concealed weapons vote Wednesday

[larkinforce]

WASHINGTON, DC ? A measure taken up by the Senate Monday would give people the right to carry concealed weapons across state lines as long as they obey the concealed gun laws of the state they are visiting.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said his proposal would reduce crime by providing reciprocity to carry concealed firearms. ?My legislation enables citizens to protect themselves while respecting individual state firearms laws,? he said.

Thune?s bill was offered as an amendment to a $680 billion defense spending policy bill and has further slowed completion of that must-pass legislation. A vote was scheduled for Wednesday, with 60 votes needed for approval.

Debate on defense issues, including a controversy over whether the Pentagon should buy more F-22 fighter jets, was already delayed by time spent on a measure to expand federal hate crimes law. Under that proposal, hate crimes would also cover acts of violence based on the gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of the victim.

Thune?s bill, supported by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups, would allow people with concealed weapons privileges in one state to transfer that right to other states, contingent on their following the laws of those other states. Many state gun laws specify locations where concealed weapons can, or cannot, be carried.

It does not, Thune said, provide for a national carry permit and would not permit the concealing of weapons in the two states ? Wisconsin and Illinois ? that do not allow the practice.

Gun control advocate Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the amendment ?could endanger the safety of millions of Americans.?

He said in a statement that ?to gut the ability of individual states to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense,? he said.

Although states make the laws on guns, local law enforcement has broad discretion over who receives a permit to carry concealed weapons.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence noted that gun owners in states such as Georgia, Mississippi or South Dakota that require no training to obtain a concealed gun permit would be able to carry hidden guns to states that have training requirements. States that ban gun possession by people who have committed violent or child sex abuse crimes might have to accept the permits of those from states without those restrictions, it said.

The Senate on Monday also approved remaining amendments to the hate crimes bill, including one describing when perpetrators of hate crimes will be subject to the death penalty and another creating a new federal crime for targeted attacks on members of the military or their families.

On Thursday the Senate adopted the body of the hate crimes measure by voice after voting 63-28 to overcome a GOP-led filibuster. The bill, promoted for more than a decade by ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., expands those categories covered by hate crimes and makes it easier for federal authorities to aid state and local prosecutions or take over cases when the local authorities can?t or are unwilling to pursue them.

Current law, dating back to 1968, covers crimes motivated by race, color, national origin or religion.

Managers of the defense bill will temporarily get back to core defense issues Tuesday with a vote on the biggest dispute surrounding the measure, which authorizes defense programs for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1.

President Barack Obama, backed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, says there is no need to produce more F-22s beyond the 187 already in the pipeline and has threatened to veto the Senate bill unless it removes $1.75 billion for seven more jets. It would be the first veto of the Obama administration.

Obama and Gates argue that the money for the jets, which cost about $140 million each, can be put to better use equipping the military to fight today?s unconventional wars. Supporters of the F-22, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., point to the 95,000 jobs directly or indirectly tied to F-22 production.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and the top Republican on the panel, John McCain of Arizona, have sponsored an amendment to strip the $1.75 billion from the bill.

The defense bill is S. 1390.

[Nagalfar]

There is a bigger issue at hand, this might not be a good idea, while the idea is generally good, and the motive at the moment is good.. what happens EVERY TIME the Feds get involved with anything? they F it up.. do you want the Feds having any control over your CCW? when? where? what? or how you carry? hell no.. I would prefer to keep things the way they are.. this is about states rights, and ours as well.


.

[NuggzTheNinja]

Could be a wolf in sheep's clothing. It violates state's rights. As much as I'd love to be able to use my free-state permit to carry in slave states, it isn't worth violating state's rights.

[ratmonkey]

Originally Posted by NuggzTheNinja

Could be a wolf in sheep's clothing. It violates state's rights. As much as I'd love to be able to use my free-state permit to carry in slave states, it isn't worth violating state's rights.

this.

and schumer always manages to show his ass when he opens his pie hole.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence noted that gun owners in states such as Georgia, Mississippi or South Dakota that require no training to obtain a concealed gun permit would be able to carry hidden guns to states that have training requirements. States that ban gun possession by people who have committed violent or child sex abuse crimes might have to accept the permits of those from states without those restrictions, it said.

wtf state actually hands permits to someone who can not buy a gun under the federal firearms control act? i hate the brady campaign with a passion. not just because that cvnt is anti-gun, but because they're retarded. it all started becaue a secret service agent DID HIS JOB, and his wife didn't like it.

[Travis71902]

My ccw used go with me NO MATTER the state, but then I lost it in a boating accident.

[rockyl686]

Originally Posted by NuggzTheNinja

Could be a wolf in sheep's clothing. It violates state's rights. As much as I'd love to be able to use my free-state permit to carry in slave states, it isn't worth violating state's rights.

actually it does not violate state's rights as no state is supposed to have the capability of overriding the Constitution.

since carrying a firearm is supposed to be a constitutional right it is actually the states that do not allow reciprocation that are in the wrong.

[NuggzTheNinja]

Originally Posted by rockyl686

actually it does not violate state's rights as no state is supposed to have the capability of overriding the Constitution.

since carrying a firearm is supposed to be a constitutional right it is actually the states that do not allow reciprocation that are in the wrong.

I understand what you're saying but this bill goes about it ass backwards. It got shot down, but the point is that if they want to pass a law in favor of concealed carry, they just need to repeal all of the legislation regarding concealed carry from ALL states on the basis that it infriges upon 2A.

In other words, you don't need another law to tell you that previous laws are worthless, just do a blanket repeal on all states' laws regarding 2A on the basis of constitutionality.

[rockyl686]

Originally Posted by NuggzTheNinja

I understand what you're saying but this bill goes about it ass backwards. It got shot down, but the point is that if they want to pass a law in favor of concealed carry, they just need to repeal all of the legislation regarding concealed carry from ALL states on the basis that it infriges upon 2A.

In other words, you don't need another law to tell you that previous laws are worthless, just do a blanket repeal on all states' laws regarding 2A on the basis of constitutionality.

except that no state has the rights to implement those restrictions in the first place, a bill such as this might not be the perfect solution but to say that it violates states rights is a misunderstanding of what states rights entail.

I dislike the use of federal government to influence things on the state,but In this case it is justified as those states have clearly shown that they that they will violate people's Second Amendment rights and their populations have absolutely desire to change this violation, since that is the case the implementation of this as a mechanism to remove unconstitutional legislation is justified.