National CCW Law

[Doggieman]

It has to pass with 60 votes, and I would be amazed if it did.

[maestro pistolero]

what does this mean? I'm kind of worried. If it passes, and that's a big if, it means that there's going to be a HUGE change in CA, with people from other states now able to carry in California but Californians not being able to carry in their own state??! W T F?

I know you can get an out-of-state permit in FL (strike that, make that Utah? I forget). If I get one there, can I then use that in my own home state of CA? If so, there will be a HUGE rush for Californians doing that.

I thought I'd be all for something like this but this seems pretty wack to me

No. As written, you must have a CCW permit from your own state to carry in your own state, unless your state law says otherwise.

Once this passes, if it does, the outrage among CA gun owners who can't carry in their own state while other state's CCW licensees can, will help fuel a groundswell of political heat to hasten CCW reform. The equal protection spotlight is going to be beamed at the wide disparity in CA CCW licensing.

With 40 shall-issue state's residents skipping through CA with their rights intact, California is going to look like the pariah that it is on this issue. It's not going to be fun for CA gun owners in the meantime, but it's definitely a move in the right direction.

[Jofaba]

Doggieman

Practically...
what does this mean? I'm kind of worried. If it passes, and that's a big if, it means that there's going to be a HUGE change in CA, with people from other states now able to carry in California but Californians not being able to carry in their own state??! W T F?

I know you can get an out-of-state permit in FL (strike that, make that Utah? I forget). If I get one there, can I then use that in my own home state of CA? If so, there will be a HUGE rush for Californians doing that.

I thought I'd be all for something like this but this seems pretty wack to me

My understanding is that you have to have a HOME STATE license, and the state you're in has to honor HOME STATE licenses. If you live in Georgia and have a Utah license, it wouldn't be honored under this law.

It's these kinds of technicalities that kill a law like this.

[Doggieman]

could you tell me why you think that? I'm looking at the law and it states:

"...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..."

Don't see anything about 'home state' there..

thx

[Jofaba]

I said "my understanding" for a reason. I knew that I could be wrong. Glad I am, if I am.

Still, as much as I privately root for this law I despise how it's being introduced and it leaves a sour taste in my mouth in how it surpasses state authority.

[carguychris]

It has to pass with 60 votes, and I would be amazed if it did.

Although I'm not certain, I'm pretty sure that the only reason it needs 60 votes is to protect it from a filibuster. Senators have recently become deathly afraid of bringing any controversial issue up for a floor vote unless they have a filibuster-proof majority.

OTOH I think this will pass the Senate if it comes to a floor vote. Pro-gun states numerically outnumber anti-gun states by a healthy margin, and left-leaning senators from pro-gun states won't be eager to give potential opponents a political stick to beat them with. I also predict thundering silence from the White House. The House of Representatives, on the other hand, is a whole 'nother can of worms.

[Doggieman]

that's cool, I was just wondering how you got to that understanding.

And I believe, if I read correctly, that the 'agreement' was that the thing had to pass by 60 votes.. just an informal senatorial agreement. Possibly, as you said, to avoid a filibuster since it's tacked on to a larger bill.

[LouPran]

And the result ...

:barf:
----------
Concealed arms reciprocity rejected by Senate

By JIM ABRAMS
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- In a rare win for gun control advocates, the Senate on Wednesday rejected a measure allowing a person with a concealed weapon permit in one state to also hide his firearm when visiting another state.

The vote was 58-39 in favor of the provision establishing concealed carry permit reciprocity in the 48 states that have concealed weapons laws. That fell two votes short of the 60 needed to approve the measure, offered as an amendment to a defense spending bill.

Opponents prevailed in their argument that the measure violated states rights by forcing states with stringent requirements for permits to recognize concealed weapons carriers from states that give out permits to almost any gun owner.

"This is no minor shift in policy," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., whose state requires people to be fingerprinted, get gun training and to undergo a federal background check before issuing permits. "It in fact would be a sweeping change and I think with some deadly consequences."

The vote reversed recent trends where Republicans and gun rights Democrats from rural states joined to push pro-gun rights issues and block gun control legislation.

Congress this year voted to restore the rights of people to carry loaded weapons into national parks and the Senate moved to effectively eviscerate the tough gun control laws of the District of Columbia.

Congress has also ignored urgings from President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to revive a ban on military-style weapons that expired in 2004.

The concealed weapons measure, promoted by the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America, would have made a concealed weapon permit from one state valid in the 47 other states with permit laws. Only Wisconsin and Illinois have no carry permit laws.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the sponsor, said it would not provide for a national carry permit, and that a visitor to another state would have to obey the limitations of that state, such as bans on concealed weapons in restaurants or other places.

"Law-abiding individuals have the right to self-defense," even when they cross state lines, Thune said, citing the example of truck drivers who need to protect themselves as they travel.

Opponents, however, said the 48 states with permits have a broad range of conditions for obtaining those permits: some such as Alaska and Vermont, give permits to almost all gun owners. Others, such as New York, have firearm training requirements and exclude people with drinking problems or criminal records.

New York Democrat Charles Schumer raised the possibility of his state having to accept gun carriers from states that have few or no restrictions. Thune's proposal, he said, was "the most dangerous piece of legislation to the safety of Americans when it comes to guns since the repeal of the assault weapons ban."

Thune shot back that if a person from South Dakota with a carry permit visited Central Park in New York City, "Central Park will be a much safer place."

Other opponents said the proposal infringed on states' rights, usually an important principle for gun rights groups. Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said it would override the laws of 11 states - California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island - and the District of Columbia - which do not allow carry permit reciprocity with other states.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., another sponsor, reminded his colleagues that the NRA and Gun Owners of America were scoring the vote, meaning it would be considered in their election evaluation of lawmakers.

NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox said the last two decades have shown a strong shift toward gun rights laws. "We believe it's time for Congress to acknowledge these changes and respect the right of self-defense, and the right of self-defense does not stop at state lines," he said.

Gun control groups were strongly in opposition.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said Mississippi residents can get a permit without any training, including ever shooting a pistol on a range. These permit holders could carry firearms in New York City, where police have broad discretion to deny permits, or Dallas, where permit applicants must undergo at least 10 hours of training.

"It is critical to our efforts that people who enter our state abide by the laws of our state which have supported the progress we are making," Newark, N.J., mayor Cory Booker said in a statement. "This is not a law that will in any way support our efforts to create a safer Newark."

[Composer_1777]

Didn't pass by two votes.

[ADB]

Although I'm not certain, I'm pretty sure that the only reason it needs 60 votes is to protect it from a filibuster. Senators have recently become deathly afraid of bringing any controversial issue up for a floor vote unless they have a filibuster-proof majority.

For final passage, the number is 51, but to attach an amendment it's 60.

I'm afraid my original suspicion may have been correct, this probably would have garnered an extra couple of votes if it had been sponsored by a member of the Democratic majority.

[Musketeer]

Gillibrand of NY had an A rating but was speaking against this. Anybody know her vote and if she too has become a sell out?

[vranasaurus]

I disagree because I don't think any of the 39 who voted against it would have changed their votes if it had been sponsored by a democrat.

[Yellowfin]

Here's the vote, and yes, Gillibrand is nothing more than a worthless puppet of Schumer:

NAYs ––-39
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)

Not Voting - 3
Byrd (D-WV) Kennedy (D-MA) Mikulski (D-MD)

All offenders we need to remove from office as soon as possible and forever.

[ReNtaPiG]

As much as this would be a heated debate I must add my 2 pennies...This whole CCW debate is NOT necessary!!

I myself am a FL CCW carrier and to me it's a luxury not a necessity. By denying the RTC in 47 other states doesn't mean a damn thing to me. The Senate is NOT denying anyone any civil right or constitutional right for that matter. Just a bunch of incompetent senators wetting themselves at the thought of law-abiding citizens actually being able to carry a gun.

I look at it this way, FL allows me to defend myself and I'm not 100% sure but I think 22 other states currently have reciprocity with FL CCW's so the bottomline is...I will not be traveling to any state that does NOT provide for reciprocity. Including my former prison state of NY (sorry Dad no visits from sonny boy).

[ADB]

I disagree because I don't think any of the 39 who voted against it would have changed their votes if it had been sponsored by a democrat.

Maybe maybe not. The impulse to continue kicking the Republicans in the neck is quite strong for some of the Senate Dems, and if it were introduced by a Dem in a battleground state who needed a boost next year, you might peel off a few more votes.

Gillibrand of NY had an A rating but was speaking against this. Anybody know her vote and if she too has become a sell out?

Gillibrand voted no. And before Yellowfin goes off anymore, context is important. Gillibrand is being challenged next year in a primary by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, who among other things is attempting to paint Gillibrand as a gun nut. So for the time being, she's going to be no doubt erring on the side of caution as far as guns go.

[Musketeer]

and I was going to register as a Dem to:

1. Support her in the primary.

2. Sabotage Dem frontrunners in other primaries.

Gillibrand is on her own now. Any bets on her support for the SCOTUS nominee who found the 2A is NOT incorporated under the 14th?

[maestro pistolero]

It's at the top of the reader's choice and editor's pick.

Let's not forget that the amendment did pass, 58 to 39 (not 38). It just did not have the votes to overcome the threat of a filibuster (not a veto). 48 states already have concealed carry permit issue. No less than 40 of them are mandatory issue, meaning if you pass the background check and the course, the permit must be issued. Most of the concealed carry states already have reciprocity with most other such states.

What is astounding is the doomsday rhetoric that measures like this continue to inspire:

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, and generally a supporter of gun rights, said she opposed Mr. Thune’s amendment because it infringed on states and cities. “The Thune amendment would invite chaos in our cities,” she said.

"The passage of this amendment would have done more to threaten the safety of New Yorkers than anything since the repeal of the assault weapons ban,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer.

The so-called assault weapons ban was not repealed, Senator Schumer, it was allowed to expire, because everyone knows it didn't and couldn't deliver as promised The so-called assault weapon ban outlawed certain semi-automatic rifles with military-style cosmetic features unrelated to the performance characteristics of the firearm.

Violent crime has steadily dropped before, during and since the expiration of the ban. Gun accidents are now at an all-time low, while gun and ammunition sales are at an all-time high. Finally, rifles of all types have a statistically insignificant role in gun violence, according to the FBI uniform crime report. This issue is nothing more a political football kicked around to distract voters from the ineptitude of our leaders to fix the more pressing problems of joblessness, poverty, rampant foreclosure, and health care.

In every single state that has passed concealed weapon permit legislation, 48 out of 50, the same old chicken little dialog erupts. Alas, the sky does not fall, the old West doesn't reappear, and blood does not "run in our streets". What does happen where lawful citizens carry? Violent crime, especially gun crime plummets at a disproportionate rate. Home invasions, rapes, robberies, gay bashing, all fall in numbers wherever lawful, trained, and screened citizen exercise their gun rights.

The assertion by Feinstein and Bloomburg that the demise of this measure will save lives is undermined by the facts. Indeed, lives will be lost, rapes and robberies will be committed, and gay bashing will proceed unhindered by any fear that the victims may successfully resist the attacker.

In the next term, the Supreme Court of the United States will step in again where congress has failed, by incorporating (applying) the Second Amendment to the states as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals already has done in Nordyke vs Alameda County (2009).

One day soon, a lawful, peaceable gun owner will be able to enter the Kingdom of New York with his legally transported, locked, unloaded handgun, without risking a felony, as is the case in New York at present. New York State will not issue the required pistol permit under any circumstances to a non-resident. Forget about a carry permit, even if it's unloaded and locked in your hotel safe, you are now facing a felony. This is the complete and utter disregard for the 2nd amendment that exists in New York, and Illinois. Policies such as this will fail any constitutional standard of review.

As the Heller vs DC court indicated and as common sense dictates, "keep" means own, store, transport, and possess, and "bear" means carry. Plain and simple. The scope of the Heller case happened to be limited to possession in the home. But some confuse the scope of that case with a restriction on the right. This is a misunderstanding that gun control extremists are seizing upon to spin the meaning of the Heller ruling. But no other fundamental constitutional right ends at your doorstep, and the courts will have plenty of opportunity to clarify the extent of permissible restrictions going forward.

Take a deep breath, folks. Nationwide, licensed concealed carry is coming, and it's going to be OK, really it will. The sky will not fall, nor will the old West reappear, and blood will not run in our streets. We don't have to guess about the outcome. There are 40 states that already have mandatory issue for CCW licenses, and there are 8 more states that have discretionary licensing. Together, 48 States have demonstrated in the last decade that licensed, concealed carry works, that public safety and security is enhanced, and that as a public policy, it measurably suppresses violent crime.

Americans have demonstrated once again that we can be trusted with our own safety and security. And that we can and must be trusted with our liberty.

[Yellowfin]

Gillibrand is being challenged next year in a primary by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, who among other things is attempting to paint Gillibrand as a gun nut. So for the time being, she's going to be no doubt erring on the side of caution as far as guns go.

And by her cowering away from supporting us she needs to be made to lose. She disowns us, we disown her. It needs to be made painful to not be clearly and unconditionally on our side--this cowering to the anti gun political complex is unacceptable and needs to be put to an end. Who gives a crap about political context, this is about right and wrong--if you're against us you're wrong no matter if you're in Wyoming, NYC, or Mars.

[Doc Intrepid]

Originally Posted by ADB

"I'm afraid my original suspicion may have been correct, this probably would have garnered an extra couple of votes if it had been sponsored by a member of the Democratic majority."

Not so sure about that.

One of the major surprises here for me was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the same guy who comes off as an uber-liberal 99% of the time, voted to support the measure.

You would think he'd be able to be fairly pursuasive to other Democrats, if he so chose...

[ADB]

And by her cowering away from supporting us she needs to be made to lose. She disowns us, we disown her. It needs to be made painful to not be clearly and unconditionally on our side--this cowering to the anti gun political complex is unacceptable and needs to be put to an end. Who gives a crap about political context, this is about right and wrong--if you're against us you're wrong no matter if you're in Wyoming, NYC, or Mars.

West Central NY? Whereabouts? I'm 30 miles ESE of Buffalo.

In any event she's likely to be the most gun-friendly candidate we're going to see. Maloney is anti-gun, likely Republican challenger Peter King is anti-gun, and dark horse Republican candidate George Pataki is about as likely to beat Gillibrand as, well, I am. And I'm not running.

As I continually remind everyone who will listen, politics is the art of compromise and slow, steady progress. A year ago nobody would have imagined New York would have a Senator who's strongly opposed to new gun bans, and treats gun owners with respect. If staying in office means she has to help vote down a national CCW reciprocity law that wouldn't have made it even with her vote, I'm okay with that.

One the the major surprises here for me was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the same guy who comes off as an uber-liberal 99% of the time, voted to support the measure.

You would think he'd be able to be fairly pursuasive to other Democrats, if he so chose...

Enh. My opinion of Reid's leadership qualities is pretty low. He spent a lot of his time in this job crumpling on cue for the Bush administration, and he's definitely never carried the big stick in terms of keeping the Dem caucus in line.

[Hkmp5sd]

According to ABC Evening News, this was a "major defeat for the NRA." "The first defeat for the NRA in 10 years" and then asked, "Does this mean the NRA's power is decreasing."

After getting 58 senate votes with the senate, house and white house controlled by democrats, they think the NRA is dead?

[Doc Intrepid]

Originally Posted by ADB

"Enh. My opinion of Reid's leadership qualities is pretty low. He spent a lot of his time in this job crumpling on cue for the Bush administration, and he's definitely never carried the big stick in terms of keeping the Dem caucus in line."

It isn't that he's some huge charismatic Democratic disciplinarian - it's more symbolic: Harry's the Senate Majority Leader. He and Pelosi are jointly supposed to be ushering in the Brave New World. And Harry voted in support of a position advocated by the NRA.

Go figure.

You go, girl...

[vranasaurus]

This will certainly be used against or possibly hurt Bingaman, Lugar, and McCaskill.

If WV(among others) didn't continually re-elect their Senators based upon the wet monkey theory(Because that's who we've always voted for) it would possibly hurt Rockefeller.

[Yellowfin]

A year ago nobody would have imagined New York would have a Senator who's strongly opposed to new gun bans, and treats gun owners with respect.

And it doesn't look like we have one now, either. She's completely distanced herself from us and has planted herself in Schumer's front pocket. I want someone who's going to him to go to hell, not stand there one hand holding his and the other holding his pitchfork.

[Mr X]

I am shocked and appalled by the behavior of one of my state's illustrious Senators - Russ Feingold voted for this?! Shocking... He is definitely not of the "Blue Dog" crowd.

I would bet he thought he could say he had a pro-gun vote on a law that would in no way affect his state for the foreseeable future though.

For the larger discussion, I must concur with the notion that as we champion states' rights, the 10th Amendment etc we have to be consistent about it. This law would seem to countermand that position and we look hypocritical as a political group of gun owners.

I purport that the long term strategy of emphasizing states' rights to enact legislation such as this, developing reciprocity agreements between the states themselves, may not be the most expedient way to national concealed carry rights, but it would be more in line with our current enthusiasm for state "sovereignty."

All of this discussion of "state sovereignty" has become an intriguing breeze of potentially forthcoming winds of change. I only hope that is so.

Then I'll move!