Thune CCW Amendment Vote: FINAL TALLY

[wally05]

Here you go!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/us/politics/23guns.html?_r=1&hphttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/us...23guns.html?hp

Let slip the dogs of war! I'm sure 10 people have probably already gone after me.

 

[Jeremiah]

I am willing to start campaingng against Lugar, any suggestions on who to put in his placE?

 

[SavageEagle]

Not really suprising I guess. I didn't expect it to pass in this kind of political climate anyway.

I'm more worried about Carry in National, State, and Local parks. You know there's a trail in Plainfield, and its against ordinance to carry on it. Some parts of the trail would be the PERFECT place to be mugged. Why must we run/ride with our families unprotected in an isolated area?

Same goes for all parks. Granted it's less likely to be mugged in say Hoosier National forest than the east side of Indy, but still.

 

[SavageEagle]

Here you go!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/us...23guns.html?hp

Let slip the dogs of war! I'm sure 10 people have probably already gone after me.

Page Not Found

We're sorry, the page you've requested does not exist at this address. Please note:

If you typed in the address, used a bookmark or followed a link from another Web site, the page is no longer available. Most articles remain online for seven days after publication. Articles back to 1851 are available through The New York Times Article Archive: 1851-Present.

If you clicked on a headline or other link on NYTimes.com, you can report the missing page.

E-mail subscribers: If you clicked on a link within a NYTimes.com e-mail newsletter, your e-mail program may not support the HTML version of the newsletter. Please try switching to the Text Version.

 

[wally05]

Hmmm... I'll check the link!

 

[wally05]

Here you go!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/us/politics/23guns.html?_r=1&hp

It should work.

 

[SavageEagle]

What number is your post because these people are making me sick...

Do we really need people packing concealed weapons from state to state. Aren't these the same people that are gung-ho about state's rights when it comes to civil rights? Why would they support legislation that denies states the right to regulate guns crossing their borders?

By the way, it's the fear mongers who believe we should be carrying concealed weapons in national parks and on our streets, fjh3q. The rest of us are content not to live in an alternate universe ruled by paranoia where we feel it necessary to pack heat everywhere we go.

What kind of gun did Jesus carry?

Good, this desevered to die. All it would have is resulted in more killings.

Good! I'm glad! I disapprove of guns entirely. I don't understand the creepy, unhealthy obsession with them on the right. I don't want these instruments of murder around me or my family, or in my city.

And apparently MT still has liberal idiots. I thought it was open season over there?

I'm from MT, and we aren't all gun-nuts! I'm glad my Senator's bill didn't pass. Now maybe they can get on to more important things like making sure people have food and medical care, instead of making sure people have guns.

Some people are just THAT stupid.

 

[Bobby]

I actually breathed a sigh of relief that this bill failed to pass. Yes, I applaud politicians who are willing to not only give lip-service to the 2nd Amendment but also support it by their deeds. BUT, was this bill creating FEDERAL concealed-carry laws really appropriate even if it was pro-gun?

I am much more comfortable with the individual states working out reciprocity agreements among themselves rather than having more and more of our lives dictated to us from Washington, D.C.

Before anyone misunderstands where I am coming from, let me hasten to say that I am very pro-gun in that I see nothing wrong with private citizens being as heavily armed as the U.S. military. I just don't know if I like Washington D.C. stepping on the states' ability to work to things out with each other at the desire of their citizens. Can anyone see where I am coming from? Maybe this bill was appropriate and I was just ignorant, I am willing to publicly admit to being wrong.

 

[melensdad]

I actually breathed a sigh of relief that this bill failed to pass. Yes, I applaud politicians who are willing to not only give lip-service to the 2nd Amendment but also support it by their deeds. BUT, was this bill creating FEDERAL concealed-carry laws really appropriate even if it was pro-gun?

No, this amendment did no such thing. It did not create anything other than what it very simply states. That permits would cross borders but that each state would still retain full rights to how it enforces the gun laws of its own state. A Hoosier would have to follow the laws of the state in which he was traveling, our laws would not trample over their laws. We would have to comply with their laws.

 

[Rob377]

I actually breathed a sigh of relief that this bill failed to pass. Yes, I applaud politicians who are willing to not only give lip-service to the 2nd Amendment but also support it by their deeds. BUT, was this bill creating FEDERAL concealed-carry laws really appropriate even if it was pro-gun?

I am much more comfortable with the individual states working out reciprocity agreements among themselves rather than having more and more of our lives dictated to us from Washington, D.C.

Before anyone misunderstands where I am coming from, let me hasten to say that I am very pro-gun in that I see nothing wrong with private citizens being as heavily armed as the U.S. military. I just don't know if I like Washington D.C. stepping on the states' ability to work to things out with each other at the desire of their citizens. Can anyone see where I am coming from? Maybe this bill was appropriate and I was just ignorant, I am willing to publicly admit to being wrong.

on other issues, sure. But, the reason a fed CCW law isn't offensive to Constitutional Federalism is the same as the reason that prevents states from denying trial by jury or from authorizing unreasonable warrant-less searches or by declaring an official state religion, etc, etc.

 

[SavageEagle]

I agree, this was just simpily stating other states cannot refuse a permit holder from another state the right to carry for self-defense. Like IL for example.

My only question is this: Would this force Washington, D.C. to comply since they are technically not a state?

 

[melensdad]

I agree, this was just simpily stating other states cannot refuse a permit holder from another state the right to carry for self-defense. Like IL for example.

My only question is this: Would this force Washington, D.C. to comply since they are technically not a state?

No, that was addressed by Sen. Thune.

 

[SavageEagle]

No, that was addressed by Sen. Thune.

Ok I missed that part. Thanks. Figured, but I thought I would ask. Always better to be optimistic right?

 

[bft131]

CALL THESE NUMBERS!!!!!

Bayh: 1-202-224-5623, Thank him for his vote and also let them know how you feel about "Cap and Trade" (forget that one????)

Lugar: 1-202-224-4814, Give them HE double hockey sticks on his very pea poor voting record and let them know you will NOT be supporting his re-election bid..

Pence: 1-202-225-3021, Call his office and BEG him to run for Lugars seat in the next election..

And finally call the INDIANA GOP, 1-317-635-7561. I just got off the phone with them and let them know how I feel about Lugar and that we, the citizens of Indiana, feel he is so out of touch with us and that if he wants to be a Democrat to at least be honest and switch parties!! God I was mad!!!! And when it was all over the young man on the other end of the phone said, "I agree with you sir." Then lets find someone else!!!

Sorry for the initial yelling but I have had it!!!!

Call them, email them, write them, and if you have the money, stand outside their doors until they see you!!!

This is OUR country!! It is long past time for us to take it back!!!

 

[wally05]

Haha, I'm all over that board. And after looking at the bill, I agree, it wouldn't go against state's rights. It just means that they can't refuse another person's right to carry a firearm b/c he is permitted in another state.

The NY times has people from every liberal holdup all around the nation. Complete idiots that can't think for themselves for one minute. And many are fairly insulting to those that choose to carry.

What number is your post because these people are making me sick...









And apparently MT still has liberal idiots. I thought it was open season over there?


Some people are just THAT stupid.

 

[SavageEagle]

Haha, I'm all over that board. And after looking at the bill, I agree, it wouldn't go against state's rights. It just means that they can't refuse another person's right to carry a firearm b/c he is permitted in another state.

The NY times has people from every liberal holdup all around the nation. Complete idiots that can't think for themselves for one minute. And many are fairly insulting to those that choose to carry.

I'm loving some of the level headed responses though...

I am shocked at the willingness of people to have govt tell us what to do. "Advocates pushing gun rights..." First, Senators were the ones pushing the language. Second, the govt does not grant rights, it infringes upon them!!!

When will we realize that govt needs to get drastically smaller, it needs to stay out of our lives, and hopefully just go away.

This is yet another example of how far we have drifted from the image of what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Sad, very sad days in America

This guy ALMOST got it right....

All -
Interesting comments. A couple of notes.
1. I am a permit holder. I am also a firearms instructor.
2. To one comment - no one gives out " an AK47 for buying a car " Sucn weapons are illegal, and are not sold at either guns shows or gun shops without a Special Class Federal License.
3. States that have allowed concealed carry by their citizens have seen crime rate drop, not rise.
4. States that allowed licensed carry require both a background check and a test.
5. Having citizens armed does not make you unsafe; quite the contrary.
6. You may personally not like firearms; There are many who do not. But slandering those who do is both uninformed and foolish.

Uh what? More government intrusion? What about Natural Selection? If you're dumb enough to text message and surf the web while driving, don't be suprised to find yourself sumersaulting down the interstate after rear-ending a stopped car at 75mph, or in a forest when you miss your turn out on SR39...

Saving us from gun injuries and deaths is great. But we also need protection from the reckless people who drive with cellphones. Accrding to an article published in this paper on July 20, 2009, "The highway safety researchers [whose findings the government suppressed] estimated that cellphone use by drivers caused around 955 fatalities and 240,000 accidents over all in 2002." With a phone and a car, you are as dangerous as a driver with blood alcohol level of 0.08.

For a country that claims to celebrate life, we are remarkably callous about preventing death.

Wow. I think my IQ just dropped 20-30 points at realizing just how STUPID these people are....

Opps. Third page! Found ya! Glad to see someone get it right, by God! Give em hell!

 

[wally05]

I'm all over page 9 also...

 

[SavageEagle]

I'm pleased that common sense prevailed. I believe in a strong defense, and the right of responsible people to own arms for legitimate purposes. Where I draw the line is on automatic and concealed weapons, as well as those who wish to take arms across state boundaries without proper state-by-state licensing. We do not live in a nation that is a wild frontier anymore. We need to accept that ours is a society and nation of nearly 300,000,000 people. The days of the cowboy and loose weapons is over. With freedom comes responsibility.

From someone in Thailand no less....

BTW, did you see this link in the comments? Page 4 or 5 I think... nextrevolution.net

 

[John Galt]

Lugar votes AGAINST national reciprocity law. He must go!

Today, Lugar voted AGAINST the law to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State. Bayh voted FOR it.

The vote was 2 votes shy, 58-39, of passing. Vote and donate accordingly
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

ADDENDUM: I called Lugar's office at 202-224-4814 and was told that Lugar voted against the bill because he thought this was a states rights issue, and not a federal issue. I wonder if he feels the same way about everything Washington is cramming down our throats?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I agree, this was just simpily stating other states cannot refuse a permit holder from another state the right to carry for self-defense. Like IL for example.

My only question is this: Would this force Washington, D.C. to comply since they are technically not a state?

I know you got your DC question answered, but in addition, IL and WI would still have been off limits, as they do not issue a CCW for their "citizens" (and I use the term loosely).

Does anyone have the list of which 58 senators voted for, which 39 against, and which three entered no vote for whatever reason?

Blessings,
Bill