote at all.

84B20
July 22, 2009, 02:55 PM
Here is a link to the voting list.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00237

You now know how to vote in the next election.

Nuke8401
July 22, 2009, 02:56 PM
I thought REED was going to vote yes if he was sure it would fail? Or did he just promise to brirng it to the floor?

Nuke8401
July 22, 2009, 02:57 PM
My mistake I got my Reids mixed up. Harry did vote yes.

damien
July 22, 2009, 03:05 PM
My mistake I got my Reids mixed up. Harry did vote yes.

Easy mistake. You stopped my heart for a second, though.

Yosemite Sam
July 22, 2009, 03:39 PM
I thought Gillibrand (D-NY), from upstate New York, was pro-gun? Did someone pay her off to convert to anti?

JImbothefiveth
July 22, 2009, 03:47 PM
thought Gillibrand (D-NY), from upstate New York, was pro-gun? Did someone pay her off to convert to anti? No, it's a matter of politics. Most of N.Y. is anti-gun.

legaleagle_45
July 22, 2009, 05:15 PM
If it any consolation, the fact that 58 Senators voted in favor of this bill should put to rest any fears that Congress will be passing any "common sense gun contol legislation".

(That last bit was intended as sarcasm)

shotgunjoel
July 22, 2009, 05:33 PM
Hmm.... should I really be suprised that both Illinois senators shot this one down?

mbt2001
July 22, 2009, 05:35 PM
I am for a law that if you miss more than 3 votes in a session (or 4 days) you are fired. No, I don't care if they were in the hospital or if their Granny croaked. Either appoint someone who can vote for you or get the hell off the hill. This is serious business and if your granny takes precedence you should never have come.

bigfatdave
July 22, 2009, 06:02 PM
Hmm.... should I really be suprised that both Illinois senators shot this one down? I still don't understand why IL and WI didn't abstain, as the legislation didn't apply to them.

pharmer
July 22, 2009, 06:46 PM
The two that didn't vote were Byrd and Kennedy, surely no votes. Joe

altitude_19
July 22, 2009, 07:34 PM
Don't allow those who supported this bill to feel defeated! (assuming you supported it as well) Say thanks and ensure they will make the second attempt. I don't believe this is a "camel's nose" in the least. It just brings your carry permit up to level of respect your driver's license has. I can't recall a single instance where federal "faith and credit" enforcement over states has had negative repercussions (I could be wrong and would be interested to hear about it if I am).
AND ANOTHER THING: I can understand "states' rights" arguments. For those of you making "don't like it, move to a different state" arguments: You have OBVIOUSLY forgotten about our military. We rarely have a say in where we live. I have laid down enough for my country and can't move at the drop of a hat. Kindly stow that narrow-minded $&^@. :scrutiny:

zoom6zoom
July 22, 2009, 08:29 PM
I understand the states rights argument also, but why should my Constitutional rights end at the state line?

ThrottleJockey72
July 22, 2009, 08:30 PM
S 845 was not voted on, it's not dead, todays was just a vote to attach it to another bill. It is still alive and well as a freestanding bill of it's own!

ServiceSoon
July 22, 2009, 08:45 PM
Republicans, George Voinovich of Ohio and Dick Lugar of Indiana both voted no. If those two would have voted yes it would have hit 60 and passed.

You folks in Ohio and Indiana need to remember this come election time. But I wonder,
would it really have been a great idea to give the federal government a "way in"? Would this not have given them a tool to start restricting at a federal level the right to carry?Northern Indiana is mostly republican. We have been trying to get rid of Lugar for a long time, it's no use. He keeps running for reelection and wins. The dems don't even campaign in this area. Lugar is a moderate/centrist that we are stuck with until he retires. He does do some good in other areas.

ScotZ
July 22, 2009, 08:59 PM
I am very disapointed in my senators from Ohio. I just wrote both of them in to express my displeasure with their vote. Ohio usally is very "pro gun". I am very interested in their reply.

Hk91-762mm
July 22, 2009, 09:14 PM
I thought Gillibrand (D-NY), from upstate New York, was pro-gun? Did someone pay her off to convert to anti?


She is doing the schumer shuffle-!! Chuckie got to her and Mccarthy has promised to primary against her.
I called her office and e-mailed her 2 times she shafted us --She was supposed to be Pro Gun -!!
One more call to her office --to tell her Ill be voting against her -Even if its a gun banner running-[Im a dem so I can vote in primaries]

Lone_Gunman
July 22, 2009, 10:04 PM
I understand the states rights argument also, but why should my Constitutional rights end at the state line?


Your rights dont end, but your Constitutional protection should.

The Constitution was best when it was a restriction against federal intrusions only.

Blondie
July 22, 2009, 10:05 PM
Do the people from pro-gun areas think they can gain votes by voting no on this? Claire McCaskill is from Missouri, a very pro gun state. Does she understand that there are people that won't vote FOR her because she voted no; but there are many that will vote AGAINST her because she voted no.

The average pro-gun voter cares a lot about this issue; the average anti-gun voter is not as committed and can be persuaded to change who they vote for based on other issues.

Blonde

Wolfebyte
July 22, 2009, 10:36 PM
Ok.. so now I'm confused..

I understand that under the current law I'm covered with my Texas CCL going to another state that honors the Texas permit.. (basically I can drive through any of the lower SE 48 states) .. Did this create a prohibition?

The news articles are leading out with:

The 58-39 vote Wednesday defeated a measure giving people with concealed weapons permits the right to carry their firearms into other states that have similar gun laws. Sixty votes were needed to approve the provision, an amendment to a defense spending bill.

and from Fox:
WASHINGTON -- The Senate sided with gun control advocates Wednesday by rejecting a measure that would have allowed people with concealed weapons permits to carry those hidden weapons across state borders.


aren't they sensationalizing just a bit? if a neighboring state has reciprocity agreement with another isn't that still allowed?

Blondie
July 22, 2009, 11:16 PM
Wolf,

Your understanding is correct. The fact that the Senate did not pass the Thune Amendment does not change the state-to-state reciprocity already agreed to by the state gub'ments.

Your Texas permit is good except in Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, West Virginia, Washington, Oregon, Kali, Nevada . . . .

Blonde

steverjo
July 22, 2009, 11:50 PM
It seems to me that we should vote out as many of the no votes as possible and then reintroduce the bill at the earliest opportunity. Chances are it would pass with just a small change in the make up of senators.

What a surprise, both senators from California voted no. It is time we got rid of boxer/feinstein.

ThrottleJockey72
July 23, 2009, 12:16 AM
It seems to me that we should vote out as many of the no votes as possible and then reintroduce the bill at the earliest opportunity. Chances are it would pass with just a small change in the make up of senators.
S 845 is it's own bill. Todays vote was for S1618, another form of the same thing. S1618 was an attempt to attach it to the defense bill. As S845, it is alive and well. I believe S845 is scheduled for floor time in the next week. On the plus side, we know there are enough votes to get S845 through the senate, and if we can pick up 2 more votes it will be veto proof! And we should NEVER vote for an incumbent no matter how they voted.

COMPNOR
July 23, 2009, 12:29 AM
Considering that not even gun owners can agree on whether or not it is a good thing, if you're truly upset about your senator voted, take a chance and ask them.

More than likely it will be because of party lines, but maybe they've got valid reasons.

huntsman
July 23, 2009, 12:43 AM
Republicans, George Voinovich of Ohio and Dick Lugar of Indiana both voted no. If those two would have voted yes it would have hit 60 and passed.

You folks in Ohio and Indiana need to remember this come election time. But I wonder,
would it really have been a great idea to give the federal government a "way in"? Would this not have given them a tool to start restricting at a federal level the right to carry?
George V has already announced his retirement..

Wolfebyte
July 23, 2009, 08:11 AM
Blonde..

Thanks!!

Six
July 23, 2009, 09:05 AM
Passing this will come back to bite us.

First we have federal recognition of carry permits, then minimum standards, then issuance, then taxation...

Secondly, when assault weapon bans come up we yell loudly about states right, but now just because it happens to benefit us we take the opposite stance? :scrutiny:

We need to strike firearm laws, not make new ones.

A far better start would be to remove federal restrictions on carrying.

everallm
July 23, 2009, 09:18 AM
For all the Chicken Littles going on about "nose in the tent, States right, Federal evil..

You do remember a little thing called Heller, the only people currently bound by 2A ARE the Federals.

Lone_Gunman
July 23, 2009, 09:48 AM
You do remember a little thing called Heller, the only people currently bound by 2A ARE the Federals.

The Heller decision also stated that the Federal government had broad powers to regulate the 2A, they just cannot ban a commonly used class of weapons.

Certainly, there is nothing in Heller that would prohibit the Federal government from regulating concealed carry laws.

Heller really has no application here.

krs
July 23, 2009, 11:06 AM
leagleeagle45:"If it any consolation, the fact that 58 Senators voted in favor of this bill should put to rest any fears that Congress will be passing any "common sense gun contol legislation".

(That last bit was intended as sarcasm")


Sarcasm or no, I think that you're right. The simple fact that this came so close to passage won't be lost on those who are champing at their bits ready to introduce anti-gun legislation of several kinds including assorted returns to restriction of types of weapons.

This must have seemed to be a near catastrophe to the likes of Boxer and Feinstein who no doubt take great pride in their part of keeping California safe from gun crime. (Now THERE is some sarcasm for you :) )

Dave Workman
July 23, 2009, 01:27 PM
Seattle Gun Rights Examiner weighs in on Democrats' (particularly Feinstein, Schumer and Lautenberg!) hypocrisy in opposition to Thune Amendment.

All of a sudden, this bunch favors states' rights? :eek:

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d23-Wednesday-vote-proves-Democrats-disingenuous-hypocritical-on-gun-control

If that doesn't work, try this:

http://tinyurl.com/mmfvrg

CoRoMo
July 23, 2009, 01:31 PM
I don't expect much else from career politicians.
I think each and everyone of them are bought and paid for.

Z-Michigan
July 23, 2009, 01:41 PM
It goes both ways. Republicans have historically claimed to favor states' rights, and this bill arguably infringed on states' rights. Personally I would like the outcome of the Thune amendment but not how it gets there.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 23, 2009, 01:45 PM
The facts are:

1. It IS world-class hypocrisy for the gun-ban crowd to argue state's rights, given their history of continually trying to nationalize gun laws, but
2. They have a point - it does indeed violate state's right in my view, at least in theory, with the caveat that
3. The 2nd amendment is all that should be needed to carry a concealed or open weapon in all 50 states, so CCW laws are unconstitutional anyway, so #2 doesn't really matter - or at least it shouldn't matter. But #2 does matter until such time as the courts rule the 2nd amendment to mean what it says.

This is violative of state's rights to choose their requirements for carry - they one time these nincompoops are right, we need to say that they're right. Point out the hypocrisy, yes, but also admit that they're right.

I really don't care too much if it passes either way - it's a borderline call - but it IS violative (seems to me) of the 10th amendment.

Dave Workman
July 23, 2009, 01:51 PM
The goofiest part of the debate -- and I watched it all -- turned out to be when opponents started talking about gun runners taking advantage of state reciprocity to carry concealed semi-auto rifles from one state to another.

ROTFLMAO

At first, I thought it was possibly an innocent mistake from a politician who doesn't really know anything about guns. But about the second or third time somebody brought it up, it occurred to me (okay, I'm kind of slow on the uptake :rolleyes:) that this was a strategy.

So, I'm going to maybe hijack my own thread :banghead:

How many of you guys have ever tried to cover up a semi-auto rifle with some garment? (Hey, it's in the interest of education :D) because frankly, the "concealed rifle" argument is just plain ridiculous IMHO.

But I've been mistaken before. ;)

ServiceSoon
July 23, 2009, 01:59 PM
Sarcasm or no, I think that you're right. The simple fact that this came so close to passage won't be lost on those who are champing at their bits ready to introduce anti-gun legislation of several kinds including assorted returns to restriction of types of weapons.I agree. This is sort of a victory? considering the current administration.

jbrown50
July 23, 2009, 02:23 PM
The Heller decision also stated that the Federal government had broad powers to regulate the 2A, they just cannot ban a commonly used class of weapons.

Certainly, there is nothing in Heller that would prohibit the Federal government from regulating concealed carry laws.

Heller really has no application here.

Heller ruled against the District Of Columbia Government and the Federal Government. DC is a local government, not federal. It is overseen by Congress but it can pass it's own laws through quasi home rule as long as Congress doesn't object to the changes.

LemmyCaution
July 23, 2009, 03:30 PM
On the one hand I'm disappointed that residents of other states will not have the benefit of this reciprocity. Sorry guys.

On the other, I'm happy that Leahy and Sanders voted against it, as it offered no benefit for their constituents (we don't have any permitting at all to be reciprocal with other states), and could even have been a detriment in that the obvious end goal here is to unify handgun carry laws at the federal level, making federal law usurp VT's permit free system.

Who here believes that a federal handgun carry policy would resemble VT's more than NY's?

Superlite27
July 23, 2009, 04:03 PM
This completely flabbergasts me:

Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) votes "NO" on the Thune amendment......

...SHE'S FROM MISSOURI!!!!

Missouri already recognizes ALL STATES CCW PERMITS!

What does this accomplish other than to disbar we Missourians from carrying in other states? WOW! She shoots her own state's citizens in the foot. What was she trying to do?

rbernie
July 23, 2009, 04:05 PM
Who here believes that a federal handgun carry policy would resemble VT's more than NY's?
Who here believes that the amendment in question actually defined any CCW/CHL law? If you raised your hand - a virtual smack on the back of the head to ya, and a reminder that next time you need to do your homework. ;)

The amendment in question made NO NATIONAL CARRY POLICY. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

It merely stated that if you possessed a legal CCW license in your home state, you were free to travel to other states that issue CCW licenses and be governed by the laws of that host state, as would any other CCW license holder in that state. Each state was still free to enact and enforce their own regional and autonomous carry laws.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.371:

SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

`Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:

`(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.

`(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

`926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Lone_Gunman
July 23, 2009, 04:42 PM
It merely stated that if you possessed a legal CCW license in your home state, you were free to travel to other states that issue CCW licenses and be governed by the laws of that host state, as would any other CCW license holder in that state. Each state was still free to enact and enforce their own regional and autonomous carry laws.

And the federal government will be free to create additional laws to regulate the permits. If this is passed, how long will it take for someone to decide that interstate commerce is affected in some twisted way by this law?

You know the Supreme Court has ruled that growing your own wheat and consuming it on your own homestead affects interstate commerce. I don't think it is too far fetched to think that some lawmaker will manipulate the commerce clause here.

altitude_19
July 23, 2009, 05:33 PM
Passing this will come back to bite us.

First we have federal recognition of carry permits, then minimum standards, then issuance, then taxation...
SERIOUSLY?! Oh, yes. That's EXACTLY how it worked with driver's licenses (anybody pay a driver's license tax lately?). And TAXATION of a permit sanctioning a constitutional right????!!!! Oh, yes. I'm sure that will pass completely unopposed. ANYTHING even resembling a tax on carry permits has met with SEVERE backlash. That is paranoia and it is unfounded. SOMEBODY has to say it. I'm a stone's throw from saying "screw your states rights" (especially for those of you living lives small enough to exist exclusively in ONE state). States have had free license to dance on the constitution long enough. If "The Feds" are the only ones willing to sign off on sanctioning a constitutional right, I'm sorely tempted to switch sides.

DRYHUMOR
July 23, 2009, 05:44 PM
Different states have different requirements to CCW.

If they (states) were all the same; state rules/regs/checks/requirements AND all the states that had CCW had reciprosity, the bill would have most likely passed. There would have been no LOGICAL reason for it not to.

I know, logic...

altitude_19
July 23, 2009, 05:48 PM
States will NEVER have the same regs/requirements without federal intervention. But I don't recall all driver's license exams being identical either... Weird right?

toivo
July 23, 2009, 06:54 PM
To the best of my understanding, all this bill proposed was to make CCW reciprocity universal across the states, rather than the current patchwork system.

Six
July 23, 2009, 07:10 PM
SERIOUSLY?! Oh, yes. That's EXACTLY how it worked with driver's licenses (anybody pay a driver's license tax lately?).

There is no serious lobby that wants to ban all cars.

Zoogster
July 23, 2009, 08:27 PM
You know the Supreme Court has ruled that growing your own wheat and consuming it on your own homestead affects interstate commerce. I don't think it is too far fetched to think that some lawmaker will manipulate the commerce clause here.

Somewhat, but I think Raich as it applies in your example is a much more important example that set much larger precedent from a legal perspective.

The reason is because the guy (Filburn) that was growing wheat was receiving a federal subsidy like many farmers do. He was accepting federal money for that very crop (wheat). So even though it was a specific portion of that crop he declared was only for himself and his cattle, it is overall quite different. Only a court with an agenda would declare that was the same as the Raich situation to arrive at thier desired conclusion in Riach, where someone not growing anything for sale, and with no federal subsidy or contracts was no different than Filburn.

Just as schools which accept federal money are subject to a federaly approved curriculum. Filburn and many other farmers agreed to a contract previously to only produce a certain amount of wheat with the federal government to artificialy keep wheat prices about 3x higher than in the rest of the world by intentionaly keeping supply low.
The deal insured they could make a good living growing wheat because customers would be forced to pay 3x more for thier main food staple ($1.16 a bushel vs 40 cents a bushel), but required them to adhere to the limited supply.
Filburn was breaking his contract with the government by producing more.

The Gonzales v. Raich case on the other hand essentialy declared absolute power to regulate anything, even if never intended to enter commerce, with no government funding or a subsidy involved, and with no products or resources ever crossing a state line.

Totaly different. So citing Raich would be more accurate than Filburn.

Yes after Raich the federal government can regulate anything and everything, regardless if it has anything to do with commerce, simply by declaring the same logic as existed in Raich. From guns (as already done in United States v. Stewart) to just about any federal law or restriction they decide to come up with. Under Raich there is no state's rights.

rbernie
July 23, 2009, 08:32 PM
Either way - I have not seen a cogent argument yet on how the Thune bill could morph into a nationwide CCW licensing scheme.

Lone_Gunman
July 23, 2009, 08:54 PM
A smart man once said we should not view a law based on its affects when administered properly. We should view it based on its effects when administered improperly.

The federal government will try to expand its power and control at every turn.

We won't be happy long term with what happens after this amendment.

ThrottleJockey72
July 23, 2009, 09:10 PM
Who here believes that the amendment in question actually defined any CCW/CHL law? If you raised your hand - a virtual smack on the back of the head to ya, and a reminder that next time you need to do your homework.

The amendment in question made NO NATIONAL CARRY POLICY. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

It merely stated that if you possessed a legal CCW license in your home state, you were free to travel to other states that issue CCW licenses and be governed by the laws of that host state, as would any other CCW license holder in that state. Each state was still free to enact and enforce their own regional and autonomous carry laws.

Thank you!!! I've posted so many times on so many threads trying to tell people this, I've posted the bill (S845) and the amendment (S1618) repeatedly, and either no one read it, or they just don't comprehend the simplicity of it! Thank you public schools. Most people can't even figure out that they are 2 separate things and actually believe that the bill is dead due to the fact that the amendment didn't pass under the specially agreed upon terms. I for one see this as a rallying point, now we know the bill has enough votes to pass, and if we can pick up 2 more votes it will be veto proof.

HOME DEPOT GEORGE
July 23, 2009, 09:12 PM
Like I said in one of my previous posts if this did pass the anti states that would have to honor this would make it such a hassle I myself would be scared to carry there anyway. Heres an example say you were driving down RT35 in Woodbridge NJ and were carrying and got pulled over in front of the local high school that as far as I remember the campus crosses the road with the school being on one side and some other buildings on the other. Knowing the local cops like I do in that area chances are you would be arrested for carrying too close or on school property. Sure you cuold probably beat it in court with a good lawyer but at this point in my life I can barely afford the ammo for my CCW.

Six
July 23, 2009, 09:18 PM
rbernie, IMHO it's more important to ask:
Is there a cogent argument on how the Thune bill can not possibly morph into a nationwide CCW licensing scheme?

MutinousDoug
July 23, 2009, 09:34 PM
Do not let the apparent closeness of the Senate vote fool you. The two senators from Colorado waited until failure of the amendment was assured before voting FOR the amendment so they could ride the 2nd amendment side of the issue when faced with their real agenda.
Both CHAMPIONS of the Bill of Rights!!! Gag!

cbrgator
July 23, 2009, 09:36 PM
rbernie, IMHO it's more important to ask:
Is there a cogent argument on how the Thune bill can not possibly morph into a nationwide CCW licensing scheme?
Have driver's licenses and marriage licenses morphed into nationwide licensing schemes?

MutinousDoug
July 23, 2009, 10:50 PM
Oooh!
We might ask if the SSN (issued (FREE) to each and every US citizen as an identification number between you and the IRS for the purpose of paying SS taxes) has morphed into an identification number for ALL gov't purposes?
Despite the original statute preventing the legal use of the SSN for any other identification purpose?:scrutiny:

rbernie
July 23, 2009, 11:10 PM
Ok - I'll play along. How has a DL, ML, or SSN - however morphed by the eeeevil .gov into a form not envisioned by its initial bill - actually altered how a state administers the DL, ML, or SSN?

It hasn't.

At all.

Last I checked, for example, each state still has complete autonomy over their drivers licensing process and rules.

Six
July 23, 2009, 11:17 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/us/16identify.html

Edit:
More direct link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act

But again, the comparison to other licenses is very flawed.

No one wants to ban cars or stop issuing drivers licenses to stop drunk drivers.
No one wants to ban marriage or stop issuing marriage licenses to end spousal abuse.

Plenty of people want to ban guns and end carry permits to stop violence...

ThrottleJockey72
July 24, 2009, 12:03 AM
Oooh!
We might ask if the SSN (issued (FREE) to each and every US citizen as an identification number between you and the IRS for the purpose of paying SS taxes) has morphed into an identification number for ALL gov't purposes?
Despite the original statute preventing the legal use of the SSN for any other identification purpose?
Yes, this SSN thing really ticks me off. I wish I had enough money to sue everyone that refuses me services if I won't give it to them. And since the IRS isn't part of the US government I don't see how they are even entitled to it. Heck the IRS isn't even a legal or constitutional entity.

Lone_Gunman
July 24, 2009, 01:06 AM
Last I checked, for example, each state still has complete autonomy over their drivers licensing process and rules.

I do not think that is correct. There is a federal computer data base that you get run through when you apply for a driver license, I think it is called the Problem Driver Point System. If you have had your license revoked in a state, then you can't get a DL in another state if you are flagged by this systerm. A state is not compelled to use this system, but if they don't, they lose federal highway money.

So it is not really fair to say a state has complete autonomy. A state could have autonomy, if it chose to lose its federal money. I do not think any states want that.

Could scenarios be created whereby the govt would threaten to cut off funding if a state did not comply with some CCW regulation?

LemmyCaution
July 24, 2009, 05:17 AM
Last I checked, for example, each state still has complete autonomy over their drivers licensing process and rules.

Absolutely. But none of the states currently say 'you can only drive a Prius, and we're only going to give drivers' licences to rich and/or politically well connected citizens.' If NY, NJ, MA & CA were as restrictive of their DLs as they were their firearms licenses and were forced into reciprocity, you'd see much clamoring for a federal standard, so these states wouldn't have to admit undesirables from other states.

Let's take an extreme example of reciprocity- I walk over to NY state with 'a ratchet in my waist' and Barney Fife says 'OK, Lemmy, let's see your permit to carry that thing in your pants.'
I say 'Afternoon, slick, I'm from over there in VT. My face is my permit, and since there's reciprocity now on the books, thanks to Sen. Thune, I guess I'll just be on my way now.'

The first thing that's going to happen is I'm going to jail. The next thing that's going to happen is that some genius is going to say 'Hey, we have neighboring states with permitting regimes so wildly divergent that reciprocity between them is entirely untenable to the more restrictive state. We need a unified set of criteria based on minimum reasonable standards so that we don't have these interstate conflicts. Sort of like how driver's licensing schemes are all basically about the same, especially since Real ID. Maybe there should be some federal guidelines on this, since interstate stuff is congress' bailiwick. Of course VT will have to give up some their freedom, but it was no big deal when we made them start putting photos on their driver's licences, so this shouldn't be a big deal, either.'

No thanks, Jack. You can keep whatever you're smoking to yourself.

Prince Yamato
July 24, 2009, 05:33 AM
I can't believe people are shouting down this bill! The people from VT wouldn't lose their right to carry. They'd simply show proof that they're from VT (like a driver's license) and voila, they can carry in 48 other states OR they could just get an out of state permit, problem solved. Oh, but we can't have that hassle. Instead of giving the rest of the country the right to carry in NYC, we have the conspiracy nuts getting on their high horse about how the government is going to start a national licensing scheme- they're not. They don't have the money to do it, they don't have the political capital to do it, and they don't have the support of the people to do it. Look folks, I hate the current administration, but I'm getting sick of the fact that if a Democrat so much as farts in congress that the same bunch of people jump up and down screaming, "it's one more step towards world government!"

Here we have a bill which would benefit most of the country but some people have their heads so far in the clouds, they can't see the bigger picture. This bill opens up the rest of the country to CCW and puts the antis on a MAJOR defensive.

LemmyCaution
July 24, 2009, 05:34 AM
The amendment in question made NO NATIONAL CARRY POLICY. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Which is sort of like saying 'Just because I dug a big hole, laid some forms, poured some concrete, and happen to have a big pile of lumber lying here, doesn't mean I'm going to build a building. This here is just a foundation.'

Getting FedGov involved a little bit means getting FedGov involved all the way. You let them get a foot in the door and, before you can say 'boo,' they're sitting on your couch, drinking your beer and diddling your sister.

LemmyCaution
July 24, 2009, 06:28 AM
If you somehow believe that if the Thune amendment passed and NY was going to have to accept concealed carry by all Vermont citizens, meaning practically anybody who can fog a knife, and that New York was just going to say 'Oh, well, win some, lose some,' you are clearly the one with your head in the clouds.

Had the Thune amendment passed, you would see gun control on the front burner, ahead of the economy, health care, GWOT, whatever. And the best we could hope for are federal concealed carry laws that are as crappy and draconian as Texas'. You may think that Texas' laws are reasonable and not such a big deal (I mean, FTLOG, you live in Texas. How good can your judgement be?:) ). I don't.

Again, No Thanks.

I'm not interested in giving up any of my freedom, just so you can get back a little of the freedom you shouldn't have given up in the first place.

Faitmaker
July 24, 2009, 07:32 AM
I'm frankly proud of Ohio. They stood up for the 10th Amendment. They did not sit down on the 2nd. This bill would have been unconstitutional to State Power and I can't understand why anybody else can't see that.

I guess the want to have national reciprocity overwhelms your desire to keep the Constitution. Here's your 30 pieces.

Faitmaker
July 24, 2009, 07:36 AM
Here we have a bill which would benefit most of the country but some people have their heads so far in the clouds, they can't see the bigger picture. This bill opens up the rest of the country to CCW and puts the antis on a MAJOR defensive.

Here you have a bill that *may* benefit the rest of the country but tells states that they do not have the right to choose who carries concealed and who doesn't. It is you who cannot see the bigger picture. If NY wants to be strict on their laws and NH doesn't, why should NH get to enter NY concealed "not having passed the same requirements NY residents are subject to". Sure they have to obey the same laws, but not have the same training in the first place.

I don't agree with many of the state requirements, but it's not up to the Feds to tell the states where they can stick it just so you can have a nationwide CCW. That compromise is not worth what you would be losing.

jbrown50
July 24, 2009, 08:28 AM
Here you have a bill that *may* benefit the rest of the country but tells states that they do not have the right to choose who carries concealed and who doesn't. It is you who cannot see the bigger picture. If NY wants to be strict on their laws and NH doesn't, why should NH get to enter NY concealed "not having passed the same requirements NY residents are subject to". Sure they have to obey the same laws, but not have the same training in the first place.

I don't agree with many of the state requirements, but it's not up to the Feds to tell the states where they can stick it just so you can have a nationwide CCW. That compromise is not worth what you would be losing.

I disagree.

All 50 states will never completely agree to follow the same standard on anything let alone firearms training. That's a pipe dream. Even police firearms training standards vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. What difference does it make as long as a permit holder follows the rules and regulations of the state that he or she is carrying in? If an otherwise law abiding citizen does something bad with a gun he/she will be punished for it. This is why the majority of law abiding citizens with permits commit very few infractions. They have a lot more to lose, ie; home, job, family, social status, freedom, than the street punk, gang banger or even most cops who aren't held completely responsible and accountable for their actions. It's a powerful incentive for the law abiding citizen to get more training even informally, and that's how most training is achieved.

I agree that there is some risk with the feds getting involved even just a little bit but that's with anything and this bill, written the way it's written, is very low risk.

I disagree though with all of this fear mongering that's coming from some of the so called pro-gun people.

chuckusaret
July 24, 2009, 09:04 AM
It falls under "Home Rule" and each state should be able to rule their state as they see fit. I also believe you can do as you please in your state but when you cross the boarder into my state you must abide by my state laws. I don't want to see the Federal government involved in any state gun laws. I believe more states should also take Montana and Florida's lead on products made in our states and that remain in the state should not have to meet the interstate commerce laws.

LemmyCaution
July 24, 2009, 09:04 AM
I disagree though with all of this fear mongering that's coming from some of the so called pro-gun people.

I'll take this particularly baseless ad hominem slur to be directed at me. Yeah, I must be a real Anti, since I disagree with you. And obviously, you hold the keys to the RKBA clubhouse and decide who gets in and who doesn't. I'll leave my particularly unTHR response to that to your imagination.

None of this would be an issue if the state you (and by 'you' I mean residents of all the other states that require permission from the government to carry firearms, collectively) live in had gun laws like the state I live in. Why don't you work on changing your states' FUBAR gun laws, instead of getting the nanny state involved, with all the unintended consequences that inevitably involves?

As I said earlier, the amendment offered no benefit to me and serious risk. I'm glad it failed. Wish you could muster more political will at home for carry without permits.

rbernie
July 24, 2009, 09:27 AM
I guess the want to have national reciprocity overwhelms your desire to keep the Constitution. Here's your 30 pieces.Look, I'm all for states rights. I'm argued against national carry legislation in the past, when it looked clear that the scheme under discussion would remove state autonomy. But depite all the empassioned 'get real' comments, I still have not seen a credible means by which this particular bill gets the Fed .gov into the licensing business.

And so I don't think ill of this effort.

I'm willing to learn. Somebody show how this goes from national reciprocity (with the states setting their local laws and out-of-state CCW license holders being held accountable to those laws) to national licensing, and I'm there.

But nobody has, and frankly (given all the hyperbole and bluster I've seen so far) I don't think that anybody here will.

jbrown50
July 24, 2009, 10:20 AM
I'll take this particularly baseless ad hominem slur to be directed at me. Yeah, I must be a real Anti, since I disagree with you. And obviously, you hold the keys to the RKBA clubhouse and decide who gets in and who doesn't. I'll leave my particularly unTHR response to that to your imagination.

None of this would be an issue if the state you (and by 'you' I mean residents of all the other states that require permission from the government to carry firearms, collectively) live in had gun laws like the state I live in. Why don't you work on changing your states' FUBAR gun laws, instead of getting the nanny state involved, with all the unintended consequences that inevitably involves?

As I said earlier, the amendment offered no benefit to me and serious risk. I'm glad it failed. Wish you could muster more political will at home for carry without permits.


Both Shumer & Feinstein thank you very much for supporting their effort. Remain allied with them and they'll repay you soon;).

LemmyCaution
July 24, 2009, 10:33 AM
Question: is there a federal law setting the legal drinking age at 21?

Question: why is the drinking age 21 in every state?

If you know the answers to both of these questions, you know the answer to the following question: how does FedGov mandate uniform CCW policy throughout the US without writing the law itself or spending a single penny?

VT was the last state to change the drinking age from 18 to 21, and only did so when FedGov withheld our highway funding (you know- didn't give back the taxes we paid them...). Those who fail to learn the lessons of history blah blah blah...

Doubtless we'll also be the last state to require cavity searches as a prerequisite to a CCW permit, once the FedGov gets involved.

ZombiesAhead
July 24, 2009, 11:03 AM
Please read this article before celebrating over how much support this _seemed_ to get.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d23-The-sham-vote-on-national-concealed-carry-Thune-Amendment


Laudable though Thune’s goal of national concealed carry may be, however, understand that the entire exercise was nothing but a sham in which (surprise, surprise) the amendment failed by a vote of 58 – 39. So before gun rights supporters contact the 39 ever-so-brave US Senators (including 20 Democrats) to thank them for supporting the measure, all should understand that its failure was preordained by Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and quite probably sanctioned by the NRA.

(Side note: Sixty votes – for “cloture” – were required for passage rather than the usual 51 due to a threatened filibuster by perennially anti-gun Sen. Charles Schumer. In the gentile land of the US Senate, threats routinely substitute for real action.)

Despite hand-wringing by The Washington Post that “Democrats Fear Defections on GOP Gun Proposal,” rest assured that Harry Reid almost certainly engineered every Democrat vote for or against the measure.

rbernie
July 24, 2009, 11:38 AM
Question: is there a federal law setting the legal drinking age at 21?

Question: why is the drinking age 21 in every state?

If you know the answers to both of these questions, you know the answer to the following question: how does FedGov mandate uniform CCW policy throughout the US without writing the law itself or spending a single penny?
So how does the proposed bill interact with that notion, at all? How can it be that the Thune bill opens that door, and that door is closed without the Thune bill?

You keep throwing out these vague scenarios, but you never actually draw direct lines from point A to point B.

In the absence of that, I am forced to conclude that there is no correlation - only fear mongering.

Art Eatman
July 24, 2009, 11:54 AM
This has degenerated more into politics than law, and the insults in the posts are way beyond "tolerable". Too much Low Road.

Toast.

esquare
July 24, 2009, 11:54 AM
Maybe I missed it in this thread, but how on earth is this NOT a federal issue. Everyone is crying about states rights, but regulation of the bearing of arms is not a state issue, it's a right (supposedly) guaranteed in the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, and therefore the federal government has the obligation of upholding that right.

Yeah, I know, 2nd isn't incorporated, blah, blah, blah. Well, I'm pretty sure if anyone reads the writings of the founding fathers, it's pretty clear that they would have thought that the BoR was intended to apply to all citizens and restrict all levels of government (otherwise, what's the point?). In fact, some of the more naive founding fathers didn't even want the BoR because they argued that it's not necessary because the government wouldn't ever try to restrict them. I'm pretty sure that if they were around today, there would be a lot more than 10 amendments in the BoR. :-)

Few people would argue that federal laws protecting the 1st amendment rights are unconstitutional because they restrict the states' ability to infringe on those rights. For once, we had a proposal for the federal government to help protect our rights, instead of restricting them, and a lot of people frown on it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Has the Thune amendment been voted on yet?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!