Has the Thune amendment been voted on yet?

[rbernie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Please read this article before celebrating over how much support this _seemed_ to get.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Char...e-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]

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]

This has degenerated more into politics than law, and the insults in the posts are way beyond "tolerable". Too much Low Road.

Toast.

 

[esquare]

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.