Senate to vote on concealed weapons measure

I knew.................

.............the moonbats were invading southern NH. You guys better watch out or you'll end up just like this turd of a state.





Shaheen? Please Kerry would vote yes before she would. She is a moonbat period.
 
I haven't thought in depth about this issue before. I can see the side of "Hey you don't need a separate driver's license for each state" and also the "I don't want the Feds meddling with States' rights". I guess I fall closer on the side of keeping the Feds out of it. I like what Tennessee and Montana are doing in terms of telling the Feds to eff off in terms of interstate commerce laws.

Ideally you'd just have reciprocity between states with each state extending it to all others. Or even better, ideally all states would be like Vermont.

Anyhow, my gut instinct is to not want Federal interference with state laws, so I'm not overly upset about this loss. I'm actually surprised it was as close as it was.
 
New Mexico and Florida. This country is going to shit. And especially when this ass clown can vote ( Franken (D-MN), Nay ), we are truly in a banana republic.

Time to press the reset button on all of these a-holes who voted against this bill.
 
Shaheen? Please Kerry would vote yes before she would. She is a moonbat period.

Just needed to throw the dig in there as a flaw to state of NH (where choice still means something) to help convince myself that my my own sorrows in MA are not as bleak. Oh well that moment was fleeting, now back to suckland I descend.
 
I feel that the Constitution being thinned out by individual states is not acceptable. 2A guarantees every individual their rights - so as far as the amendments are concerned, I have no problem with the Fed hammering down legislation that improves constitutional rights
 
I don't understand why everybody is so excited about wanting the Feds to be able to tell the states what to do with regards to firearms laws.

Why the hell would we want to allow them to set this precedent? In the short term it looks like a good thing for us, but in the long term it's very very bad.

bingo! I've been wondering this too. It seems great at first but it's eliminating state's rights on the issue. THAT seems like a crap precident to be setting in my opinion.
 
The more I think about this the more it is somewhat of an issue of mootness.

Even if it did pass, does anyone here think that the "problem children" this bill is really targeted against are gonna respect federal law?

No US attorney has balls to indict (or at least attempt to) a police chief or a LEO that violates these laws. This is evidently clear to me- as NY and NJ repeatedly s**t on FOPA and the feds do nothing about it. Even if the charges don't stick, anti states would still be giving gun owners hell, and achieve the same net effect, deterring otherwise lawful carry in their state without "permission" from them and only them.

If the bill has no teeth in terms of protecting the gun owner/carrier from harm from a state government, then it's essentially unenforceable.

-Mike
 
I guess I looked at this more as a small step in the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution to the states rather than it being the federal government telling the states what to do.
 
The more I think about this the more it is somewhat of an issue of mootness.

Even if it did pass, does anyone here think that the "problem children" this bill is really targeted against are gonna respect federal law?

No US attorney has balls to indict (or at least attempt to) a police chief or a LEO that violates these laws. This is evidently clear to me- as NY and NJ repeatedly s**t on FOPA and the feds do nothing about it.
Actually, Not entirely true...

The DOJ gave NJ a stern talking to WRT to their abuse of FOPA by the Port Authority...

Don't have a link handy at the moment, but I take that letter with me when I drive through the Gaza strip to go south...
 
I received this one of our congressmen - I get stuff from his office all the time:

Knowing of your interest in 2nd Amendment rights, I want to update you on some recent activities in Congress.

On July 16, 2009, Senator Thune introduced an amendment in the Senate that would have allowed for national concealed carry reciprocity. Essentially, the amendment would allow for law-abiding individuals who possess a concealed carry permit in one state to lawfully carry their firearm into another state, while still abiding by that state's concealed carry laws.

The Senate would need 60 votes to pass this amendment, but unfortunately fell just two votes short of that goal. The measure was defeated July 22, 2009, in a final vote of 58-39.



As a supporter of gun rights, concealed- carry reciprocity is an issue I have longed to see addressed by Congress. I am pleased to share with you that I am a cosponsor of the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 197). This bill is another way to guarantee your right to self-defense by establishing a national standard for the carrying of concealed firearms by non-residents who have a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in another state.



I will continue to keep you apprised on this and other issues that face the 111th Congress. I also encourage you to visit my website for a comprehensive document addressing gun issues in Congress (http://adamputnam.house.gov/issue_pages.shtml).



As always, if you are experiencing difficulties with a federal agency, are interested in legislation that is pending before Congress or merely wish to express your opinions, please visit my website at www.adamputnam.house.gov, or call my office, (863)534-3530.







Sincerely,

Adam Putnam
Member of Congress
 
Unfortunately, it really wasn't as close as it seems. Several (D) Senators from pro-RKBA states went back and changed their votes our way after they knew that it wouldn't make any difference.

Ken
 
Unfortunately, it really wasn't as close as it seems. Several (D) Senators from pro-RKBA states went back and changed their votes our way after they knew that it wouldn't make any difference.

Ken

Is that a known fact or are you guessing? I'd really like to know who among the "Blue Dog" D's supports the 2A and who is doing it for show.
 
I think the whole vote was for show. Watching votes on the Senate floor makes me want to puke. It's all about jockeying for postion on future votes and not about the vote that is at hand. Thune said himself in his closing statement that he added this to the Natl Defense act because the Democrats added their Hate Crimes Act. It is really said to watch.
 
The Senate majority wouldn't even let this come to a vote until the super majority requirement was added. That let the Dems from second amendment supporting states vote for it knowing full well that it would never pass. Pure political theater.
 
Pure political theater.
Indeed, but consider what this means about their intended audience...

In MA the political theater targets an audience who would like to see all guns confiscated...

Its a baby step in the right direction that they feel they need to put on this show...
 
Is that a known fact or are you guessing? I'd really like to know who among the "Blue Dog" D's supports the 2A and who is doing it for show.

According to the Washington Post, Mark Pryor (D-AR) changed his vote from "No" to "Yes" at the last minute; Bob Casey (D-PA), Mark Udall and Michael Bennet (both D-CO) all reportedly checked with Chuck Schumer to make certain their votes weren't needed before voting in favor.

Ken
 
According to the Washington Post, Mark Pryor (D-AR) changed his vote from "No" to "Yes" at the last minute; Bob Casey (D-PA), Mark Udall and Michael Bennet (both D-CO) all reportedly checked with Chuck Schumer to make certain their votes weren't needed before voting in favor.

Ken

Ken, woulda been kinda funny if someone did an "Aw shit!" and miscalculated and the measure passed. It was cutting it awfuly close as it was.
 
Back
Top Bottom