House Passes Concealed Weapons Bill That Would Allow Interstate Travel
- Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:03am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
WASHINGTON (AP) — A state permit to carry a concealed firearm would be valid in almost every other state in the country under legislation the House passed Wednesday.
The first pro-gun bill the House has taken up this year and the first since Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., was severely injured in a gun attack in January, it had the National Rifle Association’s backing and passed by a comfortable margin. The vote was 272-154, with only seven Republicans voting against it and 43 Democrats supporting it.
The Democratic-controlled Senate has no parallel bill. But two years ago, GOP Sens. John Thune of South Dakota and David Vitter of Louisiana nearly succeeded in attaching a similar measure to a larger bill.
Under the House legislation, people with a concealed carry permit in one state could carry a concealed weapon in every other state that gives people the right to carry concealed weapons. While states have various standards for issuing such permits, currently only Illinois and the District of Columbia prohibit the concealed carrying of weapons.
“The Second Amendment is a fundamental right to bear arms that should not be constrained by state boundary lines,” said GOP Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
The bill’s chief co-sponsor, Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., said states should consider concealed carry permits no differently from driver’s licenses recognized by all states. He noted that many states already have reciprocity agreements with other states.
The legislation would “make it easier for law-abiding permit holders to know that they are simply in compliance with the law when they carry a firearm as they travel,” he said.
Democratic opponents said the bill would constitute a “race to the bottom,” with states that have strict requirements for issuing permits having to accept permits from states with far more lax standards.
“It’s a situation where weaker state laws become the national law,” said Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va. He noted that some states require training for permit holders, or deny permits to those under 21 or who sell drugs to minors, commit sex offenses or are involved in domestic violence.
According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the measure would allow states with tough requirements, such as New York and California, “to allow in concealed carry gun-toting people from states, such as Florida, which repeatedly have given dangerous people licenses to carry.”
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., wrote President Barack Obama last week urging him to issue a veto threat against the bill. Passing the bill “would jeopardize public safety and would be an insult to states like New Jersey and New York that purposefully have strong gun ownership laws,” they wrote.
The administration has not yet taken an official position on the bill.
Democrats also chided Republicans for ignoring their dedication to states’ rights. “For the Republican House majority that supposedly believes in states’ rights, this bill is shocking,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. Watch his statements, below:
There hasn’t been much legislative action on firearms issues this year. A spending bill that the House is expected to vote on this week would bar the Justice Department from consolidating firearms sales records or maintaining information on people who have passed firearms background checks.
The chief sponsors of the concealed weapon measure, Stearns and Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., said their proposal would not create a federal licensing system but merely require states to honor one another’s carry permits.
People who are unable to get a permit in their home state would not be able to carry a concealed weapon in their home state by getting a permit in another state. A state’s ban on carrying concealed weapons in places such as bars, sporting events or state parks would apply to nonresidents as well as residents.
Thirty-five states have “shall issue” permit laws that usually require states to issue permits to those who meet legal requirements. Ten others have “may issue” or discretionary permit laws. Vermont, Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming do not require a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 695 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 509 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 353 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 341 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 329 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 329 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 341 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 252 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 329 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (342)
sister1_rm
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:45amI agree that states should honor the conceal carry permits issued in other states, and part of the fed’s responsibility is protecting the rights of citizens in their interstate travel and business. This bill seems like a good thing, however, given the current administration, I feel suspicious. What would motivate the congress to approve such a bill at this time? I know we are seeing a republican controlled house, but that doesn’t usually change anything in favor of gun rights (or constitutional rights in general), so what’s really going on? Why is this out there and what do they hope to achieve?
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:51amYour concerns regarding the current administration are well placed. Keep in mind that this originated in the House, which is still highly sympathetic to the 2nd Amendment most of the time. It won’t make it through the Senate until the despicable Reid is gone, nor would Obeyme sign it that I can tell.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:54amWe Americans are committed to the righteous struggle for freedom and fairness that makes this country the land of opportunity.
The House passage of this important Bill is the best possible news of the season- and possibly the entire year.
I pray that the United States Senate will pass this quickly so the President can sign it into law before Christmas
Report Post »mrfitman
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:55amALL who read this need watch..INNOCENTS BETRAYED
Report Post »Darla_K
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:57amNot sure, but maybe Obummer wants to win the people who carry guns? I know it seems ridiculous, and him having a motive that would be to his benifit would be more accurate. People that have gun permits would be the least of my worry. Most have already passed a background check. It is people that allow programs such as the Fast and Furious that worry me. :)
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:05am@Ghost — while this bill has originated in the House, the main part I see is it will all but die on the floor of the Senate under Mr Reid the Chief Obstructionist, with one major exception, and that being if he and Obama can somehow sneak in a white cobra wording.
White Cobra — comes from a legend of India I heard once in which a tiger did not recognise the snake on the path ahead due to its lack of coloration, it smelled like a snake and moved like one yet did not look like one. So he treaded on down the path until the fires of the venom went into his veins from a quick and unfelt strike.
Reid and Obama would love to put a peice of a larger and later law in this bill to set the precident for further gaining of control while it appears an innocent addition of a few words.
Say like “In the event thus happens (insert event), the states rights are abridged and abjured soley to the office of the President…” Then in a later bill, you expand upon those few little words. The fire of the venom in the veins.
Report Post »Blackhawk1
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:09amAfter Fast and Furious Obummer and the Democrats have lost support of the majority of us that have Concealed carry permits. The whole point of Fast and Furious was to undermine the 2nd Amendment so the Liberals could further regulate the citizens. Just like most Liberal ideas it backfired on them.
Report Post »SpankDaMonkey
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:20am.
Report Post »Can‘t wait til Gabby get’s paraded around, like a trained seal. Then they’ll try to take our guns…..
V-MAN MACE
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:31amWe are the police.
Open carry your firearms, and learn how to citizen’s arrest.
Open Carry is better than Concealed Carry.
We do not have to be afraid and conceal our weapons. The cops don’t…
Report Post »YoungBloodNews
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:32amWont matter in a year or so this country will be hell and everyone smart will be open carrying like the wild west ;)
Report Post »neocon1
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:45amspankda
she and brady can have tandem wheel chairs, and bite me can tell them to stand up at the next rally.
Report Post »longun45
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:55amThe motive you are looking for is the leveling of gun laws between the states. Unfortunately this is a Pandora’s box – Congress and the federal government do not have any jurisdiction over local gun laws. If this bill passes then the federal government can by extension cause local gun laws to be superseded by federal law or regulation.
You really, Really don’t want that
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 10:00amlongun45
I was waiting for somebody to hit on that piston. I couldn’t remember the argument point from that perspective but you reminded me, thx.
Report Post »TheLeftMadeMeRight
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 10:16amHas anyone been following this BS United Nations gun ban? It seems to me Obama is betting on the UN for his gun control efforts…
Report Post »Twinspeedr
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 10:42amThey hope to have a “national” handgun registry. Much easier to confiscate them when the time comes.
Report Post »This is what they call a TROJAN HORSE folks…
Twinspeedr
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 10:45amThey want a national handgun registry. It will make it so much easier to confiscate them when the time comes.
This is what historically been called a “Trojan Horse”…
Report Post »The Voice of Libertarian Reason
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 10:49amVman,
Can’t open carry in a lot of these communist states, like Massachusetts. There is no law that says open carry is illegal, but it says you can not cause a disturbance. Which we all know if a loony liberal sees someone carrying a gun they freak out and call the cops.
I am cautiously optomistic about this bill. You all bring up good point about alterior motives; but I sure would like to be able to carry across state lines without paying for permits in every state.
Report Post »meamerican
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 10:56amThis will be the beginning of the end of our concealed carry! Now we will have the feds involved in the concealed carry permit process the same people who brought us Fast and Furious so the y could crack down on the illegal sale of weapons – problem was it was the ATF who was selling the guns.
We can look forward to restrictions being applied in the future like a federal list of all concealed carry holders, this in the hands of Eric Holder. What other restrictions do you think this administration can come up with to further limit our rights to carry? We need the federal government to stay away from our 2nd amendment rights!
Report Post »FreeUnionVA
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 10:56amWell it seems a little skeetch to me too. I think that is an easy way to know who has guns. They just don’t issue permits, you have to apply and there is a record of who has them. Wouldn’t be surprised if you see a new national database to consolidate who has permits and hence who has guns…..open for abuse
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 11:01am@ V-MAN MACE
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:31am
We are the police.
Open carry your firearms, and learn how to citizen’s arrest.
Open Carry is better than Concealed Carry.
We do not have to be afraid and conceal our weapons. The cops don’t…
Report Post »~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I disagree. I want the bad guys to be surprised when I pull my weapon. I see no reason to advertise my unfair advantage.
cessna152
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 11:04amIf a Constitutional RIGHT, that can not be infringed, has loopholes, laws and INFRINGEMENTS… How is that Constitutional?
So if I carry, according to the 2A…technically, who is breaking the law?
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 11:11amTSUNAMI-22
I see open carry as a deterrent, and so does the police. That’s the point of them openly carrying their firearms in public.
That’s why the argument against open carry fails. The ones who really don’t want us having firearms at all- the police state and their supporters- all believe power resides at the end of the barrel of a gun.
Report Post »pauler1960
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 11:14amPerhaps this will explain:
Not only was H.R. 822 — the Trojan horse gun control bill — passed out of the House of Representatives this evening, it was passed with an amendment that would open the door to federal biometric requirements for concealed firearms permits and a federally-administered database of all permit holders.
Only 7 Republican Members of Congress stood against federal overreach in the concealed carry process by opposing this bill (you can see how your Representative voted here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll852.xml).
The bill was amended this afternoon by ostensibly “pro-gun” Republicans to require a study be done on the ability of law enforcement officers to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearm permits.
You and I both know what this means. A year from now, the study will come back stating that the only way to “verify” out-of-state permits is through federally-mandated biometric requirements for concealed firearm permits and Congress “must” create a nationally administered database of all concealed weapon permit holders.
One of my biggest concerns about this bill — the lists of gun owners a permit process creates — should send shivers down your spine: Imagine Eric Holder and the BATFE with a national database of concealed carry permit holders.
It’s bad enough to have those lists exist at a state level. Once Eric Holder and his cronies find a way to request that list from a state, they’ll do it.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 11:23amSo, if all states must now recognize concealed weapons licenses, it now follows logically that all states must now recognize and legalize gay marriage!
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 11:27amLibertarian Reason,
Massachusetts has the third fewest gun deaths per capita of any state (3.51 gun deaths per 100,000 residents). Now, you tell me Mr. Reasonable, why should MA have to change its policy if it is actually working?
Source: Boston Globe, 1/12/2010, http://articles.boston.com/2011-01-12/news/29346164_1_restrictions-on-gun-ownership-massachusetts-law-mental-health-records
Report Post »jzs
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 11:33amsister1_rm, good question. Why is the House passing this now? Why, for all the talk of states rights, and they overriding states rights?
Simple. They are trying to get votes. Yes, and let‘s reaffirm the national motto and the American flag and the national anthem while we’re at it.
They are posturing for votes and wasting taxpayer dollars. The other reason? Because for all the talk about jobs, Republicans don’t have any ideas about creating jobs. If they did, they’d be working on jobs bills. But they don’t.
Report Post »ChiefGeorge
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 11:57amFor right now its more symbolic than anything because its not going to make it into law anytime soon, but its nice to know that atleast part of the government is still trying to make it law so we the people can feel comfortable in the meantime. This government is going to beg us to defend this nation when SHTF and we get attacked from within and without. They’ll be handing guns out of the back of trucks! Just watch.
Report Post »banjarmon
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 12:05pm2nd Amendments rights….Carry anyway….They don’t know you carry unless you use it!!
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 12:06pmI carry mine, and I carry mine.
Report Post »AZfreeman
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 12:07pmThis legislation is silly and a waste of time. I agree with Ted.
“The Second Amendment is my concealed carry permit” Ted Nuggent
Now if they want to pass a law to reinforce our Constitutional right to be armed by saying
a CCW is not required by Constitutional interpretation, I’d be interested.
In the mean time …
Where in the 2nd amendment does it say we have to have a ‘permit’???
In fact, doesn’t it say that our right to carry “shall not be infringed”??
Isn’t a requirement to get a permit…. an infringement???
When the fit hits the san, who will be checking for your permit???
Only a liberal/progressive idiot would believe that if a person felt their life or the
life of a family member were in danger, the lack of a permit would stop anyone
from arming them self as they saw fit.
Will we ever get back to simple, literal interpretation of the Constitution? ..rf
Report Post »hidden_lion
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 12:19pmWhy does the States have a right to infringe on peoples God given rights? There should be no state where a sane citizen should not be able to carry, concealed or otherwise. Requiring a permit to exercise your right is not a reasonable restriction, it is just a way for the government to tax you and monitor you.
Report Post »jb.kibs
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 12:38pmif we can’t carry concealed weapons then neither can anyone else.
Report Post »laws are for EVERYONE. not a select few. Brinks, Police or any Security Person is going to carry a concealed weapon. Like i said, if we can’t, they can’t. it’s that simple. no one is above “The Law”, The Republic or the Constitution. Republic = Rule by Law. EVERYONE is ruled by the same law. Anyone can carry a gun anyway they want to carry a gun by our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. How can we perform our Right and Duty to stop tyranny if we don’t have weapons to do so? answer.. we can’t.
jb.kibs
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 12:41pmOpen Carry promotes “Authority wannabes” and Others to challenge you. Conceal Carry is the only way to go. Unless your trying to duel someone… then you should use a quick draw holster on your strong arm side. ;)
All i have to say is, Bob Munden.
Report Post »Jomil48
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 12:46pmI agree with this bill, example, I am from Pennsylvania, I vacation in Virginia which is a reciprocity state. I have to travel a short distance through Maryland which is not. So right now, I have to stop at the border of Md. remove my sidearm, place it in a suitcase in the trunk of my vehecle, then stop once again after crossing into Va. to retrieve it. this law would make things a lot easier. I am truely sorry about what happened to Ms Gifford, but it was not a law abiding citizen that did this, but some polititcans want to punish everyone for the acts of a mad man, or a criminal. The only people who seem to be bothered by Americans owning or carrying guns are crooks, politicians, and a few libreral non gun owners.
Report Post »orkydorky
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 12:46pmThe constitution calls for the right to bear arms, it does not distinguish between rifles, handguns or any type of weapon. Therefore, why should any state be allowed to restrict the right to carry, or the type of firearm, or restrict the right to carry at all? All the states, before becoming a state had to except the constitution and needs to abide by it, so what is the problem of having uniform laws for everyone. This country is not of a world order, it is still the United States of America!
Report Post »Jomil48
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 12:51pmJZS, did you escape from the ward again, shame on you. now go back and they will fix your nice cocktail (thorezine) for you.
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 1:27pmThe bill was drafted by republicans and it only passed in the house. It’s never going to pass in the senate, and Obama would veto it without hesitation if it did. The administration had nothing to do with this legislation.
Report Post »ColoradoBoots
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 1:29pmOne way for one state to check on the permit from another state would be to establish a national data base of permit holders. Some call this bill a trojan horse for registry. Just a thought….
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 1:32pmJZS is just doing his job.
He was told that today he should dwell on the “Do nothing Congress” mantra.
Report Post »randy
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 1:54pmI carried my pistol in my car from New York to Texas on a recent trip to Texas.
Report Post »Pulled over by Texas State Trooper, asked if I had a weapon in the car, stated yes,
worried I would be going to jail. He laughed and said everyone carries a weapon in Texas
and not to worry about it. He just asked for my CCW from NY and let let me go without the speeding ticket. I love Texas and will be moving there very soon.
charleyrocks
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 2:02pmIt’s really a shame that everyone in the USA has to carry a concealed gun, for their own safety from their own people. In Canada they don’t carry and there is peace unless they come over the border.
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 2:04pmThe objective is to point out that the current president and progressive controlled senate are ANTI-GUN, which they are. There will be no CCW bill passing this year. Harry Reid will ensure that any such bill is passed to a committee where it will die without a vote. And even if it did get out of the Senate, Obama would veto it in a heartbeat.
Report Post »As for the rest of the story about states such as Florida giving CCW permits to “dangerous persons”, such a blatant lie shall not stand! Florida (as do all other states except for New Hampshire, Alaska and now Wyoming who do not require their citizens to hold a state permit to carry a concealed weapon) mandates comprehensive training, an FBI background check, and fingerprinting prior to receiving a permit. And the benefits of such permits has been demonstrated in every state in which a “shall issue” permit has been enacted. The problem with states such as New York, Illinois and California is that these are “might issue” states where the only people who qualify, are either the very rich, or the politically connected. These states are afraid of their own people and deny them their Constitutional right to protect themselves for that reason. These states are scared to death that a free citizen shall enter their state! We won’t see it this year, but just wait until the traitors are removed in 2013!
TRILO
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 2:09pmAnytime the federal government interjects itself into a state issue it is never good for the people. Will they now feel empowered to make national standards for conceal carry permits as it will not be fair for one state to have stricter requirements? Will the federal government now feel empowered to address the gay marriage debate? It will not be fair for one state to allow gay marriage and another to not. Now that they have given themselves authority to regulate an activity over state lines they will use this to as a means to further regulate guns. Just look at how they regulate speed limits… funding is tied to whether or not they follow the feds rule book.
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 2:14pmLONGUN45: This is NOT a law which has anything to do with LOCAL laws. It has to do with the treatment of these STATE permits by the other states in the same way that each state honors the drivers license, wedding license, and title of ownership of every other state. The federal Constitution mandates such things. But the states have not honored this mandate, so a law is required to force them to honor such requirements….Technically, you should be able to trave into any other state with a concealed weapon (with a legal permit) and the state should be mandated by the Constitution to honor it. Most states already have “reciprocity” laws in effect. There are a few hold outs such as California, New York (famous for it’s Sullivan Law) and Illinois who would refuse to give it’s citizens the right to own any firearm if they could get away with it! These few states are the ones which this law would correct….later.
Report Post »robert
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 2:16pmThanks to the activism of gun owners everywhere gun rights are getting stronger and more numerous with each passing month.
Too, “stand your ground laws,” which were first passed in Florida and Texas are also spreading to many of the other states. It‘s going to take a few high profile shootings of attacking perps to get the word out that assaults aren’t going to be tolerated and if they occur it could well result in the death of the thug. They’re dumb, but they DO respect force.
For the rabid leftist fools who utter their illogical, nonsensical opposition to the second amendment, I imagine they’re wringing their bony, effeminate hands with worry.
Report Post »dorightfearnothing
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 3:15pmI too am suspicious, if this passes there is something in it like federal standards in order to obtain the permit, hence grating total control of the issue to the federal government. Personally, I think the whole argument is a waste of time, it can’t be compared to a drivers license and to do so is just ignorant. Driving is a privilege not a right. Possessing firearms is an absolute right as protected by the second amendment to the constitution. Therefore they are NOT comparable. The very principal of mandating a permit seems rather illegal, while it‘s not for a drivers license because it’s not protected by the constitution.
Report Post »AmSit
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 3:22pmFrom CharleyRocks:
It’s really a shame that everyone in the USA has to carry a concealed gun, for their own safety from their own people. In Canada they don’t carry and there is peace unless they come over the border.
=========
I get so tired of hearing this from Canadians and Euroweenies. We don’t carry because we MUST, we carry because we CAN! How smug are you going to be when you really need to defend yourself and you can’t? That’s the difference between you and us. We will be able to defend ourselves if and when the time comes. You will just have to cry and die.
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 3:24pm@ Rowgue
The bill was drafted by republicans and it only passed in the house. It’s never going to pass in the senate, and Obama would veto it without hesitation if it did. The administration had nothing to do with this legislation.
Report Post »~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But it does give the House something to barter with later down the road, doesn’t it?
Go Glenn
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 3:43pmHere is what’s going on……..
The republicans know that Reid will not allow it to go forward and even if he did Obummer would not sign it.
They are correct for bringing this up now. It needs to be made clear to those who do not already know that the Liberals oppose law-abiding citizens owning guns.
Draw them out into the open.
Report Post »KellDav
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 4:55pmThough this seems like a good thing for gun owners and a pro-2nd Amendment issue, there are serious problems with this bill. Here is what Dudley Brown has said about it:
Included in the rules are a slew of anti-gun amendments from the likes of notorious anti-gunners Carolyn McCarthy and Sheila Jackson Lee. These include mandating live fire training (Amendment #9) and a comprehensive database of all permit holders that’s accessible to law enforcement 24-hours a day (Amendment #1).
http://www.nationalgunrights.org
Report Post »chekmate2
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 5:00pmI think it’s for political purposes; which doesn’t make it a bad thing. What it does is make it a political issue for the2012 elections. If the Senate doesn‘t bring this up for a vote or if it passes the Senate and Obama veto’s it, it gives pro 2nd amendment supporters a reason to support or not support a particular candidate or party. Democrats should beware of this issue.
Report Post »angelonquest2000
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 7:31pmonce you have a permit if they outlaw guns they know who has them and will search and seize.
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 7:32pm@TSUNAMI
No it doesn’t give them a bargaining chip, liberals will always oppose any laws that uphold the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Liberals are all about creating regulations and new agencies to envoke those regulations. It’s how they continue to grow the government and get an ever growing percentage of the population dependant on the government. They are masters at taking isolated incidents and using the media to pretend they are epidemics and continuing to ring the alarm bells until paranoia is at a fever pitch and the useful idiots are actually begging them to take away their rights. What it does is give them an issue they can run on in upcoming elections.
My point was directed at the comments questioning the motivation behind “the administration” pushing this legislation now. The administration has nothing to do with this legislation, that was my point.
Report Post »WeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges04
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:43pmWhenever takin’ down the bad guys, steenkin‘ badges or no steenkin’ badges, go at it with STYLE and make ‘em cry UNCLE:
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xogfqx8n2w
TheTruthShallPrevail
Posted on November 18, 2011 at 1:33pmThe aim is to put the concealed weapon permits under FEDERAL control. What does that tell you?
Report Post »2012hey
Posted on November 18, 2011 at 1:50pmIt’s time for the HOUSE of the PEOPLE to start ignoring that illegal alien in the WH and move ahead with the agenda BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE! Let’s turn the tables on that dictator and push legislation and enact it WITHOUT HIS APPROVAL. Furthermore – where are the new congress members who still have B A L L S – time to impeach this African in the WH
Report Post »GmanPatriot
Posted on November 18, 2011 at 6:56pmthe government will have access to a list of all persons with conceal carry permits. it is bad enough that the states have these lists. with this list the federal government will be able to track all persons with these permits and if the time comes that martial law is declared it will be easy for them to confinscate (sp) the firearms.
Report Post »jsl55
Posted on November 18, 2011 at 7:14pmCheck out the National Associan of Gun Rights (NAGR) position. This may very well be a trojan horse with the feds trying to get databases and their foot in the door in regulating CCWs. It’s bad enough in CA. I sure don’t want the feds to also be involved.
Report Post »jsl55
Posted on November 18, 2011 at 7:16pmNational Association of Gun Rights (NAGR).
Report Post »Tim58
Posted on November 18, 2011 at 10:07pmThe thing that worries me is this a backdoor attempt to gather info on permit carriers. It may not be part of this bill but anytime down the road the fed could tell the states to turn over the info or they will withhold funds for whatever they choose. Since the states are not smart enough to realize that the money the fed has was sent from the individual states they will fold.
Report Post »Seede
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:45amI know people who carry and have carried for years. That is with or without permit. The reason is that I would rather face a carry charge rather than sit like a fool and get blown away by a liberal clown. My state was, till last January, a may state. Then this year it was changed to a shall state. While under a may state it was all who you knew or if the sheriff liked you. It varied from county to county. This is a good thing to combat crime.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:56amIt is about time the Federal Government decided to take this matter away from States and locals. God Bless our educated and wise Federal Government.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:16am@Mon
The “matter” never belonged to the states.
Have you no better thing to do with the day than troll, Enicom?
Report Post »Bluebonnet
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 11:06amOMG! The Feds are neither educated or wise when they do any more than follow our Constitution.
Carry permits remind me of, years ago a lady took her parents to a Furr’s Cafeteria in Waco, Tx. She left her gun in the car, because “who’d need a gun in a cafeteria?” Lo & behold, a gunman came in and started shooting wildly, killing her parents & others. Her GUN was in the car.
It’s my belief that leaving a gun in the car, even the trunk, is not being cautious. Too many like to break into autos and SUV‘s don’t actually have a trunk. Is this prudent? If we leave it to the Fed’s,
Report Post »only criminals will have guns and we’ll never be able to defend ourselves, then we’ll become like the countries who have roving gangs or pretend military who do carry guns and make up their own laws.
Just_Bubba
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 11:38am@Encinominal…what about people like me who will only carry when it’s time to use it? There will be no way of knowing where or when. You see it’s still my right to posess as many of them as I want. Bet that gives you the creeps huh? Bring it out here fool.
Report Post »VRW Conspirator
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 12:32pmThis only cements my desire to start a gun collection. Having finished part one of my plan, moving from CA to TX -where I can carry in the open anytime, this would now allow my TX CHL -which I can’t seem to get while I still have my CA drivers license..to be valid anywhere..SWEET!!!
Report Post »I have been listening to Glenn and really close to going down to WalMart or Academy and getting a nice shotgun and rifle…I need someplace that can sell me a cheap Sig P-226 Navy and M1911 Navy ACP 45
C. Schwehr
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 2:19pmAnd it is a PROVEN deterrent to violent crime. The crime statistics in every state where a “shall issue” law has been enacted has seen a drop in their crime rates…EVERY TIME! In fact the arguement can be made that the current overall drop in the national crime rate can be attributed (at least in part) to the majority of states adopting “shall issue” laws!
Report Post »buzdburd
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 3:47pmOMG Moncine!!
Report Post »You TRUST the Feds to do the RIGHT thing??
Why would you be that STUPID!!
What does the Federal government do right??
You are very naive!!
SLARTIBARTFAST
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:44amWe’re being led through the back door by the nose on this one. We’re openly asserting the rights(?) of the Feds over those of the States? Sounds great but we have to rethink this one. I think most of those 40 some-odd Dems knew exactly where they were going on this. Also the may-issue states that don‘t would have a bovine episode over the sudden influx of concealed carry’s in the states. Big time court issues. Let’s pick our fights better than this.
Report Post »Jeffrey777
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:51amI agree with some of what your saying but some states think they can comply with the 2nd when they feel like it. It is a bitter sweat victory. Nobody wants to see states dictated to by the feds including me but but blue states like Mass need to back off my right. The downside is some states will probably make it harder than before to even get a permit. Especially the blue states.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:53amThe fed does have powers states do not, study the Constitution and the Federalist papers. One of those powers includes BOR enforcement. States rights do not mean that, say, California can set up a Nazi regime and cage Jews in concentration camps, as that would be strongly infringing on powers delegated to the federal government. States rights is a two way street, states only have rights to items not specifically granted to the federal government. The BOR is a federal issue, ergo, no state’s rights arguments apply.
Report Post »PPMStudios
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:59amI’m still torn over this entire issue.
On the one hand, the Constitution clearly defines our 2nd Amendment right which was upheld by the Supremes a year or so ago.
On the other hand, how can an individual state supplant anything laid down either by the Constitution or Federal law?
Report Post »SLARTIBARTFAST
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 10:09amI think PPMSTUDIOS said it right: I AM torn on this as well. I’m just afraid of it creating a back-door to further the feds goals. Remember that most laws are actually implemented by the Bureaucracy, and them I do no trust. Let’s all be watchful.
Report Post »jrfox
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:40amSo, by legislation, thy give us a right, that is already ours by the second amendment!!!!
Now, things are in order to recind that right–so they think.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:46amUm, no. Where did you get that?
They’re not “giving the right”, they stating that all states have to honor and respect that right, which is a power duly delegated to the federal government through the Constitution (see the Bill of Rights).
Report Post »Wolf
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:45amAny time something is regulated, it has gone from a right to a privilege. The Second Amendment says our ‘right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’. Creating any kind of law regarding gun ownership and carrying is an infringement of that right.
Report Post »So JrFox is correct. Though I feel ‘good’ about this being passed thus far, there is going to be some manner of regulation and even registration concerning those who carry. Absolutely nothing gives me hope this CONgress, and especially the Turd in the White House, will do anything beneficial for American citizens. This law is creating a back door for something else.
lukerw
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:47amRight ON! All they had to say was… the 2nd Amendment applies to All States as a GOD given Right! But, by this Bill… Men condone a Right, that Men can take away.
Report Post »I missed it… great thinking!
jsl55
Posted on November 19, 2011 at 12:23am@WOLF
Report Post »This might just be the “under the radar” that Obumma was talking about with Brady. If it passes the Senate and the teleprompter tells the turd to sign the bill, I’d bet money on it. They will insist that the feds need the state CCW records to verify permits.
sgtlmj
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:33amStates have different standards for issuing driver’s licenses, yet I can drive anywhere in the country on my state-issued license. It should be the same for concealed carry licenses. Folks who go to the trouble to obtain a CC license are overwhelmingly responsible, law-abiding folks. The rates of crimes committed by these people and subsequent license revocations are extremely low.
Report Post »booger71
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:55amActually the 2nd Amendment is an individual right (like free speech) that cannot be altered by local, state , or federal law.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:00amBooger is just trying to confuse you. Trust the Feds. The Feds are smarter than the States. God Bless our educated and wise Federal Government, whose brain trusts know what is best for us.
TEA
Report Post »caveman74
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:51amactually if I read the constitution right states can limit free speech as it only reads “congress shall enact no laws…”
Report Post »Wolf
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:51amYah, sure they do, Mocine… you keep believing that. I‘m sure you’re from the government and here to help. Just crawl back to your crib and let the adults talk now.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 10:17amDiving is a Privilege… Gun ownership is a Constitutional Right!
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 12:58pmMoncine, I laugh at your ignorance. You are a funny person.
Report Post »AJAYW
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:31amKeep the Feds. out of it. Let the states work it out between thenselves. If a state don‘t honor your state don’t go there and spend your money. Getting the Feds. involved will only take away our rights down the road.
Report Post »mdefu2
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:47amI am a supporter of states rights, but this is a constitutional right that should not be limited by any state. So I am in full support of the federal gov. telling the states about my GOD given rights.
Report Post »Diomasach
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 11:19amWhile normally I agree the Feds should stay out of most issues, this is a true rarity – a case where the Federal government is actually the proper venue for the issue. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution should actually make this point moot, but since States have resisted that the Federal government is right to step in.
Report Post »normbal
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:30amIt’s a Trojan Horse. The National Socialists required firearm registration in 1928 and look at where victim disarmament led Germany in the 1930s. As a matter of fact, this law was translated nearly verbatim and passed in America in 1968 as the Gun Control Act. We don’t need any more federalism in our civil rights, we need more free exercise of those civil rights as it is done in Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona. WOLVERINES!
“Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon — rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything — any time, any place, without asking anyone’s permission.”
The Atlanta Declaration, by L. Neil Smith. 1987.
Report Post »sawbuck
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:43amYou hit the nail on the head…!
Report Post »The trap has been set….Dose anyone believe for a moment ,
that the same people that gave us FAST AND FURIOUS
are all of a sudden having a chage of heart.
AJAYW
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:44amnormbal
You are right on spot – one must always watch the left hand as the right one moves around.
Report Post »UnreconstructedLibertarian
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:49amThis is a Trojan Horse, you are exactly correct.
This is the first step to national data-base and indentification of who/where the guns are. Then, they’ll come after them.
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 2:35pmL. Neil Smith knows what the Foundingt Fathers intended for the 2nd Amendment to be in reality. Our children have been taught that such things are now fantasy. I agree with a law mandating each state will honor ALL licenses, permits, titles, etc of ALL the states and leave it at that..Then lets begin the process of REPEALING all of the unConstitutional laws starting with the 1968 firearms act, and ending with the 1934 National Firearms Act! The right to carry a firearm SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
Report Post »Tickdog
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:29amget rid of the 7 republicans that voted against it! damn morons!
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:01amAdmire Fast & Furious – it was genius by the Feds – who are so much smarter than the States. God Bless our educated and wise Federal Government, whose brain trusts know what is best for us. TEA
Report Post »TeaPartyGoth97
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 10:33amJoe:
Report Post »AND, not ad.
You are not helping the cause.
MONICNE
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 4:15pm((excuse me, Joe… did you mean hara-kiri, which is the Japanese name for ritual belly-cut suicide? ))
HARA – Belly KIRI – Cut
TEA
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on November 18, 2011 at 9:24amhey smart ass…I’m write…loser…how does it feel? …you brain-dead moron BWAHAHHAHAHA
hara-kiri or hari-kari (ˌhærəˈkɪrɪ, ˌhærɪˈkɑːrɪ)
— n
Also called: seppuku (formerly, in Japan) ritual suicide by disembowelment with a sword when disgraced or under sentence of death
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hari-kari
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on November 18, 2011 at 9:28amoh and I put ‘write’ just to annoy you…LOL
Report Post »sarg356
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:26amcarry anyway
Report Post »HorseCrazy
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 10:51amyup better to face a carry charge then a bullet between the eyes. victim? never
Report Post »Orastreet
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:26amYou know, I’m just not feeling this one. I have a permit in Tennessee and because my state has strict requirements to get a permit, it’s good in 35 other states. I avoid Illinois and would never live there because of their gun laws. Not liking this law hope it dies as well. It won‘t give me anything I already don’t have and a bunch I don’t want!
Report Post »Wolf
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:56amSo what you‘re saying is that you’re in agreement that government, especially Tennessee, should have the right to regulate your freedoms and should not honor other states‘ permits just because they don’t meet with your approval. Good thinking, Ora. With ‘americans’ like you we sure don’t need a Constitution.
Report Post »itsmyfirstday
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:25amThis bill makes sense…so it has no chance in the Senate or on the Presidents desk…
Report Post »AJAYW
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:34amitsmyfirstday
Report Post »This is right down their alley. It will give them the controll. King Obama would sign it in a heart beat. They will get to write the rules on who, how, where and when one can carry.
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:41amAjay
No they wouldn’t. The CHL’s are state issued, and remain state issued without change in the issuing procedures, under the bill. Do you have to pass a Federal Driver‘s Exam when you get your driver’s license? Same thing guy.
Report Post »sawbuck
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:53amthe ATF database will get a work-out,and also give goverment more reasons to have intersate highways with checkpoints…..TSA… ON ALL HIGHWAYS.
Report Post »AJAYW
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:02amGhostOfJefferson
Report Post »I don’t think what the driver license requirement are wouyld be considered the same way. The basic driver license requirements are the same across the ccountry. The CCW requirements are different in many states so the Feds would step in and write them. I THINK? Of course I could be wrong if so it won‘t be the first time or last I’m sure… Just want the erro be be on the safe side
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:19am“I don’t think what the driver license requirement are wouyld be considered the same way. The basic driver license requirements are the same across the ccountry. ”
The hell they are. Requirements differ across states, look it up.
“The CCW requirements are different in many states so the Feds would step in and write them. I THINK? Of course I could be wrong if so it won‘t be the first time or last I’m sure… Just want the erro be be on the safe side”
This bill has *nothing* to say regarding that. All it says, and nobody has shown me different, is “if you have a CHL in your state, other states should honor it”. A better will would be “the 2nd Amendment is once again in force, no state may deny the right to bear arms in any manner, licensing is thus prohibited and carry of arms is to be unrestricted for all law abiding citizens”. But, woulda shoulda coulda, this is at least a step in the right direction.
Report Post »Trefcorp
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:24am@CONSTITUTIONALDIRECTIVE I agree! very bad bill. I’ve had a cpl for a long time and carry everywhere and this is no good. That which they can give they can take away. State rights! if you don’t like your states laws change them or move.
Report Post »wkw58
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:23amAnother over-reach by the Federal government. This IS a setback for States rights. I disagree with the NRA on this, and I am a Life Member of the NRA.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:30amStates rights do not override the powers specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. The federal government, in the bill of rights, is specifically charged with protecting our enumerated rights, including our right to keep and bear arms.
States rights is normally the correct path, but not if states violate rights or try and tread on specifically granted federal powers. In this case, for once, the federal government has it right.
Report Post »RichNGadsden
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:33amAnother over reach? Seems to me they are trying to return some of the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and allow persons the ability to protect themselves. This is to reel in some of the various governments’ over reach already.
Report Post »azsmitty
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:22amIsn’t it amazing that “polititions” fear an “legally armed citizenry!” Most states that issue conceal carry permits require rigorous background checks and training before they issue the permit. Those who abide by the law are not the problem, they never have been, those who obtain weapons illegally, those who have criminal history are the issue. Some states, like Texas, have “inhanced sentencing” guidelines, the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony tacks another 5years onto the usual sentence, that 5 years is not subject to time off for good behavior. Punish those who refuse to comply with societies laws, let those who do, live free.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:21am“would allow states with tough requirements, such as New York and California, “to allow in concealed carry gun-toting people from states, such as Florida, which repeatedly have given dangerous people licenses to carry.””
Tough requirements? They mean that these are “may issue” states, not “shall issue”. Ergo, what this means in reality is that in NY and CA, you get a “permit” only if you’re highly politically connected or extremely wealthy (think movie stars/director wealthy here), and gun ownership (let alone being able to carry one) is severely restricted. These highly “progressive” states are in a tiff because, egads, regular people might be armed and as we all know, the unenelightened mobs cannot be trusted with weapons.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:27amIt tramples the 10th Amendment and the rights of the states. Of course this bill is dead in the Senate and doesn’t address the problem JOBS. The GOP is cares more about special interests than the People.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:54am@Enicom
False. Learn Constitutional law and theory before you spout off with such ignorance. I’ve already stated the case in the thread several times, read and learn.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:34amGhost is absolutely correct – If I can carry my concealed handguns in Virginia, why should the People of Illinois interfere with me when I visit Chicago? I want Chicago to be just as safe as Detroit, don’t you?
TEA
PS, I want the Feds to tell my state gay marriage is allowed, and marijuana can be grown for personal use, so getting a concealed weapons law passed is a good first start.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 10:15amSo, Ghost you are against DOMA for the same reason right? Agan this is an unconstitutional bill that tramples on the 10th amendment and the right of states to set their own policies.
Report Post »Dahart
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:19amSomething smells “Fishy”? Remember the UN want to control our guns too…..things that make you go ….hummmmmm
Report Post »nobull14
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:19amIts just another case of big brother sticking there nose in are business??? .Any congressman that voted for this bill will not get my vote in 2012.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:27amExplain to me how this is them sticking their nose in our business. Do you have similar observations about the notion that a driver’s license issued in, say, Ohio is honored in Nevada?
Report Post »TX VOL
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:34amActually, this is probably the closest thing they’ve done to actaully following the Constitution. States rights only apply to things not in the constitution. 2A says we get to pack…period!!
Report Post »RichNGadsden
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:39amGhost, apparently NOBULL14 thinks that the Congress will try to make him carry a gun.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:40am@TX
Exactly. Schools really, really need to reintroduce American Civics courses that include a thorough study of the Constitution. It would help aspiring Leftists the most, but also can be of value to the Right regarding the actual meaning of State’s rights.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:45am@Rich
LOL!
I hope they slip this into another bill in the Senate and it passes. Nobody, as of yet, has demonstrated the claims being made of “federal database” etc. I‘m also seeing a big failing in grasping what State’s Rights are, and are not.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 1:59pmTX VOL
Report Post »Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:34am
Actually, this is probably the closest thing they’ve done to actaully following the Constitution. States rights only apply to things not in the constitution. 2A says we get to pack…period!!
__________________________
Only 2A doesn’t, it talks about a well regulated militia.
Virginia Joe
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:18amIt‘s about freakin’ time! This bill is LONG over due !!!
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:29amAmen. It’s a pain in the petoot to wade through the reciprocity issues between states when traveling. I have an Ohio and Arizona CHL, so that covers *most* other states, but there’s always the strange exceptions, especially across New England, excepting perhaps New Hampshire and Vermont. I’ll be happy to not have to check my route continuously. It’s not like I travel to Illinois (I do not, and will never again until they reform that rat hole) nor D.C. (been there, done that).
Report Post »Wolf
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 10:12amWhat, 1779 wasn’t early enough?
Report Post »lwpenn
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 1:32pmVirginia has the best CCW laws, thank you Virginnia. Virginna wrote the first Bill of Rights. Washington just copied it.
Report Post »SpankDaMonkey
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:16am.
Report Post »Sounds good, but it’ll never happen……………
dman78
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:15amWhat this bill is pushing is a nationwide database and federal level investigation for gun owners. And they will want you to prove you have a need to carry conceal…I have my justification, it’s the 2A. I hope this bill dies in the senate so they could remove these gun grabbing provisions.
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:19amThe trojan horse.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:23amOh? Seems to me it doesn’t do that, if you have a local CHL all it seems to state is that “you‘re good to go in the other states that issue CHL’s”. Can you point out the provisions in the bill that create a database/tracking? I’m not really certain that most CCW organizations would be supporting this if there exists what you say exists.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:25am“Stearns and Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., said their proposal would not create a federal licensing system but merely require states to honor one another’s carry permits.”
This seems fairly clear that they are not creating a federal database, no more than they have a Federal Drivers License by honoring each state‘s driver’s license in all other states. I‘d love to see what you’ve dug up, specific fact wise, regarding this topic.
Report Post »sawbuck
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:19amIf people think they haven’t played this chess game through,
Report Post »their in for a big surprise.
This administration has the best “word wizards” in the world.
AKA…… Cass Sunstein.
garyM
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:14amThat’s good they passed it and made it legal, anyone with any sense has been carrying one anyway when going on vacation or traveling. How would anyone protect themselves and their family without a weapon? Truck drivers certainly should be packing as much as they travel in high crimes areas! A truck driver should get hazardous duty pay when they cross the Mississippi River headed east or North!
Report Post »constitutionaldirective
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:11amThis NOT a good thing no matter WHAT the NRA is spewing!
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:18amSounds like you have a problem with the Second Amendment.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:37amThe NRA is working with the Bradys and Obama to attack the 2nd Amendment together.
Don’t trust the NRA.
Trust your GUNZ. They will never betray you.
Report Post »constitutionaldirective
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:42amNO SIR!!! I DO have a problem with the VIOLATION of the TENTH though!
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:55am@COnstitutional.
If you have a problem with the 10th, I submit you haven’t read the 10th. Read it, and read where the Fedgov is empowered, and where it is not. That should clear this up for you. The Bill of Rights IS a federal concern.
Report Post »Wolf
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 10:24am@Ghost… sorry, Ghost: the BoR is an Individual concern, not a Federal concern. The BoR delineates our God given Individual rights, not those of the fed in any way other than insuring they are not trampled. And any law concerning the BoR is an infringement on those rights.
Report Post »Capt. Ron
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:10amIt’s about time.
Report Post »Wolf
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 11:18amWhat, 1779 wasn’t early enough? (But I repeat myself.)
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:09amFirst — WONDERFULL…
Second — This will be killed instantly by Reid in the Senate.
Report Post »Skrewedretiree
Posted on November 18, 2011 at 8:45pmYes, and that was my first reaction. The Democraps have already killed a Balanced Budget Amendment, desiring to keep on with the Tax and Spend theocracy, and they will kill any bill that keeps the rights of the citizens to arm themselves as well, as that would challenge their autocratic power. No, try as we might, we will surely lose under the modern Congress and Supreme Court, stacked over the years with career politicians and judges bowing to the Democrap Will. They will come to take our guns, but they should be warned: They will see them brought out muzzle-first, loaded and cocked.
Report Post »constitutionaldirective
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:08amIf anyone here thinks the Feds getting involved in STATES gun laws you are sorrowfully mistaken!
This is a VERY, VERY bad thing.. no matter what the NRA is spewing!
Report Post »Locked
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:19amThe federal government does indeed get involved with interstate affairs. You either didn’t read the article, or you don’t understand how the government works.
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:26amAaaaahhh, now I see what you mean. Disregard my last post. The government has been pulling these backdoor gun grab moves for years. Theyre getting sofisticated.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:34amSee my explantion on the thread about delegated powers to the federal government.
Beck‘s take on state’s rights is incorrect. If, say, Maryland wishes to set up the USSR in Maryland, they cannot, as it would violate rights as well as powers granted to the federal government. That‘s the other half of the coin of state’s rights, the states cannot tread on powers specifically granted to the federal government, just as the fed cannot legislate regarding items where they have no authority in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is a clear charge for the fedgov to protect that right, it‘s not a state’s rights issue.
Report Post »constitutionaldirective
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:45amI understand completely.. this a CLEAR violation of the 10th Amendment..
NOW ask me if I support unConstitutional STATE gun laws!
I AM an ARMED CITIZEN! … and I DO carry an UNCONSTITUTIONAL Weapon Permit!
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 8:58am@Directive
No, you clearly do not. I respect your concern, but it’s misplaced. If this bill did *anything* except say “the states have to respect the law of the land regarding the 2a” then your concern would be merited. The 2nd amendment (all Amendments actually) ARE federal concerns where power is delegated, ergo, the 10th doesn’t apply. Please, read the 10th amendment fully and note where is says “powers not delegated” prior to noting where states, or the people respectively, have domain.
Report Post »constitutionaldirective
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:18amUnfortunately you ignore the history of our federal government to overstep EVERYTHING..
They DO have the right to control the transport of weapons across boarders and on interstate routes of transportation.. IF it affects commerce.. I’ll give you that..
the States DO NOT have the right to require a carry permit.. (violates “bear arms”).. but living in a State we choose to follow their laws, no matter how unconstitutional (like get a concealed weapons permit).. we can always move or NOT visit a particular State.. THAT is freedom of choice on our part..
For instance I DO NOT visit South Carolina, because THEY have chosen to usurp my rights to carry.. or course this too is confused by my own State’s unconstitutional carry laws..
THE ONLY constitutional action the feds could take on this issue (outside commerce) is to enforce constitutional carry (2nd amendment) in all states.. period.. eliminating unconstitutional State’s gun laws..
Mr. Jefferson would be spinning in his grave over this.. but I think you know that!
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 9:27am@Constitutional
So you grant that the 2nd Amendment is a federal power, and I agree. States rights apply in no way as an argument against this bill.
Should we have to get licenses for bearing arms? Absolutely not. But reality is, most states require it for *concealed carry* (not necessarily or normally open carry though, which is usually mostly unregulated except in extremist blue states). The Fedgoc requiring states to honor each other‘s CHL’s is a step in the right direction and as a 2nd amendment issue is fully within their constitutionally delegated powers (hence, not 10th amendment). Not perfect, but if you want perfect, you’re living on the wrong planet. :)
Report Post »GetWisdom
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 10:10am@CONSTITUTIONALDIRECTIVE: “THE ONLY constitutional action the feds could take on this issue (outside commerce) is to enforce constitutional carry (2nd amendment) in all states.. period.. eliminating unconstitutional State’s gun laws..”
Nailed it. Citizens who are non criminals and can legally own a firearm can constitutionally “bear” said firearm. Concealed or not.
Report Post »