Senate to vote on concealed weapons measure

I am surpised that so little has been mentioned about this on the various gun forums. here is a chance for gun owners to show our strength and slam the senate and there is almost no mention. Shame on you gun owners. Its no wonder you are so little respected.
 
Bob Menendez (D-NJ) is speaking.... What a PUTZ!!!

And he's saying people from outside of CA can bring in CA illegal guns.... what part of 'you have to respect the states laws' does he not understand.

again a putz!!!
 
Gaffer said:
I am surpised that so little has been mentioned about this on the various gun forums. here is a chance for gun owners to show our strength and slam the senate and there is almost no mention. Shame on you gun owners. Its no wonder you are so little respected.
Click to expand...

It's a double edged sword in my opinion. Look at it this way. Let's say you're a MA resident with an unrestricted class A LTC, which allows you to carry in MA. This measure passes, and you can now carry everywhere. That's great, right? Now, let's say you're a VT resident with a pulse, which allows you to carry in VT. This measure passes, and now the .gov has a basis to force VT to adopt a licensing program to fall in line with the new federal law. Not so great, is it? Okay, so VT creates a carry license program similar to that of NH. Not a huge deal, easy to get, minimal fee, and life goes on. Now, the precedent has been established that the federal government can impose such regulations onto the states. We gun owners were cool with it because it expanded our ability to exercise our rights. I ask you this. Once that precedent has been established, what's to stop them from passing measures which restrict our rights in other ways? Okay, everyone can carry in every state as long as they have a license in their home state. However, every state is now subject to a list similar to the MA EOPS list. Once you give the .gov the power, they aren't only going to use it in ways that you approve of.
 
Last edited:
ochmude said:
It's a double edged sword in my opinion. Look at it this way. Let's say you're a MA resident with an unrestricted class A LTC, which allows you to carry in MA. This measure passes, and you can now carry everywhere. That's great, right? Now, let's say you're a VT resident with a pulse, which allows you to carry in VT. This measure passes, and now the .gov has a basis to force VT to adopt a licensing program to fall in line with the new federal law.
Click to expand...

If the law is written the way I think it is, all it will do is force the jackoff states to recognize permits. It wouldn't "force" a permit system where
there wasn't one before, or establish some sort of federal template type minimum licensing standard. (like there is for cars, etc. )

The obvious real problem here is that you know that even if this law is passed, commie states will openly disobey/ignore it and arrest people, much like NY, NJ, etc, already do with FOPA and in some cases, HR218 hassle jobs. (Where they detain the LEO for an hour while people make phone calls, etc..... ) Even if the person is vindicated in the end they will still get put through the wringer- the idea being to deter people from exercising their rights. Ultimately the only way to stop this would be if officials in those states were brought up on some kind of civil rights charges at the federal level, which has a cold chance in hell of ever happening, because no US attorney has the balls to lodge an indictment against some abusive police chief or whoever is ultimately responsible.

ETA: IMHO a better idea instead of trying to wage this at the national level would be for all the shall issue states to band together and form a
compact that allows some form of mutual permit recognition. Another idea is for this system to have its own permit with the requirements of
all the compact states being satisfied at once. For example, a person could go to their state, and either get the local permit or the "shall issue
compact" permit which may have additional checks/criteria that would satisfy the requirements of all the states in the compact. Then this way
you could take a class, do the shooting test (like what UT and NV require, I believe) and be covered in all the shall-issue states at once, for one
fee. You could job out the administrative crap (the actual licensing) to an office in one state (Let's say Utah) and job out the training requirement
crap to be a standardized course that existing NRA instructors could teach (and administer any testing required) all at once. Course, the
Federal government would probably go "waaaaah we cant possibly have states doing things like this that violate our poweeerrrrrr" [sad2]

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Well Ochmude I guess you didn't read the anendment it says "The amendment would allow individuals who have concealed carry permits to carry a firearm in other states that also grant concealed carry permits." Therefore Vt would be off limits either way. You could not carry there and a Vt. pulse could not carry elsewhere. Sounds fair to me!.
 
"The amendment would allow individuals who have concealed carry permits to carry a firearm in other states that also grant concealed carry permits."
Click to expand...
Which gets really interesting the case of states where permits are strictly limited to persons of privilege, power and influcence - for example, Hawaii where the last I read there was a single carry permit issued.
 
I thought of one problem that some states might try to enact. If when carrying in another state you have to follow that state's policies on weapon bans, some of the commie states might crack down even harder on firearms that wouldnt be allowed to sell/ own in that state. It wouldnt surprise me if this happened in states like MA, NJ,NY and CA. The result would be even more restrictions for that states residents.

Any thoughts?
 
Mike, I certainly hope that the law is written that way. From what I have read it does not force any sort of permit system on any particular state. My point is just that this law does not force any such system. If this law passes, it would be a good thing for gun owners. If the federal government, at some point in the future, tries to pass restrictive legislation that would force permit systems, approved weapon rosters, etc. onto the states, they could cite this legislation and our approval of it as the blessing they need to do so. Once it is established that the federal government can force states to recognize other state's permits, I see it as being very plausible for the federal government to attempt (and succeed in that attempt) to force states to do all sorts of things. The whole concept just doesn't sit right with me.

EDIT: Well, the vote was apparently cast while I was typing, so the whole thing is moot anyway.
 
2 votes shy, at least it gives a good bench mark, as to where people stand to some degree. We just need to keep bringing it up, again and again, and again. May have not been a perfect bill, but at least it was something in the right direction.
 
Gaffer said:
Well Ochmude I guess you didn't read the anendment it says "The amendment would allow individuals who have concealed carry permits to carry a firearm in other states that also grant concealed carry permits." Therefore Vt would be off limits either way. You could not carry there and a Vt. pulse could not carry elsewhere. Sounds fair to me!.
Click to expand...

Gaffer, I'm not saying that this specific legislation, which has already been voted down, would lead to anything negative for us. I just feel that once the federal government is given permission to force states to do anything, they'll abuse that power to our detriment with future legislation. It's happened before.
 
ochmude said:
It's a double edged sword in my opinion. Look at it this way. Let's say you're a MA resident with an unrestricted class A LTC, which allows you to carry in MA. This measure passes, and you can now carry everywhere. That's great, right? Now, let's say you're a VT resident with a pulse, which allows you to carry in VT. This measure passes, and now the .gov has a basis to force VT to adopt a licensing program to fall in line with the new federal law. Not so great, is it? Okay, so VT creates a carry license program similar to that of NH. Not a huge deal, easy to get, minimal fee, and life goes on. Now, the precedent has been established that the federal government can impose such regulations onto the states. We gun owners were cool with it because it expanded our ability to exercise our rights. I ask you this. Once that precedent has been established, what's to stop them from passing measures which restrict our rights in other ways? Okay, everyone can carry in every state as long as they have a license in their home state. However, every state is now subject to a list similar to the MA EOPS list. Once you give the .gov the power, they aren't only going to use it in ways that you approve of.
Click to expand...

Maybe the "VT carry permit" can simply be a VT drivers license indicating you are over 21?
 
Too bad it didn't pass but then again we have too many liberals to expect anything else.
 
I just saw it via Yahoo News, in AP's story:
"WASHINGTON – In a rare win for gun control advocates, the Senate on Wednesday rejected a measure allowing a person with a concealed weapon permit in one state to also hide his firearm when visiting another state."
What the hell "rare win" are they talking about? Just because they haven't yet banned everything the way they want? [rolleyes]
 
Meanie-14 said:
I just saw it via Yahoo News, in AP's story:
"WASHINGTON – In a rare win for gun control advocates, the Senate on Wednesday rejected a measure allowing a person with a concealed weapon permit in one state to also hide his firearm when visiting another state."
What the hell "rare win" are they talking about? Just because they haven't yet banned everything the way they want? [rolleyes]
Click to expand...

Well heaven knows they've just been giving us the world lately. [rolleyes]
 
Meanie-14 said:
I just saw it via Yahoo News, in AP's story:
"WASHINGTON – In a rare win for gun control advocates, the Senate on Wednesday rejected a measure allowing a person with a concealed weapon permit in one state to also hide his firearm when visiting another state."
What the hell "rare win" are they talking about? Just because they haven't yet banned everything the way they want? [rolleyes]
Click to expand...

There are so many things wrong with that one paragraph... Assuming it's a him, "rare win", that gun control advocates had anything to do with it...
 
We may have lost this one (for the time being), but looking at the final vote tally it's hardly a major set-back for us. With 20 Dem votes on our side, the Bradys have to be a little concerned...

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---58
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs ---39
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

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

Similar threads

Maine: Only One Vote Needed to Kill Waiting Periods
Replies
2
Views
260
dfritz
D
South Carolina Senate to Vote on Making State the 28th for Constitutional Carry
Replies
20
Views
647
Mark from MA
M
Kennedy is a no vote.
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
2K
HARRYM
H
Biden Nominee to 7th Circuit Supported Banning ‘Assault Weapons’ But Cannot Define Them
Replies
23
Views
537
HARRYM
H
Federal Judge Finds Pennsylvania Law Barring 18-20 Year-Olds from Concealed Carry Unconstitutional
Replies
1
Views
124
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Back
Top Bottom