The first hurdle is that the House operates on a simple majority, but the Senate requires a three-fifths majority to overcome a filibuster.
The second hurdle is that two-thirds majorities are required in both the House and Senate to overcome a potential Presidential veto.
Thank you for the informative and factual post.
I'm not intending to be argumentative, but,... I go back to...If we have roughly 10 anti States and roughly 40 neutral to pro 2A States, in theory we should have more than 3/5th's & 2/3rd's needed if we can get more of the neutral states to support us.
Tommy Lasorda said something like - All of the teams lose a third of their games and all of the teams win a third of their games. Its the other third that makes the difference.
So we need to target the neutral and, probably to a lessor degree, the pro states.
Republicans took control of the Senate in 2014
Today to get something passed without any support from the opposing party you need a simple majority in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and the Presidency. That is for pure partisan votes. If you can craft a bill that people in both parties will support than it gets much easier.
However, to do that you have to:
A. Give your representatives permission to talk to members of the other side
B. Realize that you won't get everything you want. Compromise will be involved.
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
In regards to the # of votes needed, please see my reply above.
I agree about drafting a Bill both sides can to agree on (should) makes it easier.
My thought though is that may be part of the problem for it not passing. Kind of splitting hairs, we need to draft a Bill that our side can support and that enough of the neutral states can support to over power the anti's.
danez71,
First of all I did read over the National Carry bills links that were posted.
Second the Federal Government has no authority to regulate conceal carry in the States.
I suggest that while your cause is noble you are politically naive.
Laws are enacted either as a stand alone bills or as amendments (riders) on other bills. Stand alone Bills are easier to understand and to voice your opinion over.
It is common to attach unpopular things, for example pay raises and perks for Members of Congress, to larger Bills that are hard to oppose such as Defense Spending or the current spending bill fight. These riders are the result of compromises to get support, often added at the 11th hour with no discussion or debate and buried so deep in the massive bill it may not be discovered until three months after it was passed.
So my point is this. A National Carry Bill is passed. Later political power in Washington shifts and the anti 2A's know that that a stand alone gun control bill will not pass. However many MOC are coming up for reelection so they want to pass a big spending bill to bring some pork barrel projects to their Districts and improve their popularity. To achieve that they agree not to oppose a amendment (rider) on the Bill for closing a "loophole" in the original carry law.
Sound familiar?
In regards to Sam1911 point that a negative action must follow the first just take a look at the EPA. It passed because everyone wants safe drinking water. Look at what it has envolved into. It didn't happen overnight but it has happened.
You can suggest that I'm politically naïve but since you didn't post anything I don't already know, I would suggest you are, at minimum, no more politically savvy than I.
When the EPA was created, it specifically delegated power.
If you've read and understood ALL of the proposals link by Frank, you may understand that these bills don't do that.
Its a completely non-applicable analogy.
As Sam pointed out and alluded to, and I'll paraphrase, the courts rulings on the 9th and 10th suggest they do have the authority
If you're not actively working to get those decision reversed, then you should be actively working to use those ruling to your advantage.
I'll repeat, if the fear of the Govt taking away more of your rights is so paralyzing to you that you choose to not to fight for your rights, you are already defeated.
But the National Right to Carry Law would be essentially useless for Vermont residents because they would not be able to carry in any other state that requires permits...
.
If you take the time to read them....
One of the bills covered that specifically (I believe that was in the 35 page pdf bill). Basically it says for if your states issue permits then you have to have one to be honored in the other states. If your state doesn't require permits to be issued, the other states still have to honor your right to carry.
It will if said Federal carry permit law says no open carry and/or required 1000 hours of training.
It's the Supremacy Clause. Federal law trumps state law every time. So if your state already has a gun law that is less restrictive than whatever new Federal law comes out, your state law is essentially voided.
Alaska is in the same position. We allow OC and CC with no permitting process of any kind. I doubt that is going to pass any Congressional committee or open floor debate.
Alaskan, I appreciate your meaningful post about the 10th.
But this post is baseless because, as its been pointed out a few times now, the bills proposed are NOT for a National Permit, they've been for National Reciprocity.
That's a big.. huge!... difference.
If such a bill were to be introduced for a national permit... I'd likely be very against it too. But that's not the case in any of the bills introduced linked since 2007.
Perhaps this entire thread should be moved to the "activism" forum so that it can be discussed in its proper context of a legislative proposal weighed against Constitution intent, as the Legal forum is restricted to established and settled case law where posts based on Constututional theory of intent are not permitted to remain.
I thought the same thing and posted as such in post# 8 back when the thread was originally posted in the General section.
I also think this should be moved to the "Activism" section which has been terribly slow recently.
Fellow members, I'm not saying that I'm the world best constitutional lawyer or that I'm the smartest guy/gal here.
But the the overwhelming number of posts in argument against are.... well let me quote the wise Sam1911:
If the subject here was "establishing federal mandatory standards for carrying a gun" I'd be completely in agreement, but seeing as no such thing has been proposed, the loudest shouted opposition is simply baffling.
I wouldn't doubt that some here such as Frank and Sam1911 can really educate me why this might not be do-able.
But so far, I'm only astounded by the number of people here that claim they want their gun rights back but are too afraid of might happen as suggested by no one in govt.
The fear is so paralyzing to some that they apparently would rather give up.
Thank goodness that wasn't the overwhelming case in the 1700/1800/1900's otherwise this might not be the USA, slaves would still be around, and your wives and daughters would not be able to own property or vote.
Now... I need to go do some yard work.
