DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on March 23, 2012, 05:59:52 PM
-
All those CKL holders, just itching to kill someone. They may be surrounding his home, as we speak
--------------------------------------------------------------
Will the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Pass in Senate
It's been months in the works, but this week, GOP Louisiana Sen. David Vitter and South Dakota Sen. John Thune introduced concealed carry reciprocity legislation in the U.S Senate. The bill would allow gun owners to carry their guns in states that permit concealed carry, regardless of whether those states require a permit or not, provided the gunholder honors the carry laws of the state he's traveling through. One of the main goals was to allow states to move forward in a direction that permitted concealed carry without permits, should the state so choose.
The bill, called Respecting States’ Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, is substantively identical to language the GOP produced in 2009 and which received 58 of the 60 votes needed for passage.
(IIRC Obamacare didn't even get that many, and somehow passed)
This time around, there are some additional factors that could help this bill make it out of the Senate. For one, the Republican caucus in the Senate simply has more members than it did in 2009. In fact, there are more senators signed on at the bill's introduction than last time--27 to 22, although by the time the language reached the floor as an amendment in 2009, it had 28 cosponsors. Plus, it's an election year, and concealed carry is typically a more bipartisan issue and one that constituents from certain states with Democratic senators would likely be in favor of.
There was also hope that the two parties could put forward a joint concealed carry bill. The Democrats, however, wanted a national standard for concealed carry. In addition, the GOP wanted to allow states to have constitutional carry (concealed carry without issuing a permit). Eventually, the groups decided to go ahead with the language each one preferred, with the Democrats introducing the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012 earlier this month.
Two of the four Democrats who have signed on to that bill, however, voted for the Thune-Vitter language in 2009 (the others weren't yet in the Senate), so it's more likely they would feel comfortable voting for the GOP bill this time around as opposed to more conservative GOP senators agreeing to a national standard.
It's unclear which way the GOP's current language on concealed carry may eventually be voted on; for example, it could be attached as an amendment to another piece of legislation. If so, whatever bill the concealed carry language is attached to could help determine passage.
So far, there hasn't really been any communication with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office on the bill (though he voted for it in 2009), but several members of the GOP's Senate leadership are on board; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is a co-sponsor, as is Republican Policy Chairman Sen. John Barrasso. Thune is also a member of leadership through his role as conference chair.
Damn Constitution (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/elisabethmeinecke/2012/03/23/good_chance_concealed_carry_reciprocity_bill_passes_senate)
-
A totally dumb idea.
-
Damn Constitution and Rule of Law. And double damn those pesky facts that demonstrate lower violent crime in those areas with more permissive gun laws and CCW's
-
Bullshit and you know it.
-
Yea, I realize that's how the left sees the Constitution. Its kinda of a given, so yea, I know that
-
It's not in the Constitution that gun permits have to be effective outside of the jurisdiction where they were issued. That is (a) bullshit and you know it or (b) you are just dumber than mud.
-
It's looking to be the law. But yea, I know how the Constitution to the left is considered BS. I think we've already been over that though. Nice of you to still be unable to refute the facts of stats that demonstrate the lower crime rates in more permissve gun law regions vs the higher crime rates in the far more stricter gun law regions. Just hang onto that 3rd grade potty badmouthing of yours. It's what you apparently do best
-
the simple fact that there are more restrictive or less restrictive gun control states upon which you base your crime analysis, shows that the Constitution left it up to the states to decide how they wanted to handle the gun issue. I'm not sure reciprocity for CCW is a foregone conclusion less we find that reciprocity is writ in stone, thus setting precedent for state based statutes including recognition of gay marriage.
-
Yes and no......the Constitution is clear, as it relates to the rights of owning/having a firearm. What the CCW recipricity issue, as I seem to read it, is the Fed indicating that it'd be legal for 1 state's jurisidiction, to carry over into another. So, from that standpoint, I don't see how this is "being left up to the states"
The facts are clear, as it relates to the ratio of violent crime to less/more restrictive gun laws. I don't see this legislation as trying to facilitate the (+) of such stats, near as much as trying to be consistent with the rights of gun owners. Especially those who have gone thru the rigorous process of obtaining their CCW. Those folks are generally far more responsible and safety conscious with firearms than those who aren't
-
What this legislation does is grow the power of the feds at the expense of the states.
I don't think the legislation is well thought out. Reminds me of the uniform requirements for Drivers Licenses which is a trojan horse for a national ID.
-
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, since the 2nd amendment isn't a states issue, and the legislation posed isn't limiting what the individual is allowed to do, its limiting what the government can do
-
CCW is a state licensing issue. I have never heard of a federal CCW, have you?
-
CCW is simply a term. It's not specific to State or Federal, and the legislation posed isn't limiting what the individual is allowed to do, its limiting what the government can do. That's how it should work vs legislation in expanding what the Government can do...ie Obamination care
-
Concealed Carry Permits are issued by the state. I don't see where the second even comes into play on this reciprocity scheme of yours. What the federalization of ccw means is the fed will get their hands on setting minimum standards. I am surprised you advocate a larger federal bureacracy.
-
CCW's are a term. The fact states issues them doesn't make it a states-only possession. Otherwise, that's what youd see...person A is a CA CCW...person B is a RI CCW. Both persons are simply CCW holders. And the legislation posed isn't limiting what the individual is allowed to do, its limiting what the government can do. That's how it's supposed to work vs legislation in expanding what the Government can do.
Nice use of the word "scheme" though. Let's make support of this nefarious now ::)
-
CCW's are a term. The fact states issues them doesn't make it a states-only possession. Otherwise, that's what youd see...person A is a CA CCW...person B is a RI CCW. Both persons are simply CCW holders. And the legislation posed isn't limiting what the individual is allowed to do, its limiting what the government can do. That's how it's supposed to work vs legislation in expanding what the Government can do.
Nice use of the word "scheme" though. Let's make support of this nefarious now ::)
So does your CCW Permit say California or does it say US Government.
-
It says CCW, issued by the state of CA, since it was thru the state in which I received it. It still isn't called a CA CCW. It's simply called a CCW. IIRC, the legisiation being proposed would NOT affect existing state laws. State laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would still apply within each state’s borders. This law merely allows CCW holders greater freedom in exercising their rights, in traveling from state to state.
Nor does it expand Government, it actually limits it. I bet if I checked the NRA, one of the staunchest Constitution defenders there is, I'm guessing they'd be good with it. Not to mention most Conservatives who are also pro-limiting government. I bet I can also guess which folks would be against it. I bet it would be the same folks that salivate at the idea of an ever expanding government
-
So it is a state permit and you are seeking a national permit. That is kind of like Romney Care morphing into ObamaCare.
I'm not sure that i agree with your logic that this does not increase the reach of the federal government.
-
This is like nothing of the sort. There is no added layer of Government bureacracy. You're not applying for a new Federal CCW. There is no new agency. You're simply legally allowed to cross state lines with your current CCW.
The logic you're following is the one that is put off by the idea of increased freedoms and limited government
Or is the NRA and Conservatives now the new socialists? :o
-
How is the Permit certified to be valid without a national database?
-
The CCW is valid, based on the state it was issued in. That's all that's needed. The law merely allows reciprocity to other states. No database, no expansion of Government, no nefiarious scheme
But please, by all means, check out Senate Bill 2213, and educate us on this new supposed Agency & Bureacracy, complete with new a Federal Database, you claim is in it
-
Can you think of any reason the International Association of Police Chiefs would be against this?
Is it because the various states have different levels of requirements for the permit to be issued, and in effect what this federal law does is strip the sovereignty of the individual states to set their own thresholds by being forced to recognize the lowest common denominator of requirements.
-
Why a UNION would be against it? I could think of quite a few, but that'd be a tangential thread, best suited for another topic, considering those who support it include the NRA and conservatives (the folks who support limited government) across the country. You pick a Union to argue against it. I'm shocked I tells yas, shocked 8)
So....no demonstration of this nefarious egregious federal grab with new Agencies, Bureacracies, and Database, you clearly imply must be is in it??
One last time......the legisiation being proposed would NOT affect existing state laws. State laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would still apply within each state’s borders. This law merely allows CCW holders greater freedom in exercising their rights, in traveling from state to state. No more, no less.....no expansion of government, no new federal CCW to have to aquire, no new database
Unless of course, you can demonstrate otherwise
-
The International Association of Police Chiefs is not a union, it is the world's oldest and largest nonprofit membership organization of police executives. They are a union like the Lion's Club is a union. Perhaps you could check with your police buddies and see how they feel about interfacing with less qualified CCW permit holders.
-
So, no examples. Gotcha
Look, I understand the point you're trying to use. Let's say some state says you only have to be 18 to get a CCW. A state like CA would have to recognize that. Yea, I get that. So focus on that legitimate point, vs the irrational accusations of "scheme" and the supposed supporting Federal expansion, when you can't seem to demonstrate any such examples within said legisation
The problem is again, you're fighting statistics. CCW holders, EVEN in states with fairly permissive CCW requirements, demonstrates folks who are largely FAR more responsible than the typical gun owner. They generally demonstrate for more desire in not just safely handing a firearm, but with the goal of educating others in gun safety. NOT everyone, but close to. Outside of Zimmerman, what other CCW holder was found to be wrecklessly or irresponsibly using their firearm?? In the last year?? The last decade?? I'm sure the MSM is got to be keeping a record of all of those folks
So, in general, a CCW holder is someone I'd FAR more trust in handing a gun, than joe smith across the street, or even an angry, bitter fomer military soldier. And since its generally the bad guy who doesn't want to be shot, if there are more CCW holders, those bad guys are going to think twice. That's just common sense. But the statistics demonstrate that corelation, where you find far more violent crime in regions where the bad guys have a better notion that their prey is less likely to be armed
-
And where did you get that the International Association of Chiefs of Police was a union.
This is what will happen. The Senate will pass the Democrat compromise National Right to Carry Bill the house will accept the conditions and before you know a tight gun control state will sue the feds for meddling with their sovereignty. And because now there is a problem, the fed will step in and create a national database or data sharing system so that the folks in SC can check the status of a permit issued in Oregon.
I mean that is what happens with Drivers Licenses.
So in the end the fed gains power and the states lose sovereignty.
You notice nothing in the bill explicitly forbids federal regulations in the enforcement of the bill.
-
Will this be more difficult to reconcile than diffrent state requirements for Drivers Lisence?
-
It could. The drivers License question doesn't have a constitutional amendment to deal with.
-
How much availibility is mandated by the second admendment?
Do the special federal requirements on sound supressors , automatic wepons and explosives infringe my right to bear arms a little?
-
I have no idea concerning current gun law, don't own one. Just know , that when given the opportunity the fed always enhances its power.
-
I think this has to take into account the purpose the llaw serves.
If the purpose of the second admendment is to ensure that the government can be overthrown by the people , then we should have tanks and artillery.
Since I can't afford a tank, perhaps it would be better to limit the arms that the government may have at its disposal.
-
I guess but then one of the legitimate federal powers is to provide for the common defense. Whether it trumps the second i don't know.
-
"I have never heard of a federal CCW, have you?"
FBI? ATF? Secret Service/Treasury? Etc.
In the early 80s I worked for the Dept of Defense. I had a DOD permit to carry because I worked in proximity of plates used to print US curency. That was a federal permit to carry I believe.
BSB
-
Job related permits are logical for federal workers.
I fail to see why they should be given to civilian and gun "hobbyists".
-
You notice nothing in the bill explicitly forbids federal regulations in the enforcement of the bill.
As you have yet to produce anything to the contrary, ouside of speculation, you'll notice nothing in the bill produces any new federal regulations, or dept, or database, or means of enforcement. The CCW itself IS the valid status
-
you'll notice nothing in the bill produces any new federal regulations, or dept, or database, or means of enforcement.
And you will notice that nothing in the bill explicitly forbids it.
Or perhaps you can show where it does.
-
you'll notice nothing in the bill produces any new federal regulations, or dept, or database, or means of enforcement.
And you will notice that nothing in the bill explicitly forbids it.
Outside of the fact that the CCW itself IS the validation that states would be supposedly looking for
Or perhaps you can show where it does.
Show you something that doesn't exist? Reinforce your speculation?? In what legislation, ANYWHERE, does congress expressly write in...."....And this is all we're going to do about this"
I'll stick with what it currently does and doesn't do......and currently what it doesn't do, is precisely what you're speculating
-
And yet a few weeks ago we were aghast at HHS implementing regulations requiring insurance carriers to provide Contraception coverage free of charge even to organizations whose religious beliefs were totally against such provisions, because the legislation neither addressed that circumstance nor did it explicitly forbid such regulations.
The power of the executive is in the implementation of federal law. It is the duty of the legislative to limit that.
But if you trust an anti gun executive branch to not use a law to its advantage then i can see why you are not hesitating in endorsing such an act.
-
And yet a few weeks ago we were aghast at HHS implementing regulations requiring insurance carriers to provide Contraception coverage free of charge even to organizations whose religious beliefs were totally against such provisions, because the legislation neither addressed that circumstance nor did it explicitly forbid such regulations.
Apples/oranges. The regulation being imposed was part of the gazillions of pages, that Miss Pelosi kept claiming we need to pass this, in order to see whats in it.
This legislation is not that monster. It's simply allows person with a valid CCW to pass from 1 state to another. No more no less. No added bureaucracy, no new Federal database, no new Federal agency, no new anything. If the time comes where the Dems did try to impose such additional legislation, THEN we can start to tear it apart for the overreach in Federal power. As IS, the current legsislation being proposed, does nothing of the sort
-
Your trust in the Obama Administration is admirable,
-
I don't trust anyone in Government, nor is it legislation being proposed by the Obama administration.
But if we're going to prioritize, Obama/Holder whold be below sewer level, on the trust meter, while the GOP in congress is unlikely to allow even the remotest effort of trying to expand said legislation
-
The legislation does not have to be proposed by the Obama Administration to be misapplied by them.
-
That's why we have other branches of Government, to help prevent any additional legislation to be superimposed on the current one, that is perfectly reasonable and unassuming, as it relates to supposed increase in federal power
-
Well allrighty then.
Let me mark you down as in favor of this legislation in its present form.
Me i would be against it in its present form.
It's not like i donate to the NRA and expect sloppy legislative efforts in return.
-
Well allrighty then.
Let me mark you down as in favor of this legislation in its present form. (AS IS)
Me i would be against it in its present form.
Glad we got that cleared up
-
present form is as is. not sure why you thought that needed further clarification.
-
I know how much of a stickler you are for clarifications. Just making sure we're all clarified now. Further Democrat legisative efforts to try and expand on it, and make it into what you're speculating, would be just that.....alternative legisation attempting to be superimposed on this, vs your use of Obamacare, which had folks reading what they wanted into the 2700+ page behemith piece of unconstitutional legislative garbage
-
I know how much of a stickler you are for clarifications. Just making sure we're all clarified now. Further Democrat legisative efforts to try and expand on it, and make it into what you're speculating, would be just that.....alternative legisation attempting to be superimposed on this, vs your use of Obamacare, which had folks reading what they wanted into the 2700+ page behemith piece of unconstitutional legislative garbage
We aren't. My complaint would not be that further Democratic Legislative efforts would disfigure the bill. It is that Executive branch regulation in enforcing the bill opens the door for further federal intrusion, at least that is possible in the bills present form.
-
ANYTHING is possible. It's just a breath of fresh air to actually see Federal legislation being proposed that ISN'T an effort to expand/extend the Federal Government's power & size, and even promotes increased freedom, in this case, law abiding CCW holders
But I'll throw you this bone....I'm confident that if Obama/Holder could figure something out to superimpose something on said legislation, to facilitate more gun control, they would. 2 Fundamental problems though. He'd have to win reelection 1st, since he'd alienate far more folks then would come into his fold. And he's likely to have 1 if not 2 opposition parties in congress that would never support any effort of theirs to further said speculative federal intrusion
-
It looks as though people are exercising their Second Amendment rights in a big way, and I like it. Guns are big business, people are stocking up and one Las Vegas range owner is hiring female military veterans to teach others how to shoot.
But people aren’t just spending money shooting at the range, in fact, gun sales have recently skyrocketed as the November 2012 elections approach.
Alan Korwin, author of nine books on gun laws, including "Gun Laws of America," says gun owners are worried that the president, as a lame duck, will clamp down as never before on gun ownership.
Parsons says about 40 percent of Armory customers cite this fear as their reason for stocking up on guns and ammo now, before the election.
"Frenzy" is the word he uses to describe their buying. Dollar sales for the Armory are up 30 to 40 percent this quarter compared to last. Parsons thinks his store's performance is indicative of sales nationally, based on what he hears from dealers, suppliers and other store owners.
Gun maker Sturm, Ruger says that in the first quarter it received orders for more than 1 million firearms--so many that it has now had to stop taking orders. Says a notice on its website: "Despite the company's continuing successful efforts to increase production rates, the incoming order rate exceeds our capacity to rapidly fulfill these orders. Consequently, the company has temporarily suspended the acceptance of new orders." It expects to resume accepting orders, it says, at the end of May.
Now that is how you stimulate an economy (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/04/06/lock_and_load_gun_sales_way_up_business_booming)
-
This is a bad thing.
The more people buy guns, the more irresponsible gun nuts will there be, armed and dangerous. The more careless people will leave their guns out where thieves can steal them and children can shoot one another with them.
If they would only associate with one another, it would not be all that bad, as it could resemble a self-cleaning oven. But alas, that is not the case.
-
Yea, people exercising their rights is nearly always a bad thing for coolaide drinking, Obamination-care-is-only-1000page leftists
-
Your sticks and stones
Will break no bones,
Because they are only digital.
The more idiots have guns the more gun nut idiocies we shall see.
-
Being part of our constitution doesn't make something a good thing or a bad thing. A specific amendment might have had the general good in mind, or might not have had the general good in mind. The founding fathers didn't have a crystal ball that would allow them to look at the long line of gun nuts outside the local firearms store in the year 2012.
I realize this is an educated view and therefor will pass over the heads of most on the right. But that's a cross we'll have to bear for a while.
BSB
-
Being part of our constitution doesn't make something a good thing or a bad thing.
It does make it a Constitutional RIGHT thing, regardless of your feelings, on the matter. So endeth your lesson
Your sticks and stones
Will break no bones,
Because they are only digital.
The more idiots have guns the more gun nut idiocies we shall see.
Putting aside the irrelevency of whatever prompted the "sticks and stones" nonsense, there is no law against stupidity. People who own guns, are not "gun nuts". People that own many guns are not "gun nuts". People who are irresponsible and wreckless, who happen to own a gun, could be considered a "gun nut". But until THAT "gun nut" does something illegal, they have just as much right to owning their firearm, as you have in demeaning Bush & Cheney
-
"It does make it a Constitutional RIGHT thing"
I got a news flash for you. There are all sorts of laws defining who can buy, carry, and so forth, a firearm. Being a citizen of the USA only gives you the right to own a firearm if the local laws, and in this state the local police chief, allow for it.
People like me should be allowed. Reactionary gun nuts like you shouldn't be.
BSB, serving the Buddha
-
A rifle was essential in colonial America, as game was an important part of nearly everyone's diet.
If someone owns 200 cars he is a "car nut", If someone owns a trunkful of pancakes, he is a "pancake nut", and if someone owns 100 guns he is a "gun nut".
Not everyone with 100 guns is likely to run out and shoot suspicious Negroes, but the 100 guns will eventually be lost, sold or stolen, and the more guns are in circulation, the likelihood that someone will be shot with one of them increases. I once tutored this French Canadian sailor in English for several months. He showed me his gun collection once, He had over 100 of them, a trunkful of rifles and shotguns, a large suitcase full of pistols. None of them was registered. A month later, someone broke into his house and stole all of them. So even though he was a stable and normal person, the odds are that some of those guns surely were used in some dangerous and/or illegal way.
It may be a constitutional thing, but it is still not a good thing when many more guns are put into circulation.
-
"It does make it a Constitutional RIGHT thing"
I got a news flash for you. There are all sorts of laws defining who can buy, carry, and so forth, a firearm. Being a citizen of the USA only gives you the right to own a firearm if the local laws, and in this state the local police chief, allow for it.
That was kinda my point.....that in this country, we have a constitutional right to own a firearm, regardless or your feelings on the matter. Nor did I say carry, as in a CCW. And this reactionary is allowed, since I apparently can show pretty impressive restraint, never once having had to pull my weapon, in all the years I've had one, vs the idiocy of calling folks like me "gun nuts", because I dare support the Bill of Rights & Constitution
It may be a constitutional thing, but it is still not a good thing when many more guns are put into circulation.
Spoken like a true anti-constitutional socialist.
-
The constitution does not prevent more guns falling into the hands of violent morons when more guns are available.
In 1790, everyone needed guns. This is no longer true.
-
Irrelevent as to your opinion as to who needed them then vs now. And again, there's no law against stupidty, so until you can either amend the Constitution, or impose a Communist/Facist regime, the Constitution trumps yours & B's feelings on the matter