Senate May Try to Override State Concealed Weapons Restrictions...

Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,210
By Amendment To Defense Authorization Bill (at least according to the Bradys).

Washington, DC - The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is alerting activists across the country that a potential amendment to a Department of Defense authorization bill scheduled for action in the U.S. Senate as early as next week would eviscerate limitations in many U.S. states on who can carry a loaded, hidden handgun in public in their state.

“We believe that, at the urging of the extremist gun lobby, some Senators want to adopt Federal legislation that would undercut state law limits on carrying hidden handguns,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign. “This will endanger public safety and make it more difficult for our police officers to do their jobs.”

The Brady Action alert emailed yesterday urged activists to call their Senators’ offices to voice their opposition.

The bill that may be introduced as an amendment, S. 845, would allow the carrying of loaded, concealed firearms outside a person’s home state, even by persons legally barred from possessing guns in the state where the carrying occurs. It would apply in the 48 states that allow concealed carrying of firearms and would effectively allow the weaker concealed carry laws of one state to nullify the restrictions on gun carrying of other states.

Under the proposed legislation, to carry concealed weapons people need only meet the minimum requirements of federal law to possess a gun, be permitted in their home state to carry a concealed weapon, and abide by a state’s concealed carry location restrictions. For example, Alaska allows adult residents to carry a concealed weapon without a license, background check, or training as long as they are allowed to possess a gun under weak Alaska gun laws - even if they have committed repeated violent misdemeanors or have committed misdemeanor sex offenses against minors. This legislation would force the other 47 states that allow concealed carrying to allow many Alaskan violent misdemeanants to carry concealed guns in their state, even if a state completely bans gun possession by such persons.

Multiple studies have shown that laws allowing the carrying of concealed firearms have not reduced crime and, if anything, have increased violent crime, including murder and robbery. Numerous examples of crimes and dangerous acts committed by concealed carry licensees are at http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/facts/ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdf.


http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=1159

I'm withholding comment regarding their usual BS, exaggeration and fact twisting, but it would be outstanding if the amendment actually passes and is signed (chances of that... slim to none).

Even if does fail, anything that gets the antis in an uproar and lets them know
that despite a Democratic Congress and President that we're still going to hammer them with whatever we can, is fine by me.
 
Rating - 96.8%
30   1   0
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
11,352
Likes
3,361
Location
Texas
Right. And how many violent, sex offending misdemenants from Alaska are going to be walking the streets of MA with a gun???? .00000000001?

Nice! Good to see a bit of action from Congress that is actually pro-gun. Make Brady react to us vs. always the other way around.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
12,219
Likes
6,870
Nice! Good to see a bit of action from Congress that is actually pro-gun. Make Brady react to us vs. always the other way around.

Is congress actually reacting to the recent surge in firearms purchases, or is this the type of thing that congress will just barely pass, knowing full well that Obama will veto it, so the congressmen from gun friendly states can get reelected while nothing actually changes.

Hopefully this passes. It is probably as close to national recipricity we're going to get for a long time.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
10,924
Likes
434
Location
Vermont, a Free State
More blustering and confusion from the Brady Bunch. What do you expect?

Here's some real stuff, related as it gets to the Defense Authorization Bill.

S. 371 23 sponsors

S. 845 23 sponsors

H. 197 139 sponsors

Looks like this isn't going to be as slim as you may think. Getting BETTER all the time. Truth be known, we have more and more supporters in Congress, every time the Anti's try to marginalize another slice of gun owners, the more FUDDS that get woken up and are no longer FUDDS.
 
Rating - 96.8%
30   1   0
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
11,352
Likes
3,361
Location
Texas
Is congress actually reacting to the recent surge in firearms purchases, or is this the type of thing that congress will just barely pass, knowing full well that Obama will veto it, so the congressmen from gun friendly states can get reelected while nothing actually changes.

Hopefully this passes. It is probably as close to national recipricity we're going to get for a long time.

Their individual motivation doesn't matter, the end result still is the Brady's are reacting to us for a change and that's good. Initiative; take it.
 
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
1,545
Likes
96
Location
NH
While I feel dirty saying i'd like the legislature to override state's rights on any issue since this is an act to preserve a constitutional right I can deal with that feeling.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
226
Likes
39
Location
Lexington
Who is the major Funding Foundation for the Brady Campaign? Follow the money I always say, and you'll see the social engineering at work.

Is having bad breath illegal in public in Ma**h***chewsitts yet?

You Brady Bunch are
just a bunch of pathetic limp wristed pony tailed champagne drinking big banker finance backed socialist loving neo conned bamboozeled shiny shoe liberal corporate gated community nancy nazis...
Good-I am glad I got that out of my system. [laugh2]
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,691
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
While I feel dirty saying i'd like the legislature to override state's rights on any issue since this is an act to preserve a constitutional right I can deal with that feeling.

I am thinking the same thing.
[thinking] We have to be extraordinarily careful in the coming days on such issues...

Over the past 8 years, RINOs have overrun the conservative ranks and now we have 2 parties either doing the "wrong things for the right reasons" or the "right things for the wrong reasons"...

Either is a threat to liberty. Even if you like the middle of a slippery slope better than the top - don't forget you are sliding and may go right past the point you wanted to reach...

Enough with the metaphors, the short version is look the gift horse in the mouth and recognize that the vast majority of our woes today with regard to government are not evil people doing evil things with the power of government, but well intentioned fools trampling on the Constitutional limitations of government to achieve a near-term goal that itself may be desirable (civil rights, emancipation, keeping people from dieing in the streets, domestic security from terrorism).

The ends does not justify the means - keep asking questions even when you are happy...
 
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
1,271
Likes
178
Location
Eastern MA
[thinking] We have to be extraordinarily careful in the coming days on such issues...

Over the past 8 years, RINOs have overrun the conservative ranks and now we have 2 parties either doing the "wrong things for the right reasons" or the "right things for the wrong reasons"...

Either is a threat to liberty. Even if you like the middle of a slippery slope better than the top - don't forget you are sliding and may go right past the point you wanted to reach...

Enough with the metaphors, the short version is look the gift horse in the mouth and recognize that the vast majority of our woes today with regard to government are not evil people doing evil things with the power of government, but well intentioned fools trampling on the Constitutional limitations of government to achieve a near-term goal that itself may be desirable (civil rights, emancipation, keeping people from dieing in the streets, domestic security from terrorism).

The ends does not justify the means - keep asking questions even when you are happy...

You are right, but it does feel nice to have rights granted, rather than taken away, through legislative trickery.
 

Bill Nance

Banned
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
4,091
Likes
846
Location
God's Country, WA
The issue here iss that politicians and idelogues of both left and right have lost any capacity for intellectual honesty. It makes me want to puke to watch people who supported the Bushies screaming over deficits and big government -but only when a Democrat is in office.

Equally it pisses me off when the statist Dems try to oppose legislation based on the 10th amendment, which they've worked hard to shit all over for decades.

It isn't 1789 and there are a lot of issues that used to be states rights things that simply can't be ,managed by the states. We'd be so hamstrung in terms of policy we'd never get anything done. But the pols need to work from the premise that the fed. govt has no mandate beyond the constitution unless they can provide one HELL of a case for it.

I'm getting sick of the partisan BS on both sides of the isle, none of which is aimed at getting us to where we ought to be, merely to serve short-term political gaiins.

This is bad law. The feds don't have the right to over-ride the states on this without a clear ruling by the supreme court. I'd love to support this and I won't oppose it, but the time isn't now, it's after some more clarification of the second amendment by the supremes. If they incorporate 2A then it's clearly a federal issue in terms of forcing the states to comply with federal law.
 

pdm

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Jan 28, 2007
Messages
10,518
Likes
2,397
Location
Taxachusetts
The issue here iss that politicians and idelogues of both left and right have lost any capacity for intellectual honesty. It makes me want to puke to watch people who supported the Bushies screaming over deficits and big government -but only when a Democrat is in office.

Equally it pisses me off when the statist Dems try to oppose legislation based on the 10th amendment, which they've worked hard to shit all over for decades.

It isn't 1789 and there are a lot of issues that used to be states rights things that simply can't be ,managed by the states. We'd be so hamstrung in terms of policy we'd never get anything done. But the pols need to work from the premise that the fed. govt has no mandate beyond the constitution unless they can provide one HELL of a case for it.

I'm getting sick of the partisan BS on both sides of the isle, none of which is aimed at getting us to where we ought to be, merely to serve short-term political gaiins.

This is bad law. The feds don't have the right to over-ride the states on this without a clear ruling by the supreme court. I'd love to support this and I won't oppose it, but the time isn't now, it's after some more clarification of the second amendment by the supremes. If they incorporate 2A then it's clearly a federal issue in terms of forcing the states to comply with federal law.

Right on. In a perfect world, such a federal law would be mooted by the SCOTUS incorporating and taking seriously the "shall not be infringed" part. But I won't hold my breath.
 

Bill Nance

Banned
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
4,091
Likes
846
Location
God's Country, WA
I just had a thought...once 2A is incorporated, someone from NH can sue the shit out of mass under the full faith and credit clause. You don't even need to mention 2A other than that it's incorporated.

"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"
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
10,924
Likes
434
Location
Vermont, a Free State
I'm saying don't applaud legislative end-runs even if they accomplish what you want...

That's how we got here...

I'll agree, then add that one of our flaws is that we have been playing by "the rules" all along, and look where it got us.

Remember, that the other side believes that winning is everything, regardless of how much they "cheat". Ethical people are certain to lose against that. (And that's why we've lost so much already.)

The "Anti's" know we will always play fair, so all they have do is keep "cheating", and they'll get their desired result. (Unfortunately for them, we no longer do that, but, they're still in denial about it.) it isn't just 2A issues, either. The Marxist bastards do this with anything they want to cram down our throats.

I'm not fond of end-runs, but, truth be known, that's probably the best way to get there. Time to level the playing field. I'd prefer to make them play fair, but there's no way to really force that issue.

And, it isn't like the pro-2A folks in Congress haven't TRIED to do this without an end-run. Check the 3 bills I quoted. All 3 of them are directly addressing the issue, not a back door ammendment.
 

Bill Nance

Banned
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
4,091
Likes
846
Location
God's Country, WA
...And, it isn't like the pro-2A folks in Congress haven't TRIED to do this without an end-run. Check the 3 bills I quoted. All 3 of them are directly addressing the issue, not a back door ammendment.

I have no problem at all with this getting through as an amendment. what I have a problem with is a usurpation of state's rights.

Amendments inserted into "must-pass" bills by the minority is as old as The Republic itself. It's often the only way a minority party can get things done.

I have a lot more problem with attempted fillibusters on virtually everything the majority tries to pass than I have with amendments. It was wrong when the Dems tried it and it's wrong when the Reps do it.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
10,924
Likes
434
Location
Vermont, a Free State
I have no problem at all with this getting through as an amendment. what I have a problem with is a usurpation of state's rights.

I tend to agree, and think the REAL answer would be encorporation of the 2A.

In theory, the ammendment is totally legit, and theoretically no needed.

In practice, the state CCW laws and application of them is so broken that it's mind boggling.

Now, you say this is usurpation of state's rights.

What if a certain state decclared an official religion, and said that free speech in that state would no longer be allowed? Would you consider it bad if the Federal government stepped in and made a law mandating free speech and no official state religion?

The 2A is no different than the 1A. Both are subject to reasonable restrictions, the bitch of it is in the details of what is reasonable. Don't take me as thinking the current restrictions of either is even remotely reasonable.

(Anybody that thinks the 1A is not subject to 'reasonable restriction', ask yourself what would happen to you if you yelled 'fire' in a crowded theater when there was no fire. Also, inciting a riot is not free speech. So there are limited 'reasonable' restrictions to the 1A.)
 
Rating - 100%
17   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
3,518
Likes
545
Location
Marlborough, MA
(Anybody that thinks the 1A is not subject to 'reasonable restriction', ask yourself what would happen to you if you yelled 'fire' in a crowded theater when there was no fire. Also, inciting a riot is not free speech. So there are limited 'reasonable' restrictions to the 1A.)

I assume you mean is, not should be. That would be a whole other can of worms.
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
1,160
Likes
81
Location
Saugus, PRM
I am thinking the same thing.

Me too. While I stick with the basic libertarian/conservative view that federal should trounce all over state laws, I also believe that items not specifically mentioned in the constitution should be decided by the states. the corollary to that would be that items specifically mentioned in the constitution should NOT be overridden by the states, so I'm ok with this one, even if it makes me feel a little slimy I guess.[thinking]
 
Top Bottom