A great victory for who?

[Glock23ONME]

Friday, August 07, 2009

The United States Senate recently voted on an amendment that would have allowed Right-to-Carry permit holders to carry in all other states that also grant carry permits. The amendment, sponsored by Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and David Vitter (R-La.), won a significant majority of votes, 58 to 39, but failed to reach the 60 votes needed to avoid a Senate filibuster.

Anti-gun senators have long argued that the majority of Americans do not support firearm freedoms. They made this erroneous claim once again during the debate on the Thune/Vitter amendment. Now, a new poll has proven them wrong.

Conducted by Zogby International and The O'Leary Report, the poll looked at Americans' opinions on some key issues related to the Second Amendment. One of the questions asked: "Currently, 39 states have laws that allow residents to carry firearms to protect themselves, only if they pass a background check and pay a fee to cover administrative costs. Most of those states also require applicants to have firearms safety training. Do you support or oppose this law?"

It will come as a shock to the 39 senators who voted to deny law-abiding Americans their right to self-defense when traveling outside their home states, but the results showed that 83% of Americans support Right-to-Carry laws. The poll also revealed that support for Right-to-Carry crosses party lines, with 86% of independent voters and 80% of Democratic voters supporting Right-to-Carry. This is no surprise to gun owners, however, who have long known that the majority of Americans support the Second Amendment and the right to self-defense.

The anti-gun community is trumpeting its 39-vote procedural "victory" as a major achievement. But just like the vote in the Senate, the overwhelming majority of Americans are on our side.

Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.


Im sure most if not all of you have seen this, but I felt the need to post it. Its a bit out of controll how a few elected officals can block what 86% of what americans want. Kind of like the health bill punish the greater majorty for 15% A great victory for who?

 

[Keystone]

<begin questionable political rant>
This is one of the major drawbacks of the bipartisan system we have going on here - many of the politicians we have in office got there by being radically to one side or another, where as most Americans tend to fall more towards the middle.
</rant>

I'd love it if my LTC was valid in every state. I wonder how many states will grumble about the lost revenues (piddly as they are) from Non-res LTCs...
Glad to see some good gun legislature at least making a "good try" in Congress, and that is isn't all bans and the like.

 

[FreeWillie]

I'd love it if my LTC was valid in every state. I wonder how many states will grumble about the lost revenues (piddly as they are) from Non-res LTCs...
Glad to see some good gun legislature at least making a "good try" in Congress, and that is isn't all bans and the like.

When I go to another state to hunt, I pay a non-resident fee to hunt, same with fishing. Why would it not be acceptable to charge a one-time fee for a non-resident permit to carry in that state? That would solve the "money" issue.

I too, agree that it is promising that good gun legislation is showing up in Congress. About time!

 

[FiremanBob]

Willie, the non-resident permit idea might sound reasonable until you realize that you'd end up buying up to 49 of them if you travel much.

 

[Underwhere]

My personal belief is that those who voted for this bill did so because they realized it had very little chance of ever passing and wanted to bolster their 2A support by doing so.

And EC made a very good point that if this passed, though convenient for us it would be a great detriment to state rights.

I'd rather have a state set laws than the Fed govt.

 

[Chris]

Why do I need a phuquing permit for a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT?

That said, if states can honor each other's driver's license, I see no reason why other 'personal' licenses should not be treated the same. (I specifically avoid the whole professional license debate here)

Does anyone know exactly what law was enacted that allows anyone from one state to drive in another?

 

[Glock23ONME]

Why do I need a phuquing permit for a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT?

That said, if states can honor each other's driver's license, I see no reason why other 'personal' licenses should not be treated the same. (I specifically avoid the whole professional license debate here)QUOTE]

+1

 

[DanK]

I would be a little cautious about the poll cited by the OP. If I am not mistaken, its terminology would be identified as "leading" by statisticians. And frankly, since the requirements for a license to carry from state to state do vary, and "firearms safety" training is often limited to basically "don't point the gun at anyone and try not to shoot yourself in the foot", its probably a little unfair to present the question with the given information.

That being said, I fully support that type of legislation. It appears that denying a person the right to protect themselves in one state, when he is perfectly qualified to do so in another is equivalent to essentially saying that the safety of a Ohioan is less important than that of a New Yorker. That is particularly true with state that have different requirements for non-resident licenses, creating an imperfect reciprocity.

While I agree that States have every right to collect such fees as reasonable and proper, I think that there are much better ways of going about collecting them than requiring everyone to apply for non-resident licenses. For instance, why not just offer a state specific modification to a license? It appears possible to allow anyone applying for a license to carry in any state, to chose the states in which he would like his license to be valid. At that point, just collect the appropriate fee (sum of all the state license fees selected by the individual). The monies could probably be transferred to appropriate jurisdictions at the point of sale.

 

[Glock23ONME]

I dont believe I should have to pay for a right guranteed to me as a free man in the great USA.
That said I will pay what ever it takes to make me compliant in all of our states.

 

[Gonzo]

There shouldn't even be permits. It's a Gawddamned Constitutionally protected (not granted) right.

 

[dingbat]

And EC made a very good point that if this passed, though convenient for us it would be a great detriment to state rights.

I'd rather have a state set laws than the Fed govt.

Perhaps the wording of the bill would set a bad precident, but I don't see the ideology of it as being a problem for state rights.

It's the second amendment of the constitution. It should apply to all states and citizens of the United States. This legislation shouldn't even have to exist in the first place. It's as if you could be denied your first or fourth amendment rights in New York because you are a resident of Mass.

 

[DanK]

Why do I need a phuquing permit for a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT?

That said, if states can honor each other's driver's license, I see no reason why other 'personal' licenses should not be treated the same. (I specifically avoid the whole professional license debate here)

Does anyone know exactly what law was enacted that allows anyone from one state to drive in another?

I think that personal licenses as professional licenses would be covered by interstate commerce. Commerce isn't limited to selling a truck load of goods... meeting a prospective client in your personal car is also an important ingredient in successful commerce.

For firearms licenses I would argue that interstate commerce could also apply in the case of hunting related items. Long guns, open carry only, etc. But I think it would be going too far to assume the same argument for concealed carry. Although, the question could be raised in the context of personal protection while on a business trip.

 

[Glock23ONME]

Exactly!

 

[K-DUB]

Willie, the non-resident permit idea might sound reasonable until you realize that you'd end up buying up to 49 of them if you travel much.

You're right FiremanBob. This pisses me off. If someone is a commercial truck driver, she would need to spend a LOT of money to get non-res permits for the states she drives through. Why should people who are on the road all the time be defenseless? (Especially women...sorry guys, but we all know that women are more vulnerable than men b/c of our physical differences.)

Especially in the case of hauling hazardous or explosive cargo, these drivers are rolling targets, & shouldn't be denied the right to self defense. Don't get me going on what COULD happen if someone was to [STRIKE]carjack [/STRIKE] truckjack a big tanker....

Buying 47 non-res permits, even if all the states were shall-issue, would be cost prohibitive for most people.

 

[Glock23ONME]

Agreed

 

[yanici]

And EC made a very good point that if this passed, though convenient for us it would be a great detriment to state rights.

I'd rather have a state set laws than the Fed govt.

I'm kinda ambivalent about that. MA and CA are pretty bad. Then you've got Illinois and Wisconsin that are real bad. For the States to trump your 2A rights ain't so great.

 

[Glock23ONME]

What about gun bans in specific cities like Chicago I don't understand the logic.

 

[Larry Legend]

IMO, we need to work toward the incorporation of the second amendment. The Heller decision was a HUGE step towards this.

Currently, I believe hat only portion of the bill of rights is incorporated, meaning that the remainder of the BOR is only protected from federal laws, not local and state laws.

 

[Sbh87]

I'm kinda ambivalent about that. MA and CA are pretty bad. Then you've got Illinois and Wisconsin that are real bad. For the States to trump your 2A rights ain't so great.

You are right Illinois and Wisconsin are really bad. Illinois there is no such thing as carrying a firearm for personal protection outside the home and Illinois some jurisdictions have banned the owning of handguns. Wisconsin you can open carry but caution is urged in doing so. So you have Illinois/Wisconsin at the top of the list for bad and MA and CA not far behind that.

 

[Jose]

I think that personal licenses as professional licenses would be covered by interstate commerce. Commerce isn't limited to selling a truck load of goods... meeting a prospective client in your personal car is also an important ingredient in successful commerce.

For firearms licenses I would argue that interstate commerce could also apply in the case of hunting related items. Long guns, open carry only, etc. But I think it would be going too far to assume the same argument for concealed carry. Although, the question could be raised in the context of personal protection while on a business trip.

Hell no. The interstate commerce clause has been abused long enough already.

It's a states issue. Keep the G-D feds out of it.

 

[Jose]

Willie, the non-resident permit idea might sound reasonable until you realize that you'd end up buying up to 49 of them if you travel much.

You are wrong. One or two non-resident licenses will let you carry legally in the overwhelming majority of the states.

I have Ohio resident and NH non-resident concealed handgun licenses and I can legally carry in 36 states.

 

[JustEric]

Does anyone know exactly what law was enacted that allows anyone from one state to drive in another?

I was always under the impression that reciprocation of drivers licenses was a state-by-state thing, but that all 50 states honor the drivers licenses of the other 49 for the sake of tourism and the like. Similar to the current LTC reciprocation, but on a unanimous scale.

You can use your car to bring money into the state (even if it's just buying gas), but carrying in another state doesn't really guarantee any money for local commerce. *shrug*

 

[WillyJP]

Schumer was seen on the floor of the Senate giving slight nods to Dem senators with pro-gun constituencies as soon as he was sure it wasn't going to reach the 60 votes. This way they can point to their "pro-gun" record to the voters back home. \

So called maverick Blue Dog democrats are a myth. They have consistently toed the line Pelosi/Reid lay out for them.

My personal belief is that those who voted for this bill did so because they realized it had very little chance of ever passing and wanted to bolster their 2A support by doing so.

And EC made a very good point that if this passed, though convenient for us it would be a great detriment to state rights.

I'd rather have a state set laws than the Fed govt.

 

[Glock23ONME]

You are wrong. One or two non-resident licenses will let you carry legally in the overwhelming majority of the states.

I have Ohio resident and NH non-resident concealed handgun licenses and I can legally carry in 36 states.

P.O. Being born a freeman in this country the second amendment should be a good enough permit for all states.

 

[cekim]

There shouldn't even be permits. It's a Gawddamned Constitutionally protected (not granted) right.

In fact, the way it supposed to work is that it requires a "permit" to restrict our rights... Also known as "due process"...

A warrant and/or review in the courts is required (not should be, but already is, we have just lost track of this) to restrict the government from infringing upon constitutionally protected rights.

We have allowed this process to turn completely on its head.

 

[Cato]

Does anyone know exactly what law was enacted that allows anyone from one state to drive in another?

There was never a federal law enacted that allows this. It is totally voluntary on each state's part. All 50 states have established this policy, however any state could stop accepting out of state driver's licenses if they wanted to.

The federal government has no legitimate authority to force states to accept any licensing of other states, including gun licenses; nor should they.

 

[Jose]

The federal government has no legitimate authority to force states to accept any licensing of other states, including gun licenses; nor should they.

Um, yes they do

US Constitution Article IV Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Records, by its judicial definition, includes licenses.

The real question is this: why should we accept a infringement of our right to keep and BEAR arms in any manner that does not infringe on the rights of others?

 

[Cato]

Um, yes they do

Records, by its judicial definition, includes licenses.

Your application of the term “records” as used in Article 4 Section 1 of the constitution is too broad. State licensing laws as well as other state laws do not come under this clause. If it did all licenses would have to be recognized by all other states. Most states not only license drivers but also license plumbers, electricians, real estate agents, barbers, optometrists and on and on. People who possess these licenses in one state do not have a right to conduct that activity in another state unless that state has agreed to reciprocate or simple recognize the license.

Licensing is basically special permission to do something that otherwise is illegal. Article 4 Section 1 does not prevent states from making laws that prevent a certain activity. If a state has made an activity illegal they are under no obligation to accept special permission granted by another state to perform that activity. In fact most states do not recognize Massachusetts’ marriage license laws regarding homosexuals.

This could go further into the very idea of licensing and whether or not it is abused by the state. But that’s another area of discussion.