Concealed arms reciprocity rejected by Senate

[uscitizen]

Consider the roads each an "establishment" the signs are there exactly in the same way for those who have permits to conceal arms.

One of the ways that it parallels it well is the different requirements in different states, the same was an objection to this bill, but doesn't seem to be an objection at all for cars which kill far, far more people every year than ever a legally concealed weapon has.

It is also paralleled by the fact that it effects interstate commerce. You would be more capable of driving through many states without having to follow many different laws effecting the same thing you legally carry in one state.

for that matter Cell phone useage kills about as many each year in the USA as handguns.
Should we be allowed to transport them accross state lines?

Lightening kills as many each years a concealed carry handguns do as well.

so does McDonalds I suspect.

[SmarterthanYou]

Wouldn't the federal powers in this case fall under the insterstate commerce clause of the US Consitution?

how so?

[Damocles]

for that matter Cell phone useage kills about as many each year in the USA as handguns.
Should we be allowed to transport them accross state lines?

Lightning kills as many each years a concealed carry handguns do as well.

so does McDonalds I suspect.

Lightening kills far more than legally carried concealed weapons. When was the last story where somebody legally carrying a concealed weapon murdered somebody?

The difference here is the licensing. While it would be nice to reject the lightning license in Orlando and thereby stop all the lightning strikes from killing people it is, unfortunately, not under our control. We could, if we wished, cause people to get licenses to use cell phones or simply make it a crime to use while driving. I'd bet we could also force people to get licenses to eat at McDonald's or any other fast food joint, and as a requirement of the licensing cause them to buy extra insurance for fatties.

All of the ideas are, of course, limiting to freedom. How much do you want the government to curtail your freedoms?

[Damocles]

how so?

Much like I've been talking about. You could then take you legal weapon across state lines without the fear of breaking laws that it may be difficult to follow. The requirements for travel with a weapon in certain states are different, in this case you would be far more capable of simply carrying your weapon without fear of reprise because it was supposed to be locked in a box under the rear seat if you didn't have a permit to carry.

This is also a protection of your individual right to carry, that it would take the Federal Government to act on behalf of the individual is a sign of the times and the place we have brought the nation. Unfortunately the law didn't pass.

[SmarterthanYou]

Much like I've been talking about. You could then take you legal weapon across state lines without the fear of breaking laws that it may be difficult to follow. The requirements for travel with a weapon in certain states are different, in this case you would be far more capable of simply carrying your weapon without fear of reprise because it was supposed to be locked in a box under the rear seat if you didn't have a permit to carry.

This is also a protection of your individual right to carry, that it would take the Federal Government to act on behalf of the individual is a sign of the times and the place we have brought the nation. Unfortunately the law didn't pass.

but this wouldn't fall under the commerce clause. US v. Lopez stated that mere possession of a handgun doesn't constitute interstates/intrastate commerce.
If anything, it should be covered under the P & I of the 14th Amendment

[China Apologist]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090722/...cealed_weapons

WASHINGTON – In a rare win for gun control advocates, the Senate on Wednesday rejected a measure allowing a person with a concealed weapon permit in one state to also hide his firearm when visiting another state.

The vote was 58-39 in favor of the provision establishing concealed carry permit reciprocity in the 48 states that have concealed weapons laws. That fell two votes short of the 60 needed to approve the measure, offered as an amendment to a defense spending bill.

Opponents prevailed in their argument that the measure violated states rights by forcing states with stringent requirements for permits to recognize concealed weapons carriers from states that give out permits to almost any gun owner.

"This is no minor shift in policy," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., whose state requires people to be fingerprinted, get gun training and to undergo a federal background check before issuing permits. "It in fact would be a sweeping change and I think with some deadly consequences."

The vote reversed recent trends where Republicans and gun rights Democrats from rural states joined to push pro-gun rights issues and block gun control legislation.

Congress this year voted to restore the rights of people to carry loaded weapons into national parks and the Senate moved to effectively eviscerate the tough gun control laws of the District of Columbia.

Congress has also ignored urgings from President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to revive a ban on military-style weapons that expired in 2004.

The concealed weapons measure, promoted by the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America, would have made a concealed weapon permit from one state valid in the 47 other states with permit laws. Only Wisconsin and Illinois have no carry permit laws.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the sponsor, said it would not provide for a national carry permit, and that a visitor to another state would have to obey the limitations of that state, such as bans on concealed weapons in restaurants or other places.

"Law-abiding individuals have the right to self-defense," even when they cross state lines, Thune said, citing the example of truck drivers who need to protect themselves as they travel.

Opponents, however, said the 48 states with permits have a broad range of conditions for obtaining those permits: some such as Alaska and Vermont, give permits to almost all gun owners. Others, such as New York, have firearm training requirements and exclude people with drinking problems or criminal records.

New York Democrat Charles Schumer raised the possibility of his state having to accept gun carriers from states that have few or no restrictions. Thune's proposal, he said, was "the most dangerous piece of legislation to the safety of Americans when it comes to guns since the repeal of the assault weapons ban."

Thune shot back that if a person from South Dakota with a carry permit visited Central Park in New York City, "Central Park will be a much safer place."

Other opponents said the proposal infringed on states' rights, usually an important principle for gun rights groups. Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said it would override the laws of 11 states — California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island — and the District of Columbia — which do not allow carry permit reciprocity with other states.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., another sponsor, reminded his colleagues that the NRA and Gun Owners of America were scoring the vote, meaning it would be considered in their election evaluation of lawmakers.

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

Gun control groups were strongly in opposition.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said Mississippi residents can get a permit without any training, including ever shooting a pistol on a range. These permit holders could carry firearms in New York City, where police have broad discretion to deny permits, or Dallas, where permit applicants must undergo at least 10 hours of training.

"It is critical to our efforts that people who enter our state abide by the laws of our state which have supported the progress we are making," Newark, N.J., mayor Cory Booker said in a statement. "This is not a law that will in any way support our efforts to create a safer Newark."

Finally some good news from Washington!

Justice is sweet!

[Damocles]

but this wouldn't fall under the commerce clause. US v. Lopez stated that mere possession of a handgun doesn't constitute interstates/intrastate commerce.
If anything, it should be covered under the P & I of the 14th Amendment

This isn't "mere possession" and the precedent would not apply, unless it was forced in, it is more like the differences in licensing, as I've stated before.

[SmarterthanYou]

This isn't "mere possession" and the precedent would not apply, unless it was forced in, it is more like the differences in licensing, as I've stated before.

it is mere possession, as long as you're not carrying the handgun to sell to someone else, though you are correct that without this legislation, it's going to take USSC decision to make it that way.

[Mott the Hoople]

how so?

Well how should I know? That's why I was asking Yurt. He has a legal back ground. One could concievably be transporting said concealed gun for commercial purposes in which case the the Federal Government would have a right to regulate that under the constitution, if one can interpret this clause that broadly. That's a big if and I was interested in Yurt's professional opinion.

[Whomever]

Lightening kills far more than legally carried concealed weapons. When was the last story where somebody legally carrying a concealed weapon murdered somebody?

The difference here is the licensing. While it would be nice to reject the lightning license in Orlando and thereby stop all the lightning strikes from killing people it is, unfortunately, not under our control. We could, if we wished, cause people to get licenses to use cell phones or simply make it a crime to use while driving. I'd bet we could also force people to get licenses to eat at McDonald's or any other fast food joint, and as a requirement of the licensing cause them to buy extra insurance for fatties.

All of the ideas are, of course, limiting to freedom. How much do you want the government to curtail your freedoms?

All vehicles should have installed a 6 ft radius cell phone jammer that is active when the engine is running.

I do support a 10% fast food tax to help fund universal health care.

[SmarterthanYou]

Well how should I know? That's why I was asking Yurt. He has a legal back ground. One could concievably be transporting said concealed gun for commercial purposes in which case the the Federal Government would have a right to regulate that under the constitution, if one can interpret this clause that broadly. That's a big if and I was interested in Yurt's professional opinion.

that's all I was wondering, what your mindset was and what you wanted to know. in any case, maybe I answered some of your questions up above.