Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Democrats Defeat Concealed Weapons Amendment


Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.).(Lauren Victoria Burke/Associated Press)

By Paul Kane
By the narrowest of margins, the Senate's liberal bloc of Democrats defeated an amendment that would have allowed gun owners to carry their weapons across state lines without regard for stricter laws in many jurisdictions, giving preference to states with looser standards.

In a 58-39 vote, supporters of the looser gun law -- including all but two Republicans and 20 moderate Democrats -- fell two votes short of the 60 they needed under Senate rules to approve the measure. The amendment, sponsored by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), showed the bitter divisions among a Democratic caucus that now holds 60 seats, many of whom got to the Senate by winning in conservative states as they proudly supported gun rights. It also divided the party's leadership, as Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), campaigning for re-election in 2010, sided with gun rights supporters. His top lieutenants, Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), led the push against the measure.

Even in defeat, the debate demonstrated the continued power of the National Rifle Association and gun rights advocates in Congress, because the Thune amendment was considered the most far reaching federal effort ever proposed to expand laws to allow weapons ownership.

Offered as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill, it would allow people to carry concealed firearms across state lines, provided they "have a valid permit or if, under their state of residence ... are entitled to do so." This means that someone who had a concealed-carry permit for his gun in a state like Vermont -- with some of the loosest gun-control laws in the nation -- could cross over into other states with their guns and not be found guilty of violating those states' tighter gun laws.

"This carefully tailored amendment will ensure that a state's border is not a limit to an individual's fundamental right and will allow law-abiding individuals to travel without complication throughout the 48 states that already permit some form of conceal and carry," Thune said during Wednesdays' sometimes heated debate.

Big-city mayors, such as New York's Michael Bloomberg, led a furious lobbying effort to try to derail the amendment, along with gun-victims groups, such as the families of students killed in the 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech University. Bloomberg, in a letter to Reid, noted that at least 31 states prohibit alcohol abusers from obtaining concealed-carry permits; at least 35 states bar people convicted of certain misdemeanors from becoming gun owners; and at least 31 states require people to complete gun-safety programs before securing a weapons permit.

In a rare instance in which they trumpeted states' rights, Democrats noted that 36 states have specific laws regarding these gun permits and include specific lists of which states' permits they will recognize. "The states already have laws. Under the Thune amendment, those laws could be ignored. So if the Thune amendment becomes law, people who are currently prohibited from carrying concealed guns in those 36 states are free to do so. It is absurd that we are considering this," Durbin, the majority whip, said.

Democrats, who have traditionally championed gun control as a way to reduce crime, are suffering from their own political success over the past two elections. Schumer served as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for the 2006 and 2008 election cycles, specifically recruiting supporters of the Second Amendment to run in states where gun ownership is common. Going from 45 seats in the fall of 2006 to 60 seats this summer, Democrats now have about 25 senators who are strong supporters of gun rights.

During the debate, Schumer offered the theoretical example of a gang member in New York City moving to Vermont and establishing residency there, then buying guns and transporting them back to New York.

"The reality of that particular situation is the gang members already have their guns.... The people who need this bill are the ones that the gang members might be threatening," countered Sen. James Webb (D-Va.), a supporter of the Second Amendment whose support from Schumer was crucial to his 2006 victory, which gave Democrats their Senate majority.

Faced with a difficult re-election battle next year in what is regarded as a pro-gun state, Reid told reporters Tuesday he would support the measure but then refused to explain why.

Republicans have already succeeded twice this year in rolling back restrictions on guns with substantial backing from those moderate to conservative Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008. In February, 22 Senate Democrats joined Republicans to stall the District's quest for House voting rights by demanding that the legislation also ease D.C. gun restrictions.

The National Rifle Association called Thune's amendment "important and timely pro-gun reform" and urged a yes vote.

By Web Politics Editor  |  July 22, 2009; 12:34 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Today on the Hill
Next: Graham Becomes First Judiciary Republican to Back Sotomayor

Comments

It is really time to tell the National Rifle Association to take a hike. This amendment was totally unnecessary and I will not make a donation to any Democrat that supported it. It is time for Democrats to grow a spine and time for a new leader of the Senate.

Posted by: peterdc | July 22, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Reed is a Democrat....geez, standards people, standards

Posted by: jmccas | July 22, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

This is very good news. Thank you to all who voted no. And I thought Mr. Thune and the Repubs were pro-states rights...except when it comes to guns and Bush v. Gore.

Posted by: jillcohen | July 22, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

perhaps they'd also like to vote on cross-state same sex marriage rights based on other's states statutes

Posted by: dboston | July 22, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

This is good news.

But rather than suggest the Senate is the final word, what don't they make it clear any such nonsense law would immediately be challenged in the courts?

Bad law can't stand.

Gee, I wish our Congress was smart.

It's not.

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | July 22, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

To jmccas.. I believe you meant "Reid" of Nevada, not "Reed" of Rhode Island...

Posted by: salf | July 22, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Thune is either an (nra) lacky or he's an ( ! )... or maybe he's both. Whatever the case, now he's a looser.

Posted by: whocares666 | July 22, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Scary that only 39 members of the Senate have coommonsense and understand the state sovereignty principal that is at risk by this legislation. People in Md should not have to feel threatened by yahoos from Florida driving up and down 95 with concealed weapons

Posted by: PepperDr | July 22, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

I have serious issues with this bill. If you live in a state that allows concealed weapons that's fine, but it is completely assanine for you to think you should come into someone elses state and have those same rights. It's not about taking away your right to bear arms, it's about you having the right to carry a concealed weapon ANYWHERE in this country! This essentially would mean that states that do not allow concealed weapons would have such laws pretty much be meaningless. It's unfair. If you want to carry a concealed weapon fine, do it in the state where you live! This is a VERY slippery slope!

Posted by: negee99 | July 22, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Liberal Democrats vote in favor of states rights. Priceless.

Posted by: slim2 | July 22, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

It appears the Republicans and the Vichy Democrats are all for state rights -- except when the NRA tells them they're not supposed to be.

Posted by: PeterPrinciple | July 22, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I'm a usually reliable Democratic voter and I would like to know who voted against this so I can campaign against them. The gun control fanatics from the big cities and the Northeast have inflicted their irrational fears on the rest of the country for far too long. Polls show that at least 65% of voters wanted this legislation and I am getting rather sick and tired of a few fanatics inflicting their ideology on us.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | July 22, 2009 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Civil rights don't stop at state lines. The fact that I even need to get a permit to carry a gun (concealed) is compromise enough in my opinion. States rights and civil rights are too different things -- and when states restrict civil rights too much, it's entirely appropriate for the federal government to step in to address the problem.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | July 22, 2009 12:54 PM | Report abuse

This amendment enforcing the 14th Amendment's privileges and immunities clause was totally necessary, just as gay marriage recognition in all states is also necessary. AND Vermont requires no permit to carry concealed, so the article should be edited.

Posted by: k_romulus | July 22, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Webb once. I guess I'm not voting for him again.

Posted by: pmax | July 22, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Anyone ever hear of Full Faith and Credit? Your driver's license works across state borders, why not your permit to carry?

Posted by: robdoar | July 22, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Someone one, and it wasn't the people. For the idiotic, what exists right now is "reciprocity" between the states - most states recognize other state's Gun Permits. So a person can travel with their firearm and just be careful while passing through states that have no agreement with their home state. We pretty much already have what was being considered.

SO the idiotic arguments, and I do mean stupid to the extreme, by the Democrats of Gang members trafficking guns, Husbands with duffle bags of firearms etc, really seemed to connect with some. Not that these things have EVER happened, or could ever happen - doesn't matter, someone thinks they WON a major battle against the gun lobby.

You can't fix stupid - and with so many people so afraid of make believe non existent government created bad guys (like people who have passed background checks so as to carry a firearm) I guess the true enemy of the United States is it's own people.

Posted by: mdsinc | July 22, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Hooray!

Posted by: cmckeonjr | July 22, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

"most states recognize other state's Gun Permits. "

This is nor even remotely true...

review handgunlaw.us to see your error.

Posted by: robdoar | July 22, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I wrote to Jim Webb asking him not to do this. I think he will discover he has crossed a line he should not have crossed. This was a gross overreach against states' rights, including their most basic right of deciding how best to protect their own citizens' lives. Not exactly Virginia values.

Posted by: fairfaxvoter | July 22, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse

slim2 wrote: "Liberal Democrats vote in favor of states rights. Priceless."

Conservatives vote against it. Hilarious.

Posted by: nodebris | July 22, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Reid is a completely ineffective, self-serving Democrat. I'm glad he lost this vote and I hope he loses his senate seat next year even if it costs my party. Reid should make way for someone who can better control and make use of its majority. Time for Reid to go imo.

Posted by: jpsbr2002 | July 22, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

To Pepperdr:
I have a Florida CCW permit, and I live in MD. Why are you afraid of me?

Posted by: webdog44 | July 22, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Webb did something good today.

I do find it amusing when Democrats talk about states' rights.

From wikipedia:

"When the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison secretly wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which provide a classic statement in support of states' rights. According to this theory, the federal Union is a voluntary association of states, and if the central government goes too far each state has the right to nullify that law. As Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolutions:

Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party....each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, along with the supporting Report of 1800 by Madison, became bedrock documents of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. The most vociferous supporters of states' rights, such as John Randolph, were called "Old Republicans" into the 1820s and 1830s.

Another states' rights dispute occurred over the War of 1812. At the Hartford Convention, New England states voiced opposition to President James Madison and the war, and discussed secession from the Union."

Posted by: win_harrington | July 22, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

The best News, I've heard all "YEAR." It's about time, the Democrats grew a "BACK BONE."

If the "CRUSTY NRA", had their way, little Babies would be carrying "GUNS", in Day Care Centers.

Those Guys are "FOOLS', and they assume the America public are as "DUMB", as their "SHEEP."

Let's hope the Democrat "DEFEAT", every Bill they bring up for "VOTE."

"GUN NUTS"

Posted by: austininc4 | July 22, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

California is going to release thousands of prison inmates. About 75 percent of them, according to parole statistics, will re-offend. People who are against firearm ownership in certain areas in the state might have to forswear their goofy position once they're scared sh(tless with paroled thugs from the East Bay of Frisco, (Oakland) for example, break in homes in Marin County where rich Libs reside.

Posted by: sperrico | July 22, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

AWESOME!

The last thing we need in America is wack-job religious fundamentalists, fearful militia members, and NEOCONS from backward-minded states carrying concealed weapons across state lines.

Common Sense and scientific facts that a handgun owner is 40 TIMES more likely to cause an accident with the weapon than use it to defend themselves WIN THE DAY!

THUNE IS A BIG NEOCON L-O-S-E-R !

Posted by: onestring | July 22, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

I am torn. Not on this issue -- I flip off the NRA every time I drive by them in Fairfax County -- but on the politics. I voted for Webb because I thought it was important to have a Dem but I compromised my principles on gun control. Looks like a lot of other Dems did too and we almost got nailed in this vote. A wake up call to be careful what we ask for...

Posted by: conchfc | July 22, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

I am a gun owner and supporter of gun rights, but I applaud those brave enough to reject this particular amendment. My driver's license is valid in all 50 states, but if Indiana, where I live, issued driver's licenses with the same rigor they issue conceal carry permits I don't believe I'd be legally allowed to drive outside the state.

Too many states require NO training and NO familiarity with criminal and civil gun laws before issuing permits. In Indiana there are NO requirements other than a background check, not even the simplest check to see if the permit holder is familiar with the most basic hand gun safety. If gun enthusiasts ever want a national conceal carry permit to become a reality they must begin by strengthening standards across the states.

Posted by: stan3 | July 22, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

The crackpots from the looney left have gotten control of the Democratic Party. The "progressive" (and there's an oxymoron) don't represents me or other classic liberals and a Democratic Party that listens to them has no business governing. The looney's on the left support "free trade", more H1-B visas, twin evils that have cost this country 40 million jobs, Wall Street bailouts, "health care reform" that is nothing more than a new feed trough for the health care parasites and NOT universal health care, illegal immigration and amnesty, a whole host of evils that the vast majority of voters are opposed to. In 2010, when you loose and loose big, when Obama's gerbil's and Wall Street friends are simply crushed in the vote, then maybe the DNC will take a look at itself and start getting around to representing the actual people who vote. It seems the Republican's learned their lesson about Bush and the NeoCon clodhoppers, at least. The Democrats have leaned absolutely nothing. Morons.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | July 22, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuse

I still don't see how the wording of the 2nd amendment gives anyone the individual right to own and carry guns.

Posted by: jillcohen | July 22, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Warner and Webb voted for the bill. Here's a list of Democrats from thehill.com.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/concealed-weapons-amendment-shot-down-2009-07-22.html

"Nineteen other Democrats crossed over to support the amendment: Max Baucus of Montana, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Jon Tester of Montana, Tom Udall of New Mexico, Mark Udall of Colorado and Mark Warner and Jim Webb of Virginia."

Posted by: win_harrington | July 22, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

I'll save the rabid right wingers some time... it's all Obama's fault.

Posted by: AverageJane | July 22, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

I won't be voting for Webb again, either.

There is no one nuttier - or scarier - than a gun nut.

Posted by: solsticebelle | July 22, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

For those of us who are confused it would greatlyhelp of each member of congress would change their names to the lobby group they most get their money from. Like Senator NRA Thune, Banks Dodd, Credit cards Biden, etc. Would sure save time and we might know from where they really came on an issue. It would reallyhelp oif each time a Member ovted that the vote also showed which lobby group gave them money. But then I dream a lot!

Posted by: KBlit | July 22, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Why can you people have their driver's and marriage license honored in every state but their concealed weapons licenses are not? Why is Vermont the only state that honors the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment? Why is it that in states that have concealed weapons permits there is less crime than in states that do not, except Vermont? It is so interesting that Vermont stays awake while the rest of the country is asleep.

Posted by: fiveman3 | July 22, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

"Your driver's license works across state borders, why not your permit to carry?"

I can't believe this sort of reasoning is going around. The answer, dear, is that you can't kill someone with a driver's license.

Posted by: johnstonrw | July 22, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

The issue here is the same as 30 years ago, it was illegal in many States to drive across State lines without obtaining a drivers license issued by the State you were visiting. Some Southern States detained & issued tickets just on out of State license plates. Under the Fair & Equitable doctrine my CCW should be recognized in any State that allow concealed carry. Get over it Liberals, you sound like chicken little

Posted by: xraycommd | July 22, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

There are many deaths each year by people with a driver's license who abuse their driving rights. Check out ths stats!

Posted by: fiveman3 | July 22, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Why not just standardize the requirements for a CCW?

Posted by: ronjaboy | July 22, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

One thing you anti gunners do not understand: this no vote only affects law abiding citizens. Criminals are already carrying concealed weapons across state lines. Only law abiding citizens follow the law.

Posted by: jackp1 | July 22, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

"People in Md should not have to feel threatened by yahoos from Florida driving up and down 95 with concealed weapons".

Those yahoos from FL have much more to worry about from the thugs in Baltimore than we do from them.

They managed to not shoot anyone in FL, GA, SC, NC or VA on the way up here, and probably won't shoot anyone in MD either.

Posted by: keepandbear | July 22, 2009 1:25 PM | Report abuse

The United States will not be a fully civilized country until the Second Amendment is repealed. We can parse what the framers truly meant all we like -- whether they intended it to be about 18th-century militias specifically, or about every citizen having unfettered gun rights -- but the simple fact is, the Second Amendment (and the loony behavior it encourages) is responsible for tens of thousands of needless deaths every year. It should be a goner.

That said, this amendment failed by such a precarious margin that if a couple liberals lose in 2010, it might pass in the next session. So, expanding on dboston and k_romulus's comments, maybe it would be fun to launch a bill tying interstate carry rights to interstate gay-marriage rights, just to watch the NRA nuts squirm.

Posted by: jonfromcali | July 22, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

solsticebelle wrote:
"There is no one nuttier - or scarier - than a gun nut."

No, it is the people with irrational fears of guns that frighten me more. They are so afraid of guns that they want to make everyone afraid and limit the means by which others may defend themselves.

Posted by: ahashburn | July 22, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

These GOP loonies have nothing else to offer...they use these kinds of issues to con the public as they have done for many years. Their real constituency is the corporations but that can only get you so many votes. To get more votes, these con artists use these wedge issues to divide the public.

Posted by: kevin1231 | July 22, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Please explain why this was ever launched as an amendment to an important bill? Why would anyone care? Answer: the NRA, bloated organ of the extreme right, is proactively testing its muscle.

It's muscle is ownership by contribution of every Senator and Congressman in the nation. Was this a setback to the NRA? Not really, even the NRA can overreach with frivolity and stupidity. Shame on all those Democrats, especially Reid, who voted for this measure.

Posted by: walden1 | July 22, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Good. This was a state's rights issue. Each state should be able to craft its own gun laws.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | July 22, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

I would suggest that people research these matters before they comment on them. If one of you were sitting in a restaurant and a crazy walked in and opened fire, you might be glad a trained, screened, and legally armed citizen came to your aid -- even if you were afraid of guns. Check the crime statistics in states where there are concealed weapons permits and with those where there are not. The facts do not lie. Criminals do not like armed citizens. They act differently when they do not know if people are armed or not.

Posted by: fiveman3 | July 22, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Please explain why this was ever launched as an amendment to an important bill? Why would anyone care? Answer: the NRA, bloated organ of the extreme right, is proactively testing its muscle.

It's muscle is ownership by contribution of every Senator and Congressman in the nation. Was this a setback to the NRA? Not really, even the NRA can overreach with frivolity and stupidity. Shame on all those Democrats, especially Reid, who voted for this measure.

Posted by: walden1 | July 22, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

As an NRA member, I support Sen. John Thune and his measure to allow concealed weapons in every state.

I also feel everyone should be allowed to bring their guns to schools, sporting events, church services, airports, libraries, and workplaces. The NRA lobbyists recently pressured the Senate to pass a measure to allow concealed guns in National Parks. Why not allow people to arm themselves anywhere else they go? So what if occasionally a few innocent bystanders get blown away in the cross fire --- such is the price of freedom!

I also believe all law abiding citizens age 21 or over should be provided a gun with ammo by the Government free of charge. As the NRA has proven, more guns = less crime and the fact is that every adult cannot always afford to buy a gun. Forget about a waiting period -- upon request, just issue a loaded gun when someone turns 21.

In my case, I have been in trouble with the law several times over the past 3 years (I have a bad temper) so I have been having difficulty buying a weapon at the local gun store. If I had gotten one from the Government 10 years ago when I turned 21, I would have been well armed to defend myself all those years and probably would have blown away a few criminals and terrorists like the low-life who dented my car last month. Thanks to the support of the NRA, I was able to buy .44 Magnum Colt and AK-47 assault rifle at a Gun Show recently without any background check. Actually, I brought a few extra guns and rifles to sell to my buddies who also have had problems with the law. Let's make sure we keep supporting the NRA's opposition to banning assault rifles, its opposition to background checks by unlicensed dealers, and its opposition to limiting
the number of weapons that can be purchased at the same time so that good folks like me can provide plenty of powerful guns to our friends who, in turn, can sell them "South of the Border" or in inner cities and make some nice money on the side!! And, thank God, there is the Tiahrt Amendment sponsored by the NRA that makes it difficult for law enforcement to trace the source of firearms brought and sold.

Finally, how about we get the law changed and make machine guns and granade launchers available to the public!! After all, terrorists and criminals are able to obtain such weapons so why can't a "good old boy" like me have the same fire power to defend myself? Does not the 2nd Admendment give us the right to be as equally armed as our adversaries? NRA -- are you listening??

(P.S. At the NRA Annual Convention, I was talking to someone who works at the NRA as an accountant. He told me that
gun show promoters, gun manufacturers and gun shop owners are the biggest contributors to the NRA and, without them, theorganization could not afford to pay LaPierre and Cox the multi-million compensation packages they receive. I think every penny these wealthy, gun-loving guys get paid is well deserved!!)

Posted by: dh110713 | July 22, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Amazing. I have to carry my toothpaste in a clear plastic baggie to get on a plane, but my legislators, with support of the NRA, want me to be able to carry a concealed loaded gun where I choose? Anywhere but a plane, I guess.

Posted by: cdphillips | July 22, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

The Blue Dog Waterloo! Looks like the liberals in the senate put them in their place. Hurray!! Now lets move on to that health care legislation that senator DiMwit was talking about.

Posted by: NewMoon | July 22, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

"Your driver's license works across state borders, why not your permit to carry?"

I can't believe this sort of reasoning is going around. The answer, dear, is that you can't kill someone with a driver's license.

Are you serious?? Every time a drunk with a valid driver's license gets behind the wheel of a 4000lb vehicle, there is an explicit threat that someone is going to die. Every time someone willfully disobeys traffic laws, there is an explicit threat that someone may die from this action.
If this is the level of discourse going around, I'm in mortal fear of the future of this country.

Posted by: steves_59 | July 22, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Dear poster robdoar,

There are 24 states that have reciprocity agreements with Virginia. Where is my error? Go to the page - Who honors my Permit and find this:

Virginia - AK*, AR, AZ, DE, FL, ID, IN, KY, LA, MI, MO, MT, NC, NM, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT*, WV

"most states recognize other state's Gun Permits. "

This is nor even remotely true...

review handgunlaw.us to see your error.

Posted by: robdoar

Posted by: mdsinc | July 22, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Why do we need concealed-carry permits? Can someone explain to me where the 2nd Amendment says you have the right to HIDE your gun?

Why not have it out in the open, like the Old West? Only cowards hid their guns in those days.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 22, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

johnstonrw wrote: "Your driver's license works across state borders, why not your permit to carry?"

I can't believe this sort of reasoning is going around. The answer, dear, is that you can't kill someone with a driver's license."

My Concealed permit looks just like my driver's license. It is a small laminated card that fits in my wallet. Why is it dangerous?

I'm done with the sarcasm. You're right, You probably cannot kill someone with a drivers license...or a concealed carry permit. But you could jump in your car and drive it through the next bus stop and kill all ten people waiting for the bus. Or I could see you coming and driving straight for us and I could legally shoot you first and save 10 lives because I have a concealed handgun permit.

Posted by: webdog44 | July 22, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

If a nut opens fire in a crowded restaurant and then someone with a concealed weapon starts shooting at the nut, the body count will be even higher. The argument that you will be able to kill an intruder before he dills you or steals your gun is ludicrous.

Posted by: jillcohen | July 22, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

The 2nd Amendment states the people have "the right to keep and bear arms." That implies hidden or in the open, it does not exclude either. If you read the posts there is even someone who stated they do not see where the 2nd Amendment gives this right to individuals. The Bill of Rights is about rights to individuals. Individual rights equals the rights of the people. The people. Law abiding citizens, not criminals.

Posted by: fiveman3 | July 22, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"I still don't see how the wording of the 2nd amendment gives anyone the individual right to own and carry guns."
Posted by: jillcohen

Regardless of the wording of the 2nd amendment no one who abides by the laws of one state should expect their laws to follow them into another state.

Maybe VA should allow me to use a radar detector since I'm from MD where they are legal. What complete NRA twisted insanity to increase the profits of the gun inductry, their only reason for existence. If this amendment passed just think of all the state laws and their right to enforce them that would evaporate. DC could not arrest me while driving with a cell phone because I'm from MD. And what about visitors from overseas? Would someone from Denmark be allowed to smoke pot and drink at the age of 18 because that's the law in Denmark?

I swear republicans see the law only in terms of how it supports them personally, not how it maintains the peace or promotes civility and could care less about unintended consequences. They should all be voted out.

And why people give money to the NRA I have no clue. Just where doe their money go to improve their lives or provide a service?

Posted by: bevjims1 | July 22, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

You mean the NRA is not in charge of congress anymore?? Yay!!!!

Posted by: fluxgirl | July 22, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Too bad you don't have to have a "permit" to comment on these issues. You should be required to have a basic understanding of what your commenting on and an IQ above that of an eggplant.

Posted by: whatup1 | July 22, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

"I can't believe this sort of reasoning is going around. The answer, dear, is that you can't kill someone with a driver's license."

You're kidding right? You absolutely can kill with your driver's license. There were 37,261 deaths in 2008 due to a motor vehicle accident according to NHTSA. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811172.pdf

Would you have us believe these were un-licensed drivers? I get it though, almost everyone has a car and some people don't like guns. So we can ignore some deaths and play up the fears involving guns.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | July 22, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

The people who do not want a gun, do not have to have a gun. But the law abiding citizen who desires a gun to protect him- or herself should be allowed to do so after screening and training are accomplished. This is an evolved expression of the 2nd Amendment. These screened, trained, and legally allowed concealed weapon licensees should be allowed across state lines without exception. Or you are living in either a paranoid or other delusional state.

Posted by: fiveman3 | July 22, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Thune was just burnishing his right week credentials for the Presidential election in 2012.

Posted by: YUTZ | July 22, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

This is true, but it should also be noted that there are more drivers than gun owners. So it's skewed.

Also, when someone is killed in a car accident, it a result of the car not performing its intended function - transportation. When someone is killed by a gun, the opposite is true. Guns were invented to kill.

The driving license argument is as poor as Schumer's gang argument.

-----

There are many deaths each year by people with a driver's license who abuse their driving rights. Check out ths stats!

Posted by: JohninMpls | July 22, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Last comment with a question:

There is a city -- or more than one -- where all citizens without a criminal record are required - REQUIRED - to own a gun to be kept in their homes. There is very little crime in this city. Does anyone know what city this is? I do not know the answer. I think it may be in Utah. If you know, please submit same. Thanks...

Posted by: fiveman3 | July 22, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

So whatever happened to State's rights?

Posted by: collacch | July 22, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Driver's license requirements are essentially identical in every state. Therefore all states have reciprocity.

Currently, states with similar permit laws tend to have reciprocity. Those with vastly different requirements do not.

If this amendment set the minimum requirements to at least the "average" state's requirements, then I'd be OK with it. But all you NRA types want to go with the least restrictive state's law--right? I thought so.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 22, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

The simple answer is your interpretation doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter what the amendment actually says. It's the Supreme Court's interpretation of the intent of the amendment that matters, ultimately.

It doesn't mean I agree or disagree with your interpretation. But our opinions don't matter.

-----

I still don't see how the wording of the 2nd amendment gives anyone the individual right to own and carry guns.

Posted by: JohninMpls | July 22, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

NoVAHockey:

"Civil rights don't stop at state lines. The fact that I even need to get a permit to carry a gun (concealed) is compromise enough in my opinion."

Wow. You win the prize for most asinine post on here!

Thank goodness this didn't pass. I support the 2nd Amendment and all, but you rabid gun nuts want to turn things into a free for all. Omg, you need to get a permit to have a gun? Let me get the world's smallest violin and play you a tune.

So, you think that we should just give you a gun-- without you first learning how to use it, taking a proper gun safety course, or getting a background check to make sure you're not bat-$h*t insane?

Too funny.

Posted by: jromaniello | July 22, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

It will be interesting to see how you respond when the same argument is used regarding gay marriage. If you don't want one, don't have one.

Of course, gay marriage opponents seem to think that this possibility is as potentially destructive as gun control advocates feel about firearms.

-----

The people who do not want a gun, do not have to have a gun. But the law abiding citizen who desires a gun to protect him- or herself should be allowed to do so after screening and training are accomplished.

Posted by: JohninMpls | July 22, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

IMO if states agree to reciprocity with one another, thats one thing...

I am in no way in favor of the federal government telling states what to do... stay the heck out of our way...

Posted by: indep2 | July 22, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Why don't Republicans push to allow people with permits the right to carry their concealed weapons into congressional offices and the Capitol building?

Someone should do so and challenge the constitutionality of that current prohibition. And it should be lead by the NRA.

Posted by: HillRat | July 22, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

58 in favor of the concealed carry permit. 39 opposed to it. Majority does not get to win this time. Hmmm. The bleeding hearts won this battle by the slimmest of margins, I will admit. This was a great measure for that subset in the 39 that is looking to get re-elected in those jurisdictions where they ran on 2nd amendment rights. This vote today starts that subset's mid-term election bid on their new platform of being anti-2nd amendment. Best of luck getting re-elected.

Posted by: civilrightist | July 22, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Classic republican idea - dumb and short-sighted. This piece of legislation should have never been permitted to get off the drawing board...Complete mash-up of states rights/laws and a potential abdication of Federal Law....totally stupid.

Since these bozos have nothing else to do, Reid should just tell them to start their vacation now and come back next spring...maybe.

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | July 22, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

fiveman3 wrote: "The 2nd Amendment states the people have "the right to keep and bear arms."

Funny how proponents of the 2nd amendment never provide the entire amendment's wording, just the part they like. Here is the entire amendment:

---A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ---

And though I believe people have the right to own "Arms", as many who were involved in the writing of the Constitution have stated, I believe it is up to the state, not the federal government, to determine what "Arms" are and any restrictions needed in that state to maintain peace and safety. This amendment would have reduced a state's right to maintain safety down to the lowest level of safety in the nation.

The NRA believes the 2nd amendment is an absolute right. If you followed their level of reasoning then the 1st amendment would allow yelling fire in a theater. States have the same right to regulate arms as they have the right to regulate speech, and for the same reason, safety. Violating states rights to promote gun sales is about as diabolical as can be.

Posted by: bevjims1 | July 22, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

I am thankful this amendment was defeated. What is johnstonrw smoking? How can he compare a driver's license to a concealed carry permit? Allowing a concealed weapon to cross over into another state only breathes trouble--haven't enough people been killed or mamed because of weapons? We need to get these weapons off the street--prosecute those who smuggle weapons and other means of destruction in order to take a life. Who has the right to take a life? And I am disappinted and annoyed with the thought of even bringing this amendment to the floor.

Posted by: blessingsalways | July 22, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Guns and Jesus. The Conservative right never, ever, gets enough. So much for the Prince of Peace, eh?

(Yawn)"Guns don't kill, people. People kill people." People still need to pull the trigger, I think.

(Yawn)"Second Ammendment rights!" Not even the Constitutional scholars agree on this one. But it seems to me a militia, is, well, like the National Guard?

(Yawn)"When we disarm law-abiding citizens, only the criminal will have guns." Um, that's why they are criminals. Anyway, the data on self-defense as opposed to handgun violence speaks for itself: More people murder than defend. Period.

Last comment. In the words of Oscar Wilde: "America is the only country to go from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between." Without reason and logic, too, apparently.

Posted by: inplants | July 22, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

The gun control fanatics from the big cities and the Northeast have inflicted their irrational fears on the rest of the country for far too long. Polls show that at least 65% of voters wanted this legislation and I am getting rather sick and tired of a few fanatics inflicting their ideology on us.
-------------
You know, it's fine that you think this way, but it's not enough.

There are reasons the NRA doesn't set successful law, and that's because they really can't reason intelligently or understand consequence, and that has greater implications for the nation, as a whole.

Dumb people can't run this country, and it shows.

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | July 22, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

millbrooks27 wrote:

"The crackpots from the looney left have gotten control of the Democratic Party. The "progressive" (and there's an oxymoron) don't represents me or other classic liberals and a Democratic Party that listens to them has no business governing. The looney's on the left support "free trade", more H1-B visas, twin evils that have cost this country 40 million jobs, Wall Street bailouts, "health care reform" that is nothing more than a new feed trough for the health care parasites and NOT universal health care, illegal immigration and amnesty, a whole host of evils that the vast majority of voters are opposed to. In 2010, when you loose and loose big, when Obama's gerbil's and Wall Street friends are simply crushed in the vote, then maybe the DNC will take a look at itself and start getting around to representing the actual people who vote. It seems the Republican's learned their lesson about Bush and the NeoCon clodhoppers, at least. The Democrats have leaned absolutely nothing. Morons.


As a proud to be leftist, it is odd to agree with everything millbrooks wrote except one thing. The reason the Democrats are out of control and doing the stupid things he lists is not that they are controlled by the Left, the way Republicans allow themselves to be controlled by the Right.

The problem with Democrats is that they are in fact Liberals. Liberals are weak, they compromise on everything, they are careless and they are therefore incapable of drawing political lines, whether moral, at the borders or otherwise.

None of us on the "looney left" support the Goldman Sachs takeover of Obama's brain, we despise the race to the bottom that is free trade, we recognize the disaster that is the House cap and trade bill, the corrupt foolish health care reform effort to date and we recognize jobs as the central challenge for this country in the coming years.

I don't think US Liberals get any of this. Liberals think the Obama administration is doing just fine. Out here on the Left, we see nothing but more and more and more crony capitalism, the nightmare of working people everywhere.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 22, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

They want to be able to load up their guns in the car and head to DC to overthrow OBAMA!
They have fantasies of 100,000 armed kooks assaulting the White House.
This way the law can stop them at the state line and take them out.

Posted by: Tomcat3 | July 22, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

In other words, the liberal bloc defeated the blockhead bloc.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 22, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

only wimps and women carry guns

Posted by: sux123 | July 22, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

i'd bet good money that the great majority of those so-called democrat moderates who bent over for the n.r.a. wiped their brows in relief that this piece of crap went down. what is it going to take to make these frauds side with the great majority of us americans who believe in reasonable, responsible gun control? you can't open a newspaper these days without seeing some story where people have been senselessly gunned down, including police officers. i hope to live to see the day when we at least get back to the level of gun control we took for granted in the days of 'leave it to beaver.'

Posted by: jimfilyaw | July 22, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I do not think the state has any business in marriages. That is something between God and individuals, or with athiests between individuals. What about plural marriage? Those of you who argue the doors should be open to marriages of all kinds, what about that? I lived with two women once. This was ok. But if the three of us wanted to marry, that would have been against the law? Whose law? Two people, or more, can climb a mountain and exchange vows -- like they did in the Bible -- and they would be married. Marrigage is the interchange of vows. Incidently, for those of you with limited right now intelligence, people could also exchange vows in valleys or while they were travelling across state lines. I am a single man who does not presently date, but advocate this for people who are free. The state should have no say in marriage except to restrict at what age this can occur. The question was why should one liscense be recognized in all states but another not? That is what I do not understand. If you do, please inform me.

Posted by: fiveman3 | July 22, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

sperrico writes:

"California is going to release thousands of prison inmates. About 75 percent of them, according to parole statistics, will re-offend. People who are against firearm ownership in certain areas in the state might have to forswear their goofy position once they're scared sh(tless with paroled thugs from the East Bay of Frisco, (Oakland) for example, break in homes in Marin County where rich Libs reside."

Dont know about where you live, but where i live they have this group of people called THE POLICE, who protect my property. And unlike you they are trained in firearms........

Posted by: rharring | July 22, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Owning and pampering guns is a visceral verging on sexual need. In what manner can the impotent overcome their handicap? Owning a gun is the obvious answer. One inserts an always at the ready phallus/cartridge into a willing gun chamber/vagina. The slightest pull on the trigger/clitoris results in a never failing orgasmic explosion: every time. . . without fail!

Posted by: jclarkebis | July 22, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Forget the amendment. The votes were counted before Thune even filed it.

The real reason for it was to give national notice that the ultra right-wing Senator and C-Street regular at the secretive "Family" compound in DC (Sanford, Ensign, Pickering, et al) is unfolding his leathery wings for a run at the Presidency in 2012.

This was more than a flare fired over Palin's head as she flees Alaska. Thune is intent on aerating the fetid swamp that is the remnant of Eisenhower's & Dirksen's honorable GOP in the hope that the stench of Bush, Cheney, Addington, and Rumsfeld will have dissipated in three years when the Party That Wrecked America will try to finish us off.

Posted by: linzoid | July 22, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

"Would you have us believe these were un-licensed drivers?"

Actually, in many cases driving fatalities are caused by people driving on suspended licenses or no licenses at all. Thanks for bringing that up!

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 22, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

I have a Concealed Handgun Permit in Virginia and all I have to say is, Democrats from Red States will pay the price in the next election.

Posted by: AlbyVA | July 22, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Actually, this would protect state's rights if anyone commenting against is would have read the amendment. The amendment basically stated, like a drivers license, a permit from your state of residence is recognized in any other state. You still have to follow that states' concealed handgun laws. If for instance, like Illinois, where the second amendment is denied, you cannot carry there because they do not have a permit system or allow concealed carry. I enjoyed how the author left out that crucial component as well as the last fact to Pelosi's home state CCW application.

You have to do everything that California does to get a permit in Texas and many other states that was listed in the article. The single exception is that you are required to have valid reason for the permit to the local authority. Essentially CA, NY, NJ, and others only allow the PRIVILEGED permits, because "personal protection" is not a valid reason.

Oh, maybe you missed the known fact that more people are killed by cars than guns on the drivers license question. As well as heart disease and a few others before you get to guns. Included in the gun statistic is suicide and it is a 5/4 ratio to crime, if I recall correctly.

Here is an interesting article on statistics from a former gun control proponent. http://www.kc3.com/CCDW_Stats/what_you_dont_know.htm

His amendment also states that you cannot be carry if you are prohibited under federal law. READ the bill before making assumptions based on bad reporting:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=111&amdt=s1618

Posted by: TxDrifter | July 22, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Republicrats. We have no choice and therefore there will never be change.

Posted by: griffah | July 22, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse


I think you're right, jim. All the hard deals were going down in the Democratic cloakroom, figuring out which "moderate Dem" would be the last one to vote down the amendment in order to kill it.

Thune doesn't care about concealed-carry laws. He wants to look good to the base, and maybe to pull some NRA support off a few vulnerable Dems.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 22, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

JohninMpls wrote: "The people who do not want a gun, do not have to have a gun. But the law abiding citizen who desires a gun to protect him- or herself should be allowed to do so after screening and training are accomplished."

But don't bring it into my kid's school or my local city hall. Rights are not absolute. If you think they are, let me know what town you live in so I can come and yell fire in a theater. Will you support me exercising my rights, 1st amendment in this case?

Posted by: bevjims1 | July 22, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it nice to have a super-majority? F all you right wing nut cases!

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | July 22, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

I should have proofread that. Wrote too many parts between breaks, and it is atrocious grammar.

Posted by: TxDrifter | July 22, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Under this proposal, Louisiana could stop its own citizens from carrying concealed guns, but Louisiana could not stop someone from Mississippi or Texas from traveling to, through, and around Louisiana carrying a concealed gun. So you would have to know where a person gets their mail to know whether or not they might be packing (legally). Basically, you're saying states can't make law in their own state except over people who are actually from that state.

This seems a little unsustainable. I mean, analogies are inherently weak, but, -- Suppose my state has no speed limit. Should I get to haul a$$ across the whole country at 125? My state has decriminalized pot (by referendum). Shall we come toke up in the parking lot at your Walmart over there on our day off? "Hey, officer, it's mellow ... I'm from Tokachusetts, dude ... I won't get your, like, Connecticonians high ... Whoa, what was that?"

There are people who don't even live in the state they are a legal resident of. You would have people touring the country in campers doing whatever they want if it's allowed in Tennessee, where their carport is.

If concealed carry is a Constitutional right, then this proposal is superfluous. If it's not, then, this is ... pretty odd.

Posted by: pressF1 | July 22, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Bye bye Sen Arlen Specter. You just lost all hope of re-election.

Posted by: civilrightist | July 22, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I want a video of Turbin Durbin talking about "states rights". HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Yah it was a real anti-gunner "victory". With 39 votes. Gee, I wonder why the antis' don't bring up the evil black rifle ban again?

Posted by: Fiftycaltx1 | July 22, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

steves_59 - Every time a drunk with a valid driver's license gets behind the wheel of a 4000lb vehicle, he or she is breaking the terms to which he or she agreed when obtaining the license. I don't have any particularly strong feelings about this gun amendment, other than feeling that it was ludicrous to attach it to the defense authorization bill. But if your statement is indicative of your approach to decision-making, then I live in mortal fear that you may someday be in a position of responsibility.

Posted by: bobsewell | July 22, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

The problem with Democrats is that they are in fact Liberals. Liberals are weak, they compromise on everything, they are careless and they are therefore incapable of drawing political lines, whether moral, at the borders or otherwise.

------------

They're not weak, they're bought and sold just like their Republican counterparts, they are the lobbyist's pup.

But that's OK, because with 2 wars and an economy that can't stand, with health care strangling the nation, they either get it right, or they fail.

And the smarter people either force them out, or they fail too.

There is no pretend, dumb people, and those who purport to be intellectual yet still come across as nothing more than empty-headed specious intellect, the words seem right but the ideas indicative of true intellect aren't there, and anyone with half a brain can spot them in a second, you know what I mean, anyway, they can't run it either.

ROTFLMAO.

And speaking of stupid, I would say at this point, as kind of an OT, Obama has lost all hope of true support in his efforts in Afghanistan, given how he's proceeding on hiding info from the public for his own purposes.

So, Obama are the lobbyists adn corrupt directing policy here, too?

That really makes it treason, and that makes him Bush and that's too bad.

How did that work out for Bush's war room anyway?

And Obama's advisers are THAT dumb...

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | July 22, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

If someone has the right to walk into MY business with a hidden gun, then why can't they walk into Senator Thune's office with a hidden gun?
If THEY can stop guns at their door, why can't I?

Posted by: Tomcat3 | July 22, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Every time a law like this is submitted, the anti-gunners go wild with ridiculous predictions of mayhem and bloodshed.

They've never been right yet. I would think people would start to notice.

Posted by: EnjoyEverySandwich | July 22, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

this make feel good gun laws only makes Law abiding citizens dance through the hoops in order to own a gun.

Do you really think a criminal is concerned wether he/she has a gun permit before he/she go out and commit a crime?? the black market supplies anyone with what ever anyone wants.

when someone is breaking inot your house you are better off with a gun in your hand than a cop on the phone.

Posted by: greenstheman | July 22, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

"Only law abiding citizens follow the law."

Another "Wisdom Nugget" from America's Best and Brightest!

Posted by: Tomcat3 | July 22, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

States honor drivers licenses of other states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but when in foreign states, one has to obey that state's driving laws.

Posted by: CheneyM | July 22, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

In states where there are concealed weapons permits individual businesses have the right to restrict people from entering armed by placing a notice at their front door. In Arizona, where I do not live, it is typical to see these signs, particularly outside bars -- but not all bars.

Posted by: fiveman3 | July 22, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse

As a career criminal and loyal Democrat voter, I am thrilled that his amendment was defeated. I know my homeys in office are looking out for me! Now I can rest assured that the next time I rob someone with my gun, my victim won't shoot back! I was worried for a minute there! Whew! One less job hazard for me to worry about! Thank you Democrats!

Posted by: LoyalDemokratVoter | July 22, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

States' Rights huh?

You know both parties are against federal intervention unless it favors their own beliefs. Democrats are for federal intervention until that intervention goes against the party's core beliefts (e.g. a federal amendment regarding gay marriage). Republicans are all about States' rights until they need to enact something they believe in (e.g. guns, gay marriage, etc.).

I wonder... are they all a bunch of hypocrites?

Posted by: ATL_Pilot_1 | July 22, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

We say "Democratic." Dumb troll.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 22, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

milbrook, why are you blaming "free trade" on leftist loonies? That sort of corporate-friendly stuff was traditionally Republican turf until Clinton broke with Democratic orthodoxy and supported NAFTA, but he hardly did so from a leftist orientation (far from it). You seem really angry, but I think it's pretty sloppy thinking to just blame everything on one side of our mostly dysfunctional government. For what it's worth, I'm mostly a liberal democrat, but I couldn't care less about gun control. That doesn't mean I enjoy seeing all these Senators (from both parties) constantly rushing around to do the NRA's bidding when, I'm sorry, but we do have a few other issues to address, but ultimately I don't support gun control.

Posted by: benjaminanderson | July 22, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

It is gratifying that debate on this issue, and others, can take place online, and that we can learn from each other, see each other's concerns, look at each other's viewpoints. At least, this is what is hoped. We may not all agree on everything, but if we exchange views we may learn and we may make a better country. May God continue to bless America. Thanks for your views.

Posted by: fiveman3 | July 22, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

""Your driver's license works across state borders, why not your permit to carry?"

I can't believe this sort of reasoning is going around. The answer, dear, is that you can't kill someone with a driver's license.

Are you serious?? Every time a drunk with a valid driver's license gets behind the wheel of a 4000lb vehicle, there is an explicit threat that someone is going to die. Every time someone willfully disobeys traffic laws, there is an explicit threat that someone may die from this action.
If this is the level of discourse going around, I'm in mortal fear of the future of this country."

You folks really need to get your facts straight before launching tirades in favor of assault weapons. But then, reading and reaserch ain't really "American" anymore are they now?
States recognise each others license by specific regulation. Read the DMV book ion your state please. States have put rules in place to govern this recognition, if you stay too long you need to change your license or provide an explanation. There is no such agreement or unanimity on guns. So why should one state's rules be enforced on another. Forget the dumb rhetoric for a moment. And stop saying that marriage licenses are recognized. They are only accepted withing the state's own laws. Would your state recognize MA gay marriage licenses? Forgotten the Defense of marriage act? I'm sure all the Thunes supported that one. It's the exact anti thesis o this bill. Why the hypocisy? Aska nd answer some fundamental questions people...before getting all wrapped up in your lovely AK47s.

Posted by: ps-md | July 22, 2009 2:19 PM | Report abuse

It was a poorly written amendment, and evocative of the compromise Thomas Jefferson brokered on slavery.

That led to the Civil War. Like others have said, the road forward is to increase and standardize permit tests across the states so there can be more reprocrity.

The federal government can set age limits ONLY on federally funded public ways; in many states you can drive at 14 or much younger as long it's on private property.

The thing is, in cities, you can't shoot on private property; bullets travel much further than that. Anybody getting a city gun permit needs access to a shooting range, an demonstrated understanding of gun safety and how far a bullet can travel once fired.

You might not need that in 1000 acres of empty in Montana where the only thing you might hit would be a rabbit, your foot, or your dog, but you need that in the cities, or the suburbs, or any densely populated area.

This is not a hard concept to understand-- that different places DO need different gun permit standards for public safety.


Posted by: Wilbrod_Gnome | July 22, 2009 2:23 PM | Report abuse

listen up people:this is all political trade offs. u vote for what i want and i will give u what ur want. demrats/pubrats all the same. crossover votes what HS. all that means is backroom deals.

Posted by: pofinpa | July 22, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

The right to bear arms and the freedom of religion has been fundamental to the success of this nation. The lack of such freedoms in other developed and developing countries, I believe, is why America has played such a dominant role in World affairs over the last three centuries. That said; people with guns still kill people.

Though I do not own a gun, presently, I want to keep that right because so long as their is a fear of an armed populace revolution in America, our politicians and the NWO crowd will be kept in check, to some degree. I spent the last 10 years in San Diego and there, the Police shoot first and ask questions later. If guns in the hands of the People is interpreted as anti-Police, so be it - Gates was arrested for being disorderly, DISORDERLY, on his own property!

Also, I hope to retire to the sticks where I will need lethal protection from mountain lions, bears, wild boars, rattle snakes and yes, crazies with guns. Because they are random, does not make random acts of violence any less real.

I recognize that our society has changed since the 2nd amendment was written and civility has all but disappeared. We’ve all heard it before, guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people which in my mind is a distinction without a difference - people still end up dead. So what’s the answer?

Computers in our cars, like black boxes in aircraft, maintain data that can be used against us in court (by the police and insurance companies). Navigation systems, GPS enabled cell phones, RFID enabled passports and driver’s licenses, traffic and urban surveillance cameras can and have all been used to monitor and impede Americans in our pursuit of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Telecom companies cooperate with our Government on warrantless wiretaps with immunity and we accept all these privacy intrusions in the name of security.

If I want to drive my car on public roads, legally, I not only have to register the car with the State every year but myself as well and every five years, prove that I am competent enough to operate my car. Why is it different with guns?

I do not view the right to keep and bear arms as being infringed if all guns have to be registered and the muzzle characteristics recorded by test firing before sale. I also feel that guns should be manufactured with internal serial numbers that cannot be altered else the gun becomes inoperable. These may be infringements on other rights but not to the right to keep and bear arms.

Bottom line: If guns become more prevalent, more mobile, crime may or may not go down but one can be certain that death will go up. In that event, lets make sure we can hold the proper party responsible (and I do not mean the Republicans).

Posted by: SiliconValley | July 22, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

If Thune had the courage of his convictions, he would have offered this as a stand-alone bill, not an amendment to the Defense authorization.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 22, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

The NRA and it's leaders are dying right now they are taking away our guns they are weeping so.
Really all that is happening is effective controls which should have always been in place are becoming in place. The NRA should have no fear, they can still get their assault weapons to hunt bambi

Posted by: lildg54 | July 22, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Webb justifies his vote on the grounds that gangs need guns to fight each other? That, after all, is who "the gang members might be threatening." Amazing.

Posted by: eomcmars | July 22, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Time to TAX the NRA out of existance.

This time I have to agree that States have a RIGHT to manage critical issues like this.

Low populated states do not have the population compression problems of states with large cities and metro areas.

I think it is indefenseable for the NRA to pull this crap.

They are no longer an association for the Gun Owners. They are a Lobby for the Gun Industry.

Fei Hu

Posted by: Fei_Hu | July 22, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland, yes, you (and jim)are right this was just a stunt
and look, it is working.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 22, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

The fact that this amendment failed is of no consequence because most right to carry states have already enacted reciprocity laws that recognize CCL's from other states. The state I live in recognizes concealed carry license's from pretty much every state that allows concealed carry and most of the states I visit will recognize mine.

All this amendment would have done is force states without reciprocity laws to recognize licenses from other states (the same approach taken by the gay rights movement I might add). I wish it would have passed since I am a law-abiding citizen who believes in the right to defend myself and my family. I am offended by politicians who see me as a criminal and a threat and an irresponsible gun owner when I am none of those things.

It can't be said enough: criminals do not care one bit about what the laws are, hence the title criminal. Politicians play a dangerous game when they lump ordinary law-abiding citizens into the same group as criminals. They work for us and are beholden to our will and the time is coming soon when they will be reminded of that fact . . . 2010 is not far away.

Posted by: Nobody8 | July 22, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I am a Canadian, fairly liberal minded, and seem to know more about this American issue than a number of those posting here. Now in Canada, even pepper spray is prohibited. We have no such self defence options.

The proposal never allowed for the laws of Illinois or Wisconsin to be trumped. The laws of individual states would have applied where they did allow the concealed carry of firearms by permit holders in that state. I have studied the data from your own government. Your millions of permit holders are more law abiding than the general public who do not have permits. The statistics are quite a shock to this Canadian. Other activities, like driving, are where insurance companies make their money. If they could make it from insuring firearms owners, they would, but it is simply not "a rated activity" for that money making industry.

I do agree something could be better, such as a standardized system of training, which has increased the safety of those who do use firearms for sporting use here. Education, and early education, are key elements to prevention, just like sex ed. Those who choose a criminal path will do so regardless, as they do here with impunity.

I think I also know how to read the former "King's English" better that a number here. Old language is clear in its meaning, but seems to have been bastardized into some modern translation. Your Second Amendment was written to ensure a well equipped people able to defend self, home, rights, and country as individuals. Such are the rights of "well regulated... the people". Your Supreme Court affirmed it and the "inherent right of self defence". We here in Canada should be so lucky.

The government has no responsibility to defend you, and has immunity from civil or criminal liability under such circumstances. Your Supreme Court also confirmed that. You are the person responsible for you, unless you desire some sort of a police or nanny state that will tell you how to parent, or what health care you will be entitled to.

Good luck my friends and neighbour.

Posted by: revpj | July 22, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

HA HA HA HA HA HA...... L-O-S-E-R-S!

Sen. Thune, 'The Rising Star' that fell flat on his face. Love it!

Posted by: NewMoon | July 22, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Well, the vote margin was close, but it was sufficient to block the latest outrage by the NRA gun goons and their supporters. The NRA has become the most dangerous organization in America. It is virtually a terrorist gang, and it should be outlawed and suppressed.

Posted by: dsrobins | July 22, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

jclarkebis wrote:"Owning and pampering guns is a visceral verging on sexual need. In what manner can the impotent overcome their handicap? Owning a gun is the obvious answer. One inserts an always at the ready phallus/cartridge into a willing gun chamber/vagina. The slightest pull on the trigger/clitoris results in a never failing orgasmic explosion: every time. . . without fail!"
---------------------------
Yet ANOTHER example of the anti-gunowners' bizarre obsession with sex and sexual deviancy.

As for the "leave it to Beaver" days, before 1968 you could buy as many handguns at the local hardware store as you wanted, no background check required. You could even mail-order rifles and shotguns directly to your home like Netflix. But crime was much lower then, funny that?

Posted by: k_romulus | July 22, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

During the debate, Schumer offered the theoretical example of a gang member in New York City moving to Vermont and establishing residency there, then buying guns and transporting them back to New York.

"The reality of that particular situation is the gang members already have their guns.... The people who need this bill are the ones that the gang members might be threatening," countered Sen. James Webb (D-Va.), a supporter of the Second Amendment whose support from Schumer was crucial to his 2006 victory, which gave Democrats their Senate majority.

====================================================================

A Democrat pointing out the fallacy in another Democrat's argument....never thought I would see that! Go Senator Webb!! In Shchumer's theoretical example, this vote is a victory for the gang members of New York. Maybe that's why Shchumer voted against it...he's representing his constituency! What a loser. If you ever want a case study in fallacious arguments, look no further than the anti-gun movement's talking points.

Posted by: conservativemaverick | July 22, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Reciprocity is a good idea if you want life in all 50 states to be more or less the same - gun rights, driver's licenses, gay marriage.

Truth is; this bill was never going to pass. Dems have 60 seats in the Senate. This vote let the red-state-dems collect some street cred on a hot-button NRA issue, collect some more NRA cash, and get re-elected.

But the issue was never in doubt - the bill was NEVER going to pass.

Posted by: Heerman532 | July 22, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse

the 2nd Amendment is as archaic and useless in modern America as the 3rd. The 2nd Amendment was a compromise between liberty and security. The conventional wisdom of 1787 was that the single biggest threat to liberty was an army. So the militia system was the method of being able to raise an armed force quickly without having a standing army.

Does not work today.

Posted by: John1263 | July 22, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 2nd Amendment.

What that means to me that if the people, individual law-abiding citizens, were allowed to keep firearms, then they could be called up if needed for any emergency and protect the state -- and our country. We have gotten away from this perspective in that we hire this function out to a large degree. But the essence of the amendment, and the wording of the amendment, and the validity of the amendment and its foundational reasoning is intact -- and the recent rulings of the Supreme Court has validated this further. These are the facts. The reasoning of the Founders of our country was sound, even if many do not share this. That the wording of the 2nd Amendment is difficult for many to understand is obvious, but if we look at what the writers of the amendment were attempting we can fathom their reasoning. After all, "The Bill of Rights" was to spell out and protect the rights of the people, the citizens of the United States of America. It boils down to that.

Posted by: fiveman3 | July 22, 2009 2:45 PM | Report abuse

The 2nd Amendment Civil Rights of Americans have long been violated by illegal laws such as those in New York, California and Illinois.

While some will call todays vote a defeat for those Rights, it is only one battle in the opening phase of a long campaign for 2nd Amendment Civil Rights and the march will go on to ensure equal protection for all Americans.

Just as States such as Alabama, Texas and Mississippi were forced to acknowledge the Equal Rights of Persons of Colour and forced by Federal Mandate to end their 'legal' discrimination in the voting places and elsewhere, this fight will continue. Fifty-eight Senators got it right and most American will no longer abide the "murder by gun control" that uncaring Democratic politics have embraced all these many years. The tide is turning and whether it is in the courts or the voting booths, we shall throw down the anti-gun bigots from their Positions of Authority and restore this most fundamental Right to all Americans.

If some Americans chose not to arm themselves, that is their privilege but they must not be allowed to dictate to those of use whom insist on and exercise our Rights under the Law.

This Senate should act immediately to insert a Bill that protects the right of any resident of any state to cross state lines while armed and if those states do not issue or allow conceal carry, make open carry the Law of the Land and mandate severe punishment to any officer or person that interferes or harasses a law abiding armed citizen.

This Bill should also provide a provision that any business or state property, other than Banks, jails, prisons, and like necessary secure public properties that have or abut a Federal Right of Way or one built or purchased with Federal Dollars or having access to such a Right of Way, must allow open carry, with violators of that right being punished under the same penalties as public officials that harass gun owners.

A simple majority vote should be taken instead of agreeing to a 60 vote majority.

Just as once upon a time, when many white Americans refused to live next to, sit beside or drink from the same fountain as persons of colour, claiming it was their right under unjust state laws and their own version of "common sense" so do some Americans now try to reason their way into justifying the denying of 2nd Amendment Civil Rights to those Americans that wish to or have armed themselves under the same Constitution and Bill of Rights.

This bigotry must not stand, in the Several States, in the Courts or even in the Halls of Congress, One Law, One Nation, that is the Promise of the American Constitution and it must be protected as a whole.

Posted by: eli_griggs | July 22, 2009 2:46 PM | Report abuse

I assume that Sens. Warner and Webb will be following their leaders - Thune, Reid and the NRA - to support similar legislation to allow concrealed weapons in the halls of Congress, the Supreme Court, police stations, schools such as Virginia Tech and other public areas.

Why should beleagured gun owners be denied that right?

Thank God for Sens. Lugar and Voinovich.

Posted by: bikobiko | July 22, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

I consider myself a conservative (the Republicans are not conservatives by the way) who owns guns, likes guns and likes a limited role for the Federal government. How does the Federal government have jurisdiction to even enforce this law? Is it part of the common defense? Does it fall under interstate commerce? Or is it that special constitutional exception for jurisdiction whenever we are pandering to our special interests. Seems to me that this is a matter for the states. It is legal to drive 70 on the interstate in Minnesota but only 65 in Wisconsin. Because it is legal to drive 70 on the interstate in MN should Minnesotans be allowed to drive 65 in Wisconsin while us cheeseheads are only allowed to go 65 mph?

Posted by: caribis | July 22, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

What bothers me most about many posters to these sights is that they display an intolerant disposition exemplified by ignorant name-calling and straw men arguments. Why is it that gun owners are usually portrayed as goons or nuts or crazy, yet we are the ones that can actually carry on rational discussions with rational fact based argumentation. The sign of a weak and ignorant mind is when one cannot engage in rational debate and must resort to childish name-calling. I bet most of the people who exemplify this observation are much older than I, yet are unable to move beyond such childish tactics. I will leave you to your childish ways . . . enjoy your lives as sheep at the mercy of your government masters.

Posted by: Nobody8 | July 22, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

To revpj: Our Canadian friend. Thank you for a great post. Everyone should go back and read his post, especially all the anti-gun poster's.

Posted by: webdog44 | July 22, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Every time a law like this is submitted, the anti-gunners go wild with ridiculous predictions of mayhem and bloodshed.

They've never been right yet. I would think people would start to notice.

HOW MANY SHOT AND KILLED TODAY?


Posted by: Tomcat3 | July 22, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
- Sigmund Freud

Posted by: eldergent | July 22, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

people should be allowed to carry licensed concealed guns. It's mostly democrat criminals that carry them anyway.
Look at who is protesting this proposition.
Liberal democrats. They know they will carry them because they be entitled. Give law abiding citizens a chance against the looney liberals.

Posted by: charlietuna666 | July 22, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

How does this statement grab you libs: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Guess where that statement resides.

Posted by: jackp1 | July 22, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

I think people who want to carry concealed weapons should be allowed to do so regardless of what state they happen to be in, just as long as they conceal the weapons by stuffing them up their a**holes.

Posted by: Bob22003 | July 22, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

"Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them." -- Walter Mondale, U.S. Ambassador to Japan, 4/20/94


"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be possible." - Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (1960)

Lt. Lowell Duckett: "Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It's quicker to pull your Smith & Wesson than to dial 911 if you're being robbed." Special Assistant to DC Police Chief; President, Black Police Caucus, The Washington Post, March 22, 1996.

Posted by: eldergent | July 22, 2009 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Reread repj as webdogg44 suggested. Thanks. Enough said. While we are at it, go and reread the 2nd Amendment and look at our history and what the Founders were trying to protect. The 2nd Amendment is not only an inherent, recognized, granted right, it is an integral part of our national security if you think it through.

Posted by: fiveman3 | July 22, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse

"They are no longer an association for the Gun Owners. They are a Lobby for the Gun Industry."

Don't forget how much business they send to the morticians!

Posted by: Tomcat3 | July 22, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Tomcat3--your question should read "how many shot and killed today by lawful concealed-carry permit holders?" Then you should answer the question.

Of course you can't and won't.

Posted by: EnjoyEverySandwich | July 22, 2009 3:00 PM | Report abuse

The right to arm oneself if a constitutional right. Last time I checked the constitution said NOTHING about the right to health care.

I find the 'no' votes and the comments by ill informed people on this blog offensive.

Just because I own a firearm does not mean I am some "yahoo" "crazy person" or criminal. I completely resent that notion. It is simplistic and ignorant.

The vast majority of people with conceal carry permits have had to take safety courses, and complete both written and tactical exams to receive that right. Do you really think that "gang member who moved to Vermont" went through the LEGAL trouble to register and apply for a conceal carry permit???

More Right To Carry(RTC), less crime: Since 1991, 23 states have adopted RTC laws, replacing laws that prohibited carrying or that issued carry permits on a very restrictive basis; many other federal, state, and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive; and the number of privately-owned guns has risen by about 90 million.2 There are more RTC states, gun owners, people carrying firearms for protection, and privately owned firearms than ever before. In the same time frame, the nation's murder rate has decreased 46 percent to a 43-year low, and the total violent crime rate has decreased 41 percent to a 35-year low.3 RTC states have lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country (total violent crime by 24 percent; murder, 28 percent; robbery, 50 percent; and aggravated assault, 11 percent).4

RTC REDUCES CRIME: Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., John Lott and David Mustard concluded, "allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes. . . . [W]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent."

RTC permit-holders are law-abiding: Florida has issued more carry permits than any state (1.5 million), but revoked only 166 (0.01 percent) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.

Posted by: amr2 | July 22, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

HOW MANY SHOT AND KILLED TODAY?

By concealed carry holders? Unless it was for justified self defense, I would bet my life the # is 0.

Posted by: webdog44 | July 22, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

"How does this statement grab you libs: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Guess where that statement resides."

Yeah.... right behind the part that talks about "well-regulated Militia".

You ain't no f***ing Militia. More like some goofy Soldier of Fortune or maybe you're a Fantasy Blackwater Defender of The FATHERLAND!?

Posted by: Tomcat3 | July 22, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

• "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-- Thomas Jefferson, "Commonplace Book" (1774-1776), quoting from "On Crimes and Punishment," by criminologist Cesare Beccaria (1764)

• "The Constitution of the United States shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
-- Samuel Adams

“The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment … as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.” - U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, 1982

Posted by: eldergent | July 22, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

webdog44: YOU ARE ON. I'll take that bet. I'll bet $50.00 against your life that you are wrong.
If you are then I'm sure you'll do the honorable thing?
Go to today's Atlanta newspaper and see the tragedy that played out overnight. A gun was involved in a suicide attempt. The police ended up killing the "victim" AND her mother.
How many more?
How many more needless tragedies caused by guns, JUST TODAY?

Posted by: Tomcat3 | July 22, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Thank you eldergent!!!

Posted by: fiveman3 | July 22, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Republican peddlers of death, destruction and free-market greed!

Posted by: DragonRoll | July 22, 2009 3:07 PM | Report abuse

let's see how many people know that it is wrong to kill with a gun,knife or hands for that matter. So how many laws need to be passed stating the obvious.

CRIMINALS kill, not law abidding citizens
get it?????

Posted by: greenstheman | July 22, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Can we please just repeal the 2nd Amendment? How many people have to die needlessly to support this fantasy that "the people" are somehow going to protect themselves from a nuclear armed tyrannical government with their .38 specials?

Posted by: PepperDr | July 22, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

federal conceal carry permits already trump any state law restrictions.
my mini-macs will do just fine.

Posted by: JudgeAlan | July 22, 2009 3:13 PM | Report abuse

fr mlbrook27:

>...Polls show that at least 65% of voters wanted this legislation and I am getting rather sick and tired of a few fanatics inflicting their ideology on us....

It was a BAD bill to begin with, and deserved to be defeated.

Posted by: Alex511 | July 22, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

A typical Paul Kane article, where even though the Democrats defeated a bill that the majority of them opposed, the "Democrats suffered" and the "Republicans succeeded".

At least if he gets fired too he can go write for the Washington Times.

Posted by: exPostie | July 22, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Tomcat3: Saw the article in the Atlanta paper. Yes, very tragic. But thank you for proving my point, she did not have a CCW permit. If she did, she would have known that when you have a handgun, do not point it at the police when they arrive.

Posted by: webdog44 | July 22, 2009 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Thune looks like he would tap back to Sen. Craig in a public toilet, and seeing how he lives in that cess pool of a house on C Street, he's probably playing naked cowboys and indians with his house mates.

Posted by: VeloStrummer | July 22, 2009 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Again States Rights are important to conservatives until it's an issue they care about. Can't come in and violate local concealed weapons laws? No fair! Can't come in and get an abortion from out of state (which is protected by our Constitution as well conservatives)! No fair! Any other time it's preaching about federalism and local voices and decision makers. What a bunch of loonies. Just like we saw during the last eight years that the conservative principle of "fiscal responsibility" was a talking point and not a real tenet (oh and term limits too).

Posted by: pezdrake | July 22, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

There is something seriously wrong when I can take a loaded gun into a National Park but I cannot take my dog.

Posted by: yinyang2 | July 22, 2009 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Another, really - really - really bad day for the DEMOCRUDS.

Posted by: hclark1 | July 22, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Tomcat3--just read your article. I didn't see a mention of a carry permit. Perhaps you can point it out? Or perhaps just admit that you're dishonestly trying to lump all gun owners with criminals and the mentally ill?

Posted by: EnjoyEverySandwich | July 22, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

So all of you liberal sheep would be perfectly ok with Texas passing a law that says you have to go to a class and get a permit before you can go to church, and then telling someone from New Mexico that they can't go to church in Texas?

What about free speach? Should we be required to have a permit to assemble peacefully?

The 2A is a civil right just like the 1st.

As for gay marriage, yes if a hetero Massachusettes marriage is valid in all 50 then a gay marriage should be too.

Posted by: tndad74 | July 22, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

The idiocy of this proposal is right up there with all of the state laws allowing those who have concealed weapons permits to carry firearms into places that serve alcohol. Unfortunately, those are actually passing. All it's going to take is some drunk yahoo getting p!ssed off about being cut off by the bartender or two drunk idiots getting into a fight to make people realize that's just as stupid. A state legislator in Tennessee is stupid enough to actually believe that people will abide by the clause that prohibits those carrying weapons in bars and restaurants from drinking. Legislators need to stop blowing the NRA and get back to common sense when it comes to gun control.

Posted by: SharkMan2 | July 22, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

The NRA has developed a crediblity gap. The number of false statements made by paid staff of the NRA is astonishing. What is finally happening is the NRA is not being listened too, because people realize the NRA is living in never neverland. Can't keep making stuff up that is easily proven false and scare tactics prove to be hollow.

Posted by: merrylees | July 22, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans have already succeeded twice this year in rolling back restrictions on guns with substantial backing from those moderate to conservative Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008. In February, 22 Senate Democrats joined Republicans to stall the District's quest for House voting rights by demanding that the legislation also ease D.C. gun restrictions."
* * * *
Mr. Kane, I take issue with this assertion that this was a Republican movement to ease gun control. Sure more republicans voted yes but you note that plenty of democrats also voted yes. Please stop with the myth that Democrats are the party of restricting gun rights and Republicans are pro-2nd Amendment. You admit that just this year gun ownership rights have EXPANDED under the Obama administration and Democratic Congress. Please make sure to highlight that there have been no restrictions on existing gun laws from this administration to the chagrin of Right-wing pundits.

Posted by: pezdrake | July 22, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

solsticebelle - your rude for calling me a "gun-nut" ... i guess you are a "rape waiting to happen"...

Posted by: EnoughisEnough1 | July 22, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

I love these people who claim that they need a gun to protect themselves against criminals, gang members, etc. The facts and the statistics overwhelmingly show that guns purchased by these would-be Rambos are far more likely to end up killing someone by mistake, or in a crime of passion, than anyone else.

The notion that Joe Sixpack is going to protect himself by engaging in a shootout with some hardened gang banger as as ludicrous as it is dangerous. Why would anyone think that allowing any Tom, Dick, and Harry to carry around a concealed loaded weapon makes us safe?

Logically, it doesn't even make sense to think that carrying a concealed weapon would be more of a deterrent than carrying a weapon everyone can see. Who really thinks that a hardened criminal is going to be deterred from committing a crime because they're in a state that allows concealed weapons? Criminals don't think, "I'd better not rob that guy because I'm in a CCW state." Criminals and gang bangers engage in shoot outs with each other. So the slight possibility that some dork may have a concealed weapon will not scare them. Here's the what the hardened criminal thinks: "If that fool is carrying a gun, he'll never get to it before I bust a cap in his wannabee Rambo a**."

Posted by: sonny2 | July 22, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Tomcat, the point you are missing in the AJC news story is that the police officer used a FIREARM to defend himself. Just like over 2 million law abiding citizens do every year.

On the front page of that same newspaper there is a story of a man who tried to kill a cop by running him over with his car. Should ban cars?

Your right to "feel" safe, ends where my right to BE safe begins.

Posted by: tndad74 | July 22, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

webdog44 says: "HOW MANY SHOT AND KILLED TODAY? By concealed carry holders? Unless it was for justified self defense, I would bet my life the # is 0."
* * * *
Wait a minute webdog, I assume that, from your question, you would say that concealed carry restrictions are needed if THERE ARE any crimes commited by concealed permit holders? Or are you just making some academic argument? Because if today someone with a concealed carry permit kills someone, not in self-defense I assume you would then change your mind and agree with Tomcat? If not what is the point of your question?

Posted by: pezdrake | July 22, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Hilarious. Reactionary nutjobs think that concealed-carry permits deserve universal recognition under the full faith and credit clause, but marriage licenses don't. Is that because they think guns are more important than marriages? or because marriages are more dangerous than guns?

Posted by: raschumacher | July 22, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

We're trying to finally get our health care system fixed up while our troops are at war and the Senate finds time to fool around with this nonsense. I don't know who is shooting who out there but I am guessing that neither the shooters nor the shootees have very good health insurance.

Posted by: Ralph-FL | July 22, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

I hold a Virginia Concealed carry permit, and whereas I would like to not have to worry about the varied laws between states as I travel, I am still struck by the fact that this amendment really would tread haevily on states rights, and an issue that is currently regulated by the states.
As it stands the states decide what other states' permits to recognize. This amendment would have trumped that.

So from a selfish personal view I think it would be useful law, but from a legal and philosophical point of view I would be against it. Then again, I am not very selfish, but I do like the constitution. Thus, I would be inclined to vote down this measure.

Posted by: kgoolsby | July 22, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Sonny2,
Actually the FACTS are very clear that a firearm is used to prevent over 2 million violent crimes each year. It is also another FACT that states with less strict concealed carry laws have LOWER crime rates.

The statement that a CCW holder is more likely to kill himself of a loved one is just an out and out lie, one that is oft repeated by the Brady bunch and their misguided followers.

Posted by: tndad74 | July 22, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

I won't be voting for Webb again, either.

There is no one nuttier - or scarier - than a gun nut.

Posted by: solsticebelle | July 22, 2009 1:19 PM |
___________________________________________
Very wrong!! The most scary thing is facing a *gun nut* without a gun of your own!!
Yu don't have to agree - but please - let me at least be able to plant a seed of doubt in a *gun nut's* mind that I too might be carrying!!

Posted by: thornegp1 | July 22, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

For years the NRA has peddled the nonesical line that if guns are outlawed, only criminals will have them. The reality is that thanks to thier influence, gun laws have been gutted, and the nation is awash in weapons. Criminals legally buy guns in states where federal checklist requirement are laughed at. They get their weapons just like the average citizen--not from some vast underground bazaar as the NRA would have you believe. Federal gun laws have NO provision affecting private weapons transfer, or weapons sold at "gun shows". No safety courses, no gun locks, no anything--and their toadies encourage concealed weapons permits--this is the imbecilic mantra of the gun lobby. They want bullets that pierce bullet proof vests, which makes cops a LOT more vulnerable, and for what? because there are some TOUGH game animals out there?
They pretend that this firepower is necessary, along with access to weapons that can kill a flock of geese, ducks or a herd of caribou at a time--all under the genuflection to the 2nd Amendment as their "right". More people die in gun deaths in this country every year--than in the rest of the world combined, even if you include Iraq. The Congressmen that are beholden to them of both parties need to develop a backbone rather than turning this country back into the Wild West. Sad indeed that only 39 showed the courage needed.

Posted by: bklyndan22 | July 22, 2009 3:38 PM | Report abuse

For the left wing lunatics, none of this is about gun control. It is about their sticking their thumb in the eye of "NRA types". Most of them know full well that the police cannot protect them from crime, that law enforcement only shows up later to pick up the pieces after the fact/ So, just like all of those people in the Brady Foundation who own guns, gun ownership is just fine by them if they are the only people armed. If you pay attention to the skreeds you will understand that most of the antigun posters are "security mom" women, feminists and assorted pseudo male bedwetters. Those groups form a distinct minority of the population and all of them have deep seated psychological problems that have nothing to do with guns and everything to do with their "getting even" .

Posted by: mibrooks27 | July 22, 2009 3:38 PM | Report abuse

In my lifetime no single individual has done more to convince good, honest people to arm themselves than Barack Obama. Way to go Mr President!

Posted by: eldergent | July 22, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

"Why can you people have their driver's and marriage license honored in every state but their concealed weapons licenses are not?"

A marriage license isn't going to cause injuries, and driving across state lines is useful for something. Can anybody in their right mind give a good excuse as to why guns should be transported across state lines by private citizens just for the fun of it and *concealed*. I barely trust people to drive properly, we need more idiots running around with concealed weapons, anywhere they want?

"Why is Vermont the only state that honors the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment?"

Because it's f-cking Vermont. You know, sparsely populated, mountainous wilderness with farms sprinkled here and there, mostly? Minus Burlington, of course, it's largest city, with just under 40K people. Are you serious?

Posted by: fbutler1 | July 22, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Has Sen. Chrissy Dodd (DEMOCRUD - CT)

refinanced his Countrywide loan ?

Posted by: hclark1 | July 22, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

negee99 i will give you the gun vote as long as you give me same sex marriage vote

I have serious issues with this bill. If you live in a state that allows same sex marriage that's fine, but it is completely asinine for you to think you should come into someone else's state and have those same rights. It's not about taking away your right to same sex marriage, it's about you having the right to same sex marriage ANYWHERE in this country! This essentially would mean that states that do not allow same sex marriage would have such laws pretty much be meaningless. It's unfair. If you want same sex marriage fine, do it in the state where you live! This is a VERY slippery slope!


Posted by: greg19 | July 22, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

bklyndan22 - You know, there isn't one shred of truth to your post. The US isn't even on the top ten countries for firearm related deaths. The DOJ reports about 5,000 homicides, pretty average for any Western nation. In fact our violent crime rate is 1/3 of that of the U.S., France, Germany, most Western countries. You are, it seems, a typical hysterical female, hell bent on punishing males. I suggest you think twice before parading your psychosis around in public.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | July 22, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

another reason to vote the dems out...
they don't care about you and are already lying to you to get reelected...
it's all about jobs...

Posted by: DwightCollins | July 22, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

The problem is pretty straight forward. Half the interdictions with criminals happen because private citizens with fire arms stop them. In other words they are in effect half our police force so when you vote down a bill like this you do without that aspect of our police force. The second problem is that people with a concealed carry permit know full well the liability of using a fire arm improperly because it means that in addition to the cost they will never be able to own one again.

Posted by: Slager21 | July 22, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

webdog44 says: "HOW MANY SHOT AND KILLED TODAY? By concealed carry holders? Unless it was for justified self defense, I would bet my life the # is 0."
* * * *
Wait a minute webdog, I assume that, from your question, you would say that concealed carry restrictions are needed if THERE ARE any crimes commited by concealed permit holders? Or are you just making some academic argument? Because if today someone with a concealed carry permit kills someone, not in self-defense I assume you would then change your mind and agree with Tomcat? If not what is the point of your question?
****
Pezdrake: I didn't ask the question, "HOW MANY SHOT AND KILLED TODAY?" Tomcat3 did. I was making the point that this new amendment was about concealed carry permit holders, so I added that part to his question and answered with I bet the # is 0.

Posted by: webdog44 | July 22, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Why do we need all these guns? Crossing state lines with your guns is the most absurd idea I have ever heard. I am a veteran and swore I will never again fire a weapon after I was discharged. I don't miss it.

Posted by: truth1 | July 22, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Great work, hippies. Not only is it illegal for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, but according to the 4 liberal justices in the Ricci decision it's critically important that any first responders sent your way after you get mugged or your house gets robbed will also be the incompetent byproducts of a system designed to foster "diversity" over achievement. One wonders whether our liberal overlords will ever put 2 and 2 together and figure out that a system that places diversity over everything else might just be to blame for the incompetent police forces leading to increased crime in the first place. Since every liberal I've ever talked to is a self-appointed genius, one can only assume they know exactly what they are doing and actually want America to complete its transition to a crime-infested third world hellhole. Definitely change you can believe in.

Posted by: zippyspeed | July 22, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

If my spouse and I have a valid marriage license from the state we reside in, should we be able to move to any of the other 49 states, and expect that that valid marriage license will always be honored?

If a state will not honor a valid marriage license, aren't we being discriminated against? After all, the marriage license is valid in our state of residence.

Gun nutters - defend the ban on same-sex marriages in most states with your "I have a valid license" male bovine droppings you are using with your gun license 'argument'.

You can't, so just shut the ef up.

Posted by: critter69 | July 22, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

This demonstrates the lack of real leadership within the Democratic party.

It also demonstrates the continued hypocrisy of the Republican party.

We need to fire everybody and start over. This time making campaign contributions illegal.

Posted by: magicInMiami | July 22, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

39 senators voted today to allow criminals the unabashed right to mug , rape and rob anyone they see in their state with out -of-state tags or driver's licenses. Those 39 senators just revoked life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from tax-paying and law abiding citizens of this country. 39 senators just made it a safer world for every criminal out there. Yay

Posted by: civilrightist | July 22, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Does this mean i won't be able to drive around with my bazooka in my car? What is this world coming to? hahaha gotta have my gun, gotta have my gun! These are the friggin nuts that shoot presidents. If that happens the republiCONS are guilty of promoting a gun in every pocket.

Posted by: DIMMY | July 22, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Do all you people complaining about the inability to carry guns wherever you go really feel that unsafe every time you walk out your front door? I refuse to live anywhere where I don't feel safe just walking to the park with my kids. When I feel I must carry a deadly weapon 24/7, that is the day I will walk away from this country. It isn't worth it to be that paranoid all the time.

Posted by: GenuineRisk | July 22, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Thank goodness.

I'll never understand why those who buy guns can't make some sacrifices. A lot of people can't handle guns and just one gun can cause a lot of violence. So suck it up and help us get those guns out of their hands, even if it means you - who did all the right things, nobody's arguing that - no longer get to keep yours.

Posted by: sarahabc | July 22, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Its not a right. Its a privelege. Treat it that way.

Posted by: riz_m2000 | July 22, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"Do all you people complaining about the inability to carry guns wherever you go really feel that unsafe every time you walk out your front door? I refuse to live anywhere where I don't feel safe just walking to the park with my kids."

You can feel this way until you own a business and the cops come by and tell you that it is just a question of time before someone comes by and blows you away for the change in your pocket. That's when you get a wake up call that you better learn how to shoot pretty straight and you better be quick.

Posted by: Slager21 | July 22, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

One more time...

===================================
United States Supreme Court, June 26, 2008

District of Columbia et al, v. Heller

Held:

1: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

a). The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause...
===================================

...United States citizens do not have to be part of a militia to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Posted by: srb2 | July 22, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps we should make Driver's Licenses invalid when you cross state lines also.

Posted by: crawfordreed | July 22, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Tndad74:
According to the FBI,
[www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table]
there were only 1,408,337 violent crimes committed in the United States. That figure is from 2007. So your assertion that "over 2 million violent crimes are deterred each year by firearms" is absurd.

Secondly, saying that states with CCW laws have lower crime rates than states without CCW laws is a perfect example of how people can use statistics to come to erroneous conclusions.

You have to compare states with similar populations, urban areas, etc., in order to make a valid comparison. For example, a city like D.C. is lumped in with the "states" that do not allow CCW, and compared against states like Wyoming that have low populations and very little in the way of urban areas. This obviously throws off the statistics and leads people to come to conclusions that are invalid.

I have a life to lead and can't spend another hour citing statistics and showing you where you are wrong. All I can say is, keep an open mind and do some research.

Posted by: sonny2 | July 22, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: robdoar | July 22, 2009 12:57 PM |
“Anyone ever hear of Full Faith and Credit? Your driver's license works across state borders, why not your permit to carry?”


So, you would agree with cross-state same sex marriage rights based on other's states statutes!

Posted by: knjincvc | July 22, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

"there were only 1,408,337 violent crimes committed in the United States. That figure is from 2007. So your assertion that "over 2 million violent crimes are deterred each year by firearms" is absurd."
****
The key words here are "committed" and "deterred". Your stat includes crimes "committed". The 2 million stat is crimes "deterred" or didn't happen to completion, i.e. criminal attempts to harm, rape, rob, mug victim, victim pulls gun and criminal is either shot or runs away. Neither would be recorded in your violent crime stat.

Posted by: webdog44 | July 22, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I hate to butt in here... but...

The number of reported crimes is absolutely unrelated to the number of crimes deterred. The number of reported crimes could be 1,408,337 and the number of crimes deterred (by firearms or by waving a talisman) could be 1 or it could be 1,000,000,000.

Posted by: srb2 | July 22, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Just an observation about the quality of the article based on the first sentence, but wouldn't a 59-41 vote be narrower than the 58-39 vote Kane is claiming to be the narrowest?

Posted by: SIrving1 | July 22, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Anyone ever hear of Full Faith and Credit? Your driver's license works across state borders, why not your permit to carry?
________________________

It is probably ok to have a national conceal permit but first the states must make all of their permit laws uniform. Remember this laws doesn't affect your right to bear arms, only concealed weapons.

Posted by: bob29 | July 22, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

It’s funny how the political party that calls itself “Democrat” is the one that trusts the people the least. So much for the Greek roots dêmos "people" and krátos" rule.

Today the Democrats want to limit the freedom of the people as much as possible so they can be managed better. The Dems don’t like guns because the Peasants should only have torches and pitchforks. Except that torches have too big a carbon footprint and must be banned. Pitchforks can be used as weapons and must be restricted to those who need them.

The Dems want an unarmed populace. That’s why Obama’s Department of Homeland Security said that veterans could become right-wing terrorists at the same time they were offering to talk to Hamas and Hezbollah.

Our Republic was founded on the principle that a free people could manage their own affairs, be responsible for themselves, and make their own decisions. Americans didn’t want to live by the leave of some overlord in Europe. Today the Dems say that most US citizens are all incompetent idiots who need Obama, Reid, and Pelosi to take care of them. It seems we’ve traded a European overlord for a batch of them in Washington. How sad!


Posted by: tharper1 | July 22, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Re: Heller

1) Interesting that a so-called "strict constructionist" found a way to blatantly ignore the phrase "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . ." to find an individual right.

2) Despite Scalia's judicial activism, it's obvious that the Second Amendment was written to determine how the new nation would provide for the defense of the several states and not to acknowledge an inalienable personal right.

3) With the rise of the militias (i.e National Guard) and the armed forces, the Second Amendment is about as relevant in today's society as is the Third Amendment.

4) Heller doesn't apply to any jurisdiction other than DC and will eventually be overturned.


Posted by: NapoleonComplex | July 22, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Conservative Republicans vote against states rights. Priceless.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | July 22, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

I became part of the well regulated militia when I registered for the draft. Upon my discharge from military service I was once again part of the militia. Anyone who can be called to serve is in the militia whether they know it or not. Just because there's no draft today doesn't mean there will never be one again.

Posted by: eldergent | July 22, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

GOP will pass this when they take over the Congress again....by the way things look it won't be to long...


Posted by: charko825 | July 22, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

58 members of the US Senate voted for.
Why the 60 vote rule in this case.
Democrats need to remember the so called Assault Weapons Ban passed one October day 1994. Come November elections the Republicans won both the US House and Senate.
Gun Control, another Major political sin, the Democrats can not afford.

Even Senator Harry Reid understood this, even if Senators Durban and the pair from NY do not.

Posted by: commboss | July 22, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

fr 110713:

>...In my case, I have been in trouble with the law several times over the past 3 years (I have a bad temper) so I have been having difficulty buying a weapon at the local gun store....

Um, maybe that's a good thing.....

Posted by: Alex511 | July 22, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

A rare, relatively mild victory for common sense. But the gun nuts shouln't worry too much about their "rights." The country is awash in firearms and will be for years to come.

Posted by: CopyKinetics | July 22, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

According to my calculations using states' percentages of the populations and leaving out percentages for senators who didn't vote, the yes votes represented 44.29% of the population and the no votes represented 52.07% of the population.

Posted by: nk5otr1 | July 22, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

This is a sad thing when Arms would ever be dic-taitated by tyrant’s of the powers at be paid to be the voice of the free self governing people, Arms and the right to keep such a thing was never meant to be taken “ever” . The reason Government's fear Guns that means they have to be more respectful Hint. What is the point of taken a vow to uphold the foundations that are to be the guide lines to keeps us a free people. And then not doing so they are the leaders of Common Defense and self defense. We can see the ones that come against it are do for a law suit…Sanctum MCgallium US title 42 USC Section 1983 Congressional Constitutional contempt…Judicial Constitutional Contempt file it under treason and I say file the law suit and put them out of office…they for get the federal Constitution is to be the Guide line for the state Constitution to pass laws…they are clearly not doing what they took an oath to do…Great men like great nations are only as great as the words they keep.To think back taxes a gun rights or common defense and or self defense went hand in hand. Why cause in the end taxes could not be in forced on a free self governing people. The only way this could be is if in fact an only if a war was declared on our own soil. Upheld by the vote of the free self governing. This was the mind set of those that knew all to well the facts of the history that lead us to the very war called the civil war and those that wish to would rule with the mind set of monarchy and aristocratic claiming to be able to act as kings or the kings Rule with out any action of accountability from any 0ne. That war the civil war was over Re-sources an control....Money an who con trolled the standard of given worth, workers and the last the rulers who would be immunity, it has really not changed Much. Socialism leads to Nationalization and police states the very mind set that gave the world Hitler.

Term Limits, Voluntary Taxes, Free speech, Gun Rights Keeps Government Small an Honest

Keep up the Good Work NRA, Rush Limbaugh ,Dave Rasemy,Mike Huckabe

Posted by: WindSong | July 22, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Some of you paranoids need to worry about other things besides walking around town with a gun in your pocket. Your arguments are kind of pathetic. I live in a place that is a lot more dangerous than Virginia, and I have never even held a gun, and guess what, I'm alive!

Posted by: nmoses | July 22, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

If you carry a gun to kill rattlesnakes with (i.e. REAL rattlesnakes), I've no problem with you packing firepower in your blanket roll on your horse. But many of us live far from rattlesnakes and horses and would like to prevent additional lethal weapons from entering our milieu, as if there were not plenty already. Somewhere in the delusional mind of the Conservative, along with Mother, God, Country, Racism, War, Jesus, Respect for Authority, and Apple Pie, lies The Gun, the foundation of American exceptionalism.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | July 22, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Ahhh liberals...Unbelievable.

Too bad this didn't come up when Republicans had Power. Just imagine a country of citizens that could defend themselves no matter where they were... As someone who vacations frequently, this law would have given me and my family (tax paying, house owning, law abiding citizens) piece of mind when we are on the road. Oh well maybe in 2011....

Posted by: RareCaliConservative | July 22, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

I'm a usually reliable Democratic voter and I would like to know who voted against this so I can campaign against them. The gun control fanatics from the big cities and the Northeast have inflicted their irrational fears on the rest of the country for far too long. Polls show that at least 65% of voters wanted this legislation and I am getting rather sick and tired of a few fanatics inflicting their ideology on us.
-------------------------------------------

We're Americans from all walks of life - not fanatics. We recognize the scientific FACT that your gun is 40 times more often discharged in an accident than it is used to stop a crime.

We also know that the average gun owner is a lousy shot, and is untrained to fire in populated areas. Even cops hold their fire in such situations. A cowboy can't be trusted to use such judgment.

Basically we don't want you playing sheriff. We don't want you, or your gun buddies pulling out your handgun over a disagreement in a store - or on the highway- or in a national park - or in our driveway, etc.

You see, YOU might not be a nut job, Sir. But many of your associates in the gun debate most certainly are.

You may never have sold illegal weapons, or sold weapons to a straw buyer who then uses it for crime against Americans - but MANY of your associates in the gun world do exactly that.

So, basically until you can prove to me that all gun owners have the brains and maturity to own one safely - let alone be trusted with a concealed weapon - I don't want you carrying yours secretly in my state.

Posted by: onestring | July 22, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

GenuineRisk, Have you read the story of the couple that was murdered in Fla. and left 16 kids without parents because some CRIMINALS decides to rob them.

Criminals inflict harm to innocent people in every type of neighborhood, if you haven't been a victim so far it does not mean it will not happen.

I assume responsiblity for my own safety, i do not expect the police in proximity when something happens and that they can take care of a problem before it goes bad.

The problem is not guns it is the Criminals so why attack LAW abiding citizens, your problem is not with us.

Posted by: greenstheman | July 22, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

We're Americans from all walks of life - not fanatics. We recognize the scientific FACT that your gun is 40 times more often discharged in an accident than it is used to stop a crime.
___________________________________________
FACT more people were killed in car accident this past week, the by guns in a crime this past year.

Guns don't kill people. They never have. Only a moron believe that if guns were legal everyone, even the gangsters, will hand them over.

Here another one for you;
when you get held up on the street by someone with a gun, how are your fists going to fare? And don't say that is uncommon, I was robbed in a CHURCH PARKING LOT during the day in a "safe neighborhood".

Posted by: RareCaliConservative | July 22, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

ONESTRING:

Way to go, keep up the good work. I guess you will happy when only the police and government officials are allowed to possess guns. After all, they are above the law, right? Regular citizens should never be allowed to own or carry guns, only government public safety officials. This model has been so efficient in China, North Korea, and the USSR.

Maybe one day our government can choose our health care, and the government can sell cars (GM). Oh wait??

Posted by: cj658 | July 22, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

They did the right thing. Don't want some kid from a State with lax laws coming to NYC with a concealed gun. There is a related post at http://iamsoannoyed.com/?page_id=588

Posted by: carlyt | July 22, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"Your driver's license works across state borders, why not your permit to carry?"

I can't believe this sort of reasoning is going around. The answer, dear, is that you can't kill someone with a driver's license.
Posted by: johnstonrw
_____
And you can't kill someone with a gun license either.. you can however kill someone with a car just as well as you can kill someone with a gun...

Posted by: sovine08 | July 22, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

The key words here are "committed" and "deterred". Your stat includes crimes "committed". The 2 million stat is crimes "deterred" or didn't happen to completion, i.e. criminal attempts to harm, rape, rob, mug victim, victim pulls gun and criminal is either shot or runs away. Neither would be recorded in your violent crime stat.
************************************
No kidding. The point is, aside from the fact that any statistic regarding something that DIDN't happen has to be highly dubious; it is also highly unlikely that the number of violent crimes deterred through the use of any one method, i.e. firearms, would be 30% higher than than the total number of violent crimes committed. That whole statistic is so unreliable that it's basically meaningless. Think about it, how do you even do that research?
"Yeah Mr. Researcher. A thug was going to mug me once, but I pulled my .38 and scared him off!"
"Great! Score another point for firearms!" How does anyone verify that story? How would the police even verify it? Did they locate the thug in all of the alleged 2 million instances and ask him if that's what happened? The whole thing is largely nonsensical.

Posted by: sonny2 | July 22, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

While I was in the Marines, I spent 4 years carrying a gun in defense of ALL of the states in the union.

I think it's ironic I can't be trusted to carry a gun now in ALL of the states to defend myself.

I also think it's ironic that all of these victims, I mean liberals are constantly trying to disarm the country via legislation.

Wake up. Criminals don't really care about laws.

Good luck dialing 911. Maybe your corpse will still be warm when they arrive...but then maybe not.

Posted by: kbalderson | July 22, 2009 5:20 PM | Report abuse

What a Shame.
You see if truckers had been able to carry arms across state lines, then they would be subject to the Interstate Commerce Commission. The truck would have to have an explosives diamond shaped sign on the back. The item in question would have to be included in all manifests by number and description. Then the requirements would extend to the Mary Kay lady from Minneapolis who wanted to go over to Saint Paul and sell her goods (interstate commerce). Again the item number type etc. would have to be included on a manifest, and because it is a Class A explosive she would have to have a diamond shaped sign on the back of her BMW. All of the records would have to be maintained in a federal data base. This would quickly degrade into a national data base of arms people are carrying around that go state to state. The law enforcement people would get use using the data base and the law would extend into a national firearms data base all managed by the ICC.

Posted by: bluetiger | July 22, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

It's so fun watching the liberal wing of the democratic party self-destruct. You couldn't write a better script. This law was sorely needed for anyone who's ever tried to figure out whether they can take a legal pistol from one state to another, and of course, the liberals reflexively defeat it. All they've accomplished now is further pigeon-holing themselves as far left. Get ready for the GOP landslide in 2010.

Posted by: purpledog | July 22, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Neither Webb nor Warner will have my vote the next time around. Webb is a neocon in liberal clothing and Warner is just an ordinary jerk-off.

Posted by: mortified469 | July 22, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

"While I was in the Marines, I spent 4 years carrying a gun in defense of ALL of the states in the union."

I never carried a gun in the defense of the nation but I did carry a gun in the middle of the Washington, DC ghetto after the cops told me that it was just a question of time before somebody came in to blow me away for the change in my pocket. It's time for a wake up call you people.

Posted by: Slager21 | July 22, 2009 5:35 PM | Report abuse

The bill did not infringe on states rights.The amendment would have let a gun owner carrying a valid permit from a state that allows concealed weapons to take guns into other states that allow concealed weapons, without a separate permit, as long as any local gun control restrictions were obeyed.

In other words, if a state doesn't allow concealed weapons, you would not be allowed to carry in that state.

To the folks against this bill, rejoice while you can. This is only a temporary setback to the gun rights side. This bill will come up again next year and it will pass because the politicians will be up for election. They'll get the two more votes once the NRA steps up the pressure. Book on it.

Posted by: lure1 | July 22, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse

bluetiger,

"...the Mary Kay lady from Minneapolis who wanted to go over to Saint Paul and sell her goods (interstate commerce).:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sorry, this is an example of intrastate commerce and not subject to ICC regulation.

Posted by: mortified469 | July 22, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse


CRITICAL INFORMATION


REALITY REPORT 15: Bernanke, BATF, Border Patrol, Digital TV, and the Power of the Sheriff


http://blip.tv/file/2387806/


In this edition of the Reality Report Gary Franchi presents another update from Ron Paul on the Audit of the the Federal Reserve system and a shocking admission from Ben Bernanke that he's clueless about where the money is. Franchi also provides a story about the new global currency, and presents an update from the pastor that was tortured by the US Boarder Patrol. Gary will also present to you the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms response to Tennessee and Montana's recent legislation against federal intervention in their state firearms laws. He will also share what a recent IBM employee thinks will happen to the new swath of frequencies recently opened up by the abandonment of the analog TV signal, and present part one of a series on The Power of the Sheriff, presented by Sheriff Richard Mack.


THIS IS A MUST SEE AND SHARE REPORT!


Please forward this important report to your family, friends, co-workers, and embed it on your favorite blogs and forums.


Spread the word.

Posted by: AJAX2 | July 22, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

It is good that most of the people who know nothing about firearms don't want to own one. However, after you or your significant other get mugged, Please learn about firearm safety before you purchase one. The life you save may be mine.

Posted by: eldergent | July 22, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse

It's interesting that those Senators who speak so much of "smaller federal government" like Thune and others want the feds to broaden the powers THEY WANT. Gun ownership is a 10th Amendment right under the Constitution. For those that don't know what it says, it is as follows: Those powers not vested in the national government nor denied the states are RESERVED to the states or to the people."
Gun laws (ownership, licensing, etc.) are not vested in the national govertnment. They are not denied to the states. Hence, they are reserved to the states and/or the people. Keep your hands off of my States Rights and 10th Amendment.

Posted by: diamond2 | July 22, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

People from Florida want to carry in Md because of the loonies in Md. Seriously, have you walked through Baltimore recently? There are areas of Afghanistan I'd prefer to walk through before taking a walk through Baltimore.

Posted by: JayF1 | July 22, 2009 5:45 PM | Report abuse

mortified469

It is if she is carrying a class A explosive. Check the explosives transport regulations. Particularly the business about going from state a to state b transporting through state c and not for commerce in state c.

Posted by: bluetiger | July 22, 2009 5:47 PM | Report abuse

each senator that voted yes should be require to wear a badge and uniform for 6 mos in nyc ,new orleans, detroit, dc ,jacksonville fl. or other major murder capitals.i read wher a gun carrying citizen in tn. excerised his 2nd amendment right 6 times this past week.

Posted by: donaldtucker | July 22, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Just a temporary setback. In 1991, only a couple of states had concealed carry permits available for their law abiding citizens; now, due to citizen insistence, there are 45+ states that allow the concealed carrying of a firearm and violent crime has plunged in those states according to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Reciprocity is the next logical step. It will happen, and it will be none-to-soon when it does.

Posted by: OIFVet06 | July 22, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

"It is good that most of the people who know nothing about firearms don't want to own one. However, after you or your significant other get mugged, Please learn about firearm safety before you purchase one."

This is an excellent comment because people who are purchasing fire arms must go to the range to learn how to use them safely and it takes time. Generally shooting a fire arm is just like making business decisions or playing a violin. It takes about 65,000 to 250,000 decisions before you get to the top of the game which is a lot of practice.

Posted by: Slager21 | July 22, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

"People from Florida want to carry in Md because of the loonies in Md. Seriously, have you walked through Baltimore recently?"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It's funny because it's true...

MD, which has some of the most restrictive gun/carry laws in the county has a crack dealer packin a 9MM on every corner. And the average Maryland citizen is worried about a law abiding citizen from VA carrying? Good God. If I were them I would be wishing every gun toting citizen from Virginia vacationed in Baltimore year round.

Posted by: kbalderson | July 22, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

"It is good that most of the people who know nothing about firearms don't want to own one."
++++++++++++++++++++++
Yeah, but the problem is they don't want anyone else owning one either.

If you listen 5 minutes to these clowns it's clear they have no idea what they are talking about.

Just look at the criteria for the late assault weapons ban.. I'm sure a pistol grip and a baynet lug have killed many an innocent person. Give me a break

Posted by: kbalderson | July 22, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

So now Sen Thune can brag he has joined the Palin fringe.

Posted by: knjincvc | July 22, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

The second amendment protects individuals against federal government restrictions on guns. A regulated militia lets the states pass their own standard. In NY the laws for upstate ownership differ from NYC since the state said localities can set their standard higher than the states. To go to the lowest possible denominator by 58 senators on something that may not survive constitutional challenge is insane. Thune wants a standard that does not stop truckers from carrying, I agree, the highest possible standard encompassing all others should be obtainable for gun carry permits. That would a standard that makes sense that all can live with including truckers.

Posted by: jameschirico | July 22, 2009 6:04 PM | Report abuse

RE: Heller

Heller is the law of the land... just like Roe, just like Miranda, just like Brown, just like Marbury, just like...

...but good luck to anyone who wants to dream about it being overturned... the rest of us will be real quiet and try to not wake you...

Posted by: srb2 | July 22, 2009 6:05 PM | Report abuse

The Human Right to self-defense and the Right to Bear Arms predates the Constitution by all of of human existence. The 2nd Amendment simply recognizes this fact and additionally helps to ensure that the Citizenship of this Great Nation will have the means to fight back against Governmental excesses, such as those embraced by the previous Administration.

After Bush/Cheney amply demonstrated the ease with which "The Law" could be violated with impunity, can any thinking American really say with a straight face that no future Executive, Congress, Police or Martial Authority will act punitively and illegally against our American population or some part of that therein; Citizens which they deem unworthy of protection under the Constitution?

It is the apex of ignorance to insist that Americas' Leaders will always obey the Constitution and submit to the Law, the Will and the Rights of American Citizens.

And while it's true that todays arms held by a mostly law abiding citizenship are vastly out gunned by our modern military, it is also a fact that it was a well armed population of citizens which carried the fight to their 'World Class', well trained and well equipped British and Hessian oppressors, until 'regular troops' could be recruited, equipped, trained and deployed by a Continental Congress.

That the rabid anti-gun elements of this Nation would and do subvert and sell-out the Rights of their Fellow Citizens is well established, therefore it is important that we recognize them for the modern-day Political Quislings that they are, while we continue to take back our 2nd Amendment Birth Rights.

Posted by: eli_griggs | July 22, 2009 6:06 PM | Report abuse

You will not be breaking the law if you carry ... it is your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS ... WHERE IS THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THAT GIVES THEM PERMISSION TO RESTRICT IT ? THERE ISN'T ONE !!!! ....

Posted by: noHUCKABEEnoVOTE | July 22, 2009 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Here is a quote from the article:
"Even in defeat, the debate demonstrated the continued power of the National Rifle Association and gun rights advocates in Congress, because the Thune amendment was considered the most far reaching federal effort ever proposed to expand laws to allow weapons ownership."

First, this did not demonstrate the power of the NRA ... It demonstrated the power of the U.S. Constitution & the democrats disregard for the supreme law of the land.

Chuck Schumer said the laws of Montana or Vermont do not fit the situation in NY. He missed the mark by a mile because it is not law we are talking about but the right of we the people guarenteed in the U.S. Constitution ... confirmed by the U.S. Supreme court.
Laws can differ from state to state ... but the rights under the Constitution do NOT!

All but 2 republicans and enough democrats to kill the bill voted to obay the U.S. Constitution. The 2 republicans and all the democrats who voted "NO" on this bill chose to ignore the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" that is given to us as citizens under the 2nd amendment.

Also, 'the most far reaching federal effort ever proposed to expand laws to allow weapons ownership" was not this bill... but the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution at the very beginning of our country. Those founders got it right.... Marxist get it wrong every time.

Let freedom ring,

Mark A. Wright, HMC(SS),USN,RET

Posted by: markandbeth | July 22, 2009 6:08 PM | Report abuse

The 2nd Amendment is sometimes misconstrued as giving Americans the right to keep and bear arms. It does not. America’s founders had no doubts about an innate right to self defense and private ownership of the tools to provide it. They wisely added the amendment to guarantee that government would never “infringe” upon it. With or without the 2nd Amendment that right to self defense would and does still exist. Government can neither grant it nor deny it.

Posted by: eldergent | July 22, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

[Quote] While I was in the Marines, I spent 4 years carrying a gun in defense of ALL of the states in the union.

I think it's ironic I can't be trusted to carry a gun now in ALL of the states to defend myself.

I also think it's ironic that all of these victims, I mean liberals are constantly trying to disarm the country via legislation.

Wake up. Criminals don't really care about laws.

Good luck dialing 911. Maybe your corpse will still be warm when they arrive...but then maybe not. [/Quote]

Posted by: kbalderson | July 22, 2009 5:20 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well said Marine. It's one thing to ask us to go armed into harms way in defense of the country. It's another to tell us we can't defend ourselves and our loved ones from the very criminals these people run to the defense of. Today's action was only a temporary setback. Reciprocity will happen just like concealed carry happened through citizen involvement. Stay motivated and stay in the fight. Semper Fi.

Posted by: OIFVet06 | July 22, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

knjincvc...Kudos! To add, he comes from one of the states that really don't matter. I grew up rural and used and carried firearms. For the past 45 years, I have lived urban and finding the need to carry a concealed weapon on the streets stupid. This goes for the Marine who thinks he should be able to carry anywhere. Semper fi!


bluetiger...Apples and oranges...learn the difference between intra and inter. Besides, using Mary Kay is really a stretch.

Posted by: mortified469 | July 22, 2009 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Delighted. What a truly stupid idea to encourage criminal behavior.

Posted by: dudh | July 22, 2009 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Delighted. What a truly stupid idea to encourage criminal behavior.

Posted by: dudh | July 22, 2009 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Gee,
I was really worried. Now only the criminals can transport guns across state lines. I'll sleep better knowing the law abiding citizens have been stopped again.
Another success for the Democrats!

Posted by: rp01069 | July 22, 2009 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid want to eliminate the 2nd amendment, impose strict gun control, and make hand guns illegal, but they are willing to wait. When they control more oompanies like GM, more banks, all of health care, when tax rates are 60% or higher on everyone, when unemployment is 15% or higher and the people's will to resist has been broken...they will strip us of the right to have a gun, and then they will control everything!

Posted by: valwayne | July 22, 2009 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Can someone please explain to me the facts that state legal gun ownership is the problem? I am not seeing concealed weapon permit holders causing issues. I also do not see towns turning into the "wild west" when they relax gun ownership laws.

So, I think that EVERYONE needs to step back and look at the facts. How many vehicle accidents kill people? How many drunk drivers kill people? How many people are injuried in domestic assaults?

We need to look at the facts and not at the media spin on a few incidents. Once we know that, we can make an INFORMED decision on what we think is right or wrong. Remember, police can only do so much.

Posted by: Airwolf70 | July 27, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Mibrooks27 writes: "The gun control fanatics from the big cities and the Northeast have inflicted their irrational fears on the rest of the country for far too long. Polls show that at least 65% of voters wanted this legislation and I am getting rather sick and tired of a few fanatics inflicting their ideology on us."

I submit there is nothing irrational about the number of deaths in the US that are directly attributed to mishandling of firearms. In 2007, Spain had 309 deaths by firearms, France: 2,964, Belgium: 379 England: 379, Switzerland: 459, Finland: 325, Poland: 171, South Korea: 49, Japan: 96. For the same year the United States had: 29,645!!!! To put it bluntly we kill other people at a rate of 5:1. You can call this alot of things, but RATIONAL?!?! I don't think so. All you right wing nutjobs demanding that we make your irrational belief systems fundamental law (eg: abortion, same-sex marriage, etc) AND keep your killing ways? I submit that if you are looking for irrational thought patterns, we should start there.

Posted by: mcalvinlaw | July 27, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company