• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Senate to vote on concealed weapons measure

and be covered in all the shall-issue states at once, for one
fee.
Click to expand...

Is exactly why such a law would never pass. The states would never give up the fees associated with all the hoops they currently make us jump through. If anything I think the next form of gun control pushed on us is going to be a huge increase in the amount of money we have to pay for our LTC renewal just like they did to the FID cards.
 
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.
 
cekim said:
Obviously I missed a memo, was there a procedural requirement to require a supermajority for adoption?
Click to expand...

Just about anything these days does. I actually think that is a good thing. Imagine what would happen if simple majority rules were in effect... [shocked]
 
EddieCoyle said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't think it was giving the feds any power, it was simply stating that any state issued CCW was good across the country much like a drivers license.
 
EddieCoyle said:
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.
Click to expand...
In principle I agree, though to me, this is a little like driver's licenses and marriages... Full Faith and Credit clause says they should honor it...

I'll be the first to say that we should not be happy about bad laws with good immediate outcomes as the ends does not justify the means, but so long as licenses are issued, I can see/accept the argument that says they should be honored....

Seems to me to do minor harm in terms of precedent that is not already done...

I guess you could argue that it removes a compelling argument of disparate civil rights of citizens of one state vs another, but like they care about that? [sad2]
 
Last edited:
derek said:
Do you know the number of required votes?
Click to expand...

60 to break cloture. This went down by two votes.

ETA: Actually, I just remembered this was a straight vote, not a cloture vote as yeas were for the amendment. Different mechanism (not sure which one was in play here) to require the super majority, same net result though.
 
Last edited:
EddieCoyle said:
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.
Click to expand...

+1

Initially I was excited to see this legislation. But the more I thought about it, the more I was worried that the administration would go and push through some craziness in regards to CCW. After all, the precedent has been set.

What I would support is if all the "shall issue" states got together and started a reciprocation program. Living in NH does mean I can use my CCW in other states, but not in ME or VT (AFAIK).
 
derek said:
I didn't think it was giving the feds any power, it was simply stating that any state issued CCW was good across the country much like a drivers license.
Click to expand...
Don't want to put words in ECs mouth, but in forcing states to accept it, you are defacto giving the Feds to power to override state law...
 
 
cekim said:
Not passing Judgment, just haven't been paying enough attention to whether they were voting for cloture, or up/down on the bill...
Click to expand...

Actually, you will see I edited my response to Derek. It dawned on me after I hit submit that it wasn't a cloture vote as the yeas were positive for the bill. It was probably some majority/minority rule that amendments require a super majority or any number of other mechanisms the majority and minority has to push super majority voting rules. It happens so often these days that I just assume it will be 60 needed for anything that is controversial.

Like I said, I actually think this is a good thing as it requires bi partisan support regardless of who is in the majority seat. It is a natural result of a two party system where each party had become so adept at disemboweling the other on shifts in power that something had to change or we would have as citizens felt like we were a tennis ball. Although I prefer a severely shortened session like TX has where they are forced to focus on core issue and not dick around with BS. But I will take super majority rules over the alternative of long drawn out sessions and simple majority votes.
 
Initially I liked the sound of the proposal, but the more I thought about it, it seemed somewhat meaningless. If it had passed the Senate, it would have needed to then pass the House and be signed by BHO, and that would not happen. And IF there was overwhelming Congressional support to override a veto by BHO, I'm sure he & Holder would have been offended enough to make a full court press (like the basketball analogy) against gun owners.
 
Burgermeister said:
Initially I liked the sound of the proposal, but the more I thought about it, it seemed somewhat meaningless. If it had passed the Senate, it would have needed to then pass the House and be signed by BHO, and that would not happen. And IF there was overwhelming Congressional support to override a veto by BHO, I'm sure he & Holder would have been offended enough to make a full court press (like the basketball analogy) against gun owners.
Click to expand...

It would have been tied to a defense spending bill. BO would have been committing political hari kari had he vetoed that bill. He has no line item control over bills and even when that was in effect, it was limited to appropriations line items.
 
I'm confused why anyone here is against this. We have been shit on for years and when something comes along that is an immediate improvement to our cause, people are against it because someday it might somehow be used against us in a way we really can't foretell for sure.

If this thinking were used in all other laws or applied in our everyday life, we'd be against EVERYTHING.

There's nothing certain in our day to day lives but what we have right now. Everything can eventually be taken away or used to hurt us someday it might somehow be used against us in a way we really can't foretell for sure.

Sometimes I really think we're our own worst enemies. [rolleyes]
 
Pilgrim said:
If this thinking were used in all other laws or applied in our everyday life, we'd be against EVERYTHING.
Click to expand...
Nah, just those things that are in conflict with the Constitution...

Pilgrim said:
Sometimes I really think we're our own worst enemies. [rolleyes]
Click to expand...
Most of the time actually...

We insist on "playing by the rules" against an opponent who will murder and maim to get what they want...
 
Pilgrim said:
I'm confused why anyone here is against this. We have been shit on for years and when something comes along that is an immediate improvement to our cause, people are against it because someday it might somehow be used against us in a way we really can't foretell for sure.

If this thinking were used in all other laws or applied in our everyday life, we'd be against EVERYTHING.

There's nothing certain in our day to day lives but what we have right now. Everything can eventually be taken away or used to hurt us someday it might somehow be used against us in a way we really can't foretell for sure.

Sometimes I really think we're our own worst enemies. [rolleyes]
Click to expand...

I agree with the last part.

Try this on:

Forget this amendment for a second, pretend you never heard of it.

What if I told you that the Feds were going to start meddling with the states' carry laws? Just like that, with no other information. I think almost everybody here would be against it on principle. The federal government should have no business telling the states how to regulate concealed carry. I don't understand why anyone would want to give the federal government more control over firearms laws than it already has.
 
EddieCoyle said:
I agree with the last part.

Try this on:

Forget this amendment for a second, pretend you never heard of it.

What if I told you that the Feds were going to start meddling with the states' carry laws? Just like that, with no other information. I think almost everybody here would be against it on principle. The federal government should have no business telling the states how to regulate concealed carry. I don't understand why anyone would want to give the federal government more control over firearms laws than it already has.
Click to expand...

I don't see that they are 'meddling' or that it's more control for them.

Do you think that 'non commercial' drivers should have to get a license in every state they want to drive in/thru? (commercial drivers would be covered by the commerce clause as I see it).

Carrying a gun in different states doesn't affect their laws, just as me driving in RI doesn't affect their driving laws and gives the Feds nothing that they don't already have.
 
The surprise in the vote were the nays from both senators from both Vermont and Michigan. Vermont allows anyone to carry concealed and Michigan who already allows anyone with a CCW from any state to carry in Michigan. [thinking]
 

Similar threads

Maine: Only One Vote Needed to Kill Waiting Periods
Replies
2
Views
190
dfritz
D
South Carolina Senate to Vote on Making State the 28th for Constitutional Carry
Replies
20
Views
578
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
455
HARRYM
H
Gov. Youngkin Vetoes Virginia Democrats’ ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban
Replies
21
Views
617
rudiewhitebwoy
rudiewhitebwoy
Back
Top Bottom