Senate to vote on concealed weapons measure

[stevie_d_64]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090722/ap_ ... ed_weapons" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WASHINGTON – Gun control and gun rights advocates are heading for another clash with a Senate vote on a measure that would allow people with concealed weapons permits to carry those hidden weapons into other states.

Backers, led by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., say truckers and others with concealed weapons permits should be able to protect themselves when they cross into other states. Opponents say the measure would force states with strict procedures for getting permits to accept permits from states with more lax laws.

The Senate has scheduled a vote Wednesday on the measure, which Thune offered as an amendment to a major defense policy bill. Under an agreement reached among Senate leaders, 60 votes will be needed to approve the amendment.

The vote comes a day after the Senate completed what is probably the most controversial issue connected to the defense bill, voting 58-40 to eliminate $1.75 billion in the $680 billion bill that had been set aside for building more F-22 fighters. President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates campaigned hard for removing the money, saying the Pentagon had enough F-22s and the money could be spent on more pressing defense needs.

The gun proposal would make concealed weapons permits from one state valid in other states as long as the person obeys the laws of other states, such as weapons bans in certain localities. It does not establish national standards for concealed weapons permits and would not allow those with permits to carry weapons into Wisconsin and Illinois, the two states that do not have concealed weapons laws.

"Law-abiding South Dakotans should be able to exercise the right to bear arms in states with similar regulations on concealed firearms," Thune said. "My legislation enables citizens to protect themselves while respecting individual state firearms laws."

National Rifle Association chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox said the last two decades have shown a strong shift toward gun rights laws. "We believe it's time for Congress to acknowledge these changes and respect the right of self-defense, and the right of self-defense does not stop at state lines," he said.

Gun control groups were strongly in opposition.

Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens during a two-year period ending in April, according to a study by the Violence Policy Center. "It is beyond irrational for Congress to vote to expand the reach of these deadly laws," said the center's legislative director, Kristen Rand.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the bill would "incite a dangerous race to the bottom in our nation's gun laws." He said his own state, which has strict gun control laws, would have to accept concealed weapons permits from states such as Arizona, which issues permits to people with drinking problems, or Alaska, where people with violent misdemeanor convictions can get permits.

"Folks in Minot, N.D., and New York are going to have different conceptions about what's right for their locality," said Jim Kessler, vice president for policy at Third Way, a centrist think tank that supports gun rights. "In some states you have to show a real need" to get a permit, he said. "In other states you have to show that you can stand on two feet."

So far this year gun rights advocates have had the clear advantage in Congress. They managed to attach a provision to a credit card bill signed into law that restores the right to carry loaded firearms in national parks, and coupled a Senate vote giving the District of Columbia a vote in the House with a provision effectively ending the district's tough gun control laws.

House Democratic leaders, unable to detach the two issues without losing the support of pro-gun Democrats, abandoned attempts to pass the D.C. vote bill.

[stevie_d_64]

I thought when the Republicans figured out you could sneek stuff into a bill to get it passed was kinda a fluke...

Now this time I know they are being dastardly with this one...About time fellas, and ladies...Welcome to the party...

[dicion]

I'm glad that Yahoo felt the need to insert that factual, non-biased VPC Report quote into their article...

[stevie_d_64]

Only came up two votes shy...Dirnit!!!

Oh well, back to the ole drawing board...

[Salty1]

This is another sad day, not that I really expected very much, it would have further enhanced our rights. Every step helps......

[stevie_d_64]

I didn't think it was going to be this close, yet many here including myself have a few reservations about the concept of a national carry provision...

Many of us travel on the reciprocity agreements already between Texas and other state permits we carry on...I figure we'd continue to do so regardless of the outcome...

[74novaman]

I understand why we would want this for our own interests, but I'm just fine with letting states figure out their own carry agreements with other states. I tend to avoid states I can't carry in anyway.

What I find really amusing is the same liberals who want to push universal health care, cap and tax, and other things get all up in arms about "states rights" this time around.

[Bart]

I understand why we would want this for our own interests, but I'm just fine with letting states figure out their own carry agreements with other states. I tend to avoid states I can't carry in anyway.

What I find really amusing is the same liberals who want to push universal health care, cap and tax, and other things get all up in arms about "states rights" this time around.

There's no contradiction. They want to subjugate the common man and control all aspects of our lives.

[Liberty]

I understand why we would want this for our own interests, but I'm just fine with letting states figure out their own carry agreements with other states. I tend to avoid states I can't carry in anyway.

What I find really amusing is the same liberals who want to push universal health care, cap and tax, and other things get all up in arms about "states rights" this time around.

I don't want this to degenerate, but a case can be made that federal laws that conservatives like are sometimes oppose state rights. The war on drugs, and the the Marriage defense act for example contradict states rights. We all would have liked Heller to be aplied to the states.

[TxDrifter]

If you read the law it actually does not infringe state rights. It is basically a full faith and credit to other state's concealed carry permits. It only allows it if that state allows it and you would have to follow the concealed carry laws of the state you are in. It would mean with your Texas permit, you can carry in NY, California, New Jersey, etc., but not Illinois and, I think, Wisconsin since they completely infringe the second amendment.

They fought it on possibly a national standard which I don't like since they could control who can and can't have one.

[bdickens]

Moot point now, the measure was narrowly defeated a couple of weeks ago.

[74novaman]

They fought it on possibly a national standard which I don't like since they could control who can and can't have one.

That's the only way I could see them getting something like this passed, which is why I didn't like it either.

And Liberty, I agree with you. There's quite a few things I wish they weren't involved with...

[TxDrifter]

on the national standards bit. The anti-gun establishment would make it similar to California and New York's laws that way. They allow concealed carry, but only if you "KNOW" someone or produce valid reason to have one and personal protection isn't included as valid.

Several on here have mentioned including something on LEOSA, but I think full faith and credit should be enough. I think I saw a couple of lawsuits, one out of Chicago, on second amendment and incorporation. That won't help Concealed Carry, but it could protect ownership in places like NY, NJ, and such where they make it very difficult to purchase firearms. I'm still learning, but the issue over carry in other states is important to me as I travel a lot for work to other states. Lately NJ and NY where I can't carry. When working late in some downtown areas of Newark we are forced to walk several blocks out of our way around train stations and such because of closed areas. Some are uncomfortable when you really observe the possible situations.

We will see how it progresses though. Thune has put it up as its own law for the last several sessions, so you never know.

[ClarkLZeuss]

If you read the law it actually does not infringe state rights. It is basically a full faith and credit to other state's concealed carry permits. It only allows it if that state allows it and you would have to follow the concealed carry laws of the state you are in.

Bingo. I think the "full faith and credit" route will be the correct one for gun-rights lawyers to follow. I mean, how is it that a driver's license from any state is honored in every other state, but a CC license is not? I don't recall the Right to Keep and Drive Cars being in the Bill of Rights.

Seriously though, the argument used by the Gun Control loonies to oppose this effort is ridiculous...the line of reasoning that focuses on how some states have stricter requirements than others. It's the exact same thing with drivers licenses! My wife grew up in Hawaii, where some of the questions were plain silly, and only a crackhead would get it wrong. Compare that to Oregon, where they pride themselves on how many people fail the written test because they make it so dang technical. So, "differing standards" is a canard. What they should do to any federal bill that pushes for full faith and credit is, similar to driver's licenses, simply make it a requirement to get a CC license from the state you are a resident of, and change your license within 90 days or whatever if you move.

[Texgun]

Let's say this becomes law. Would New York City be required to honor my Texas CDL? The City of New York does not currently honor a State of New York CHL.