Gun Rights Expansion Fails in Senate

Gun Rights Expansion Fails in Senate

www.nytimes.com

The Senate on Wednesday turned aside the latest effort by gun advocates to expand the rights of gun owners, narrowly voting down a provision that would have allowed gun owners with valid permits from one state to carry concealed weapons in other states.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This doesn't look good. I honestly don't see what the issue is. Are they trying to protect each state's right to get tax money out of us for the privilege exercising our Second Amendment rights? Or is this just another cheap shot at Second Amendment advocates, and gun enthusiasts?

Either way, this is just ridiculous.


TA

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Serious question, and I'm not trying to pick a fight whatsoever. I'm very Pro-Gun and 2nd Amendment. But why did Gun Rights issues explode since Obama's taken office? I don't remember nearly this much fervor on the issue when Bush was in office. I'm asking because I don't know much about this issue. I would one day like to own a Tommy Gun and as American I don't know why I wouldn't be able too

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
Serious question, and I'm not trying to pick a fight whatsoever. I'm very Pro-Gun and 2nd Amendment. But why did Gun Rights issues explode since Obama's taken office? I don't remember nearly this much fervor on the issue when Bush was in office. I'm asking because I don't know much about this issue. I would one day like to own a Tommy Gun and as American I don't know why I wouldn't be able too

I don't think this particular issue has anything to do with Obama, but rather trying to loosen the restrictions on carrying a firearm across state lines. Most states have concealed carry permits, so it doesn't make sense for you not to be able use a permit from one state when you cross the state line.

With that being said, I don't think this should be a federal issue. I think it should be up to the individual states to say whether or not they want to recognize the concealed carry permits of other states.

reply to post by CuriousSkeptic


I signed up after the elections, and hadn't been lurking too long beforehand, so I'm not really qualified to answer that.

It's always been a big issue with me, though. I like guns and I love the Constitution and Constitutional law. I also like to post about and discuss the latest developments Second Amendment law.



TA

reply to post by LiquidLight

Most states have concealed carry permits, so it doesn't make sense for you not to be able use a permit from one state when you cross the state line.

Exactly. Why wouldn't they allow for this? Are they planning on throwing more restrictive legislation our way that this bill might have stopped, had it passed? Are they looking to 'federalize' the CC permit law so that states can't issue them, only the feds? This just doesn't add up.


TA

The issue is because dems are painted as wanting to strip your right to bare arms. Clinton did a assault weapon ban that pissed everyone off that wanted an AR-15 and people think obama will do the same. This site IMO is about 90% republican so you will see far more threads bashing this issue then you will the whole truth.

Personally as a gun owner I'm far more worried about not being able to get ammo then I am about them taking away my guns. I think this was also a well designed ploy buy the NRA to scare everyone into buying more guns and ammo stating they better do it while they can. There is websites that are months behind on stock and have made money hand over fist. Prices have gone up a ton and if its not .22 ammo then its pretty hard to find all the time.

Why do States Rights only seem to hold up when it's a matter of stripping citizens of their rights? I can't carry a concealed gun over state lines with a permit yet the feds can come bust me for marijuana despite (hypothetically) having a green card and obeying state Marijuana laws? Uh... what?

reply to post by CuriousSkeptic

I'm opposed to the war on drugs in its entirety, personally. I defend states' rights in all situations, because state law trumps federal law. Period. And I believe the issue at hand is (or should be) a states' rights issue, not a federal one.


TA

[edit on 23-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

This is classic:

Passage of the amendment would make it much harder for law enforcement to distinguish between legal and illegal possession of a firearm. It would be a boon for illegal gun traffickers, making it easier to transport weapons across state lines without being caught.

www.nytimes.com...

No argument about the millions of illegal immigrants that make it harder for states to fight crime though...

Do they all have properly issued, state recognized IDs and criminal background clearance? Ahhhh - no matter that!

Thank God our Dear Leaders - and the almighty NY Times - recognize that the greatest threat to America is law-abiding citizens that want to travel from one state to another while maintaining their Constitutional rights.




[edit on 23-7-2009 by passenger]

Originally posted by LiquidLight

With that being said, I don't think this should be a federal issue. I think it should be up to the individual states to say whether or not they want to recognize the concealed carry permits of other states.

On this particular issue it should be up to the Federal Government, just as the Interstate System is. Before we had a Federally regulated Interstate system, each state could have their own toll systems and standards, and oh wonder, imagine such an aspect now-a-days? If it were not for the Federal government taking control of the aforementioned, can you imagine the utter chaos that would exist today with non-regulated Highway markings, signs, and safety standards? This Gun Bill had as much to do with Transportation standards as it did Gun Control Laws/Firearms Rights. I do find the current standards sub-par and ridiculous in regards to the confusing reciprocal concealed permit system between States, and it should not exist as it does in its current form.

reply to post by LiquidLight

With that being said, I don't think this should be a federal issue. I think it should be up to the individual states to say whether or not they want to recognize the concealed carry permits of other states.

Actually, I'm going to disagree with you, for the simple fact that the right to bear arms is specified in the constitution. Which means that it trumps state law.

Personally if we have to go through a background check to buy a firearm then we should automatically have the right to carry concealed is my opinion on the matter.

What the gov did in this instance by not allowing this amendment is trying to make it a states issue, which it clearly isn't. This is federal issue.

The most for telling thought on how the gun-grabbers think was with the Sotomayer hearing. She stated that our right to privacy is guaranteed, but she doesn't know if our right to bear arms is a states issue or federal issue.

They are just trying to bastardize the constitution even more. is all

reply to post by CuriousSkeptic


To answer your question about the firearm issue exploding; this happened when Clinton took office too. The stance of most Democrats on the 2nd amendment is that it is either not an individual right, or they are for fierce gun control laws.

This didn’t happen with Bush because the stance by most of the Republican Party is pro-gun and pro-constitution. Not to mention that Bush removed Clintons assault weapons ban (the one Obama want to reinstate with even stricter regulations).

Lastly; Obama, in his short career in the senate, had a strong record of voting for gun control, and anti-gun legislation. Now that he is president he has already tried to push through more anti-gun and gun control laws than any other president (luckily none have gone through yet). So much so that even his fellow Democrats have asked him to stop because it’s hurting their popularity.

reply to post by NRA4ever333


I agree with everything except the part about the republicans being pro-constitution. They are, but selectively, like the democrats. Both of the major parties seem to regard the Constitution as a roadblock to furthering their agendas, rather than as the document outlining our liberties as they should rightly be. Otherwise, good post, thanks and star.


TA

reply to post by TheAssociate


I suppose you are right (the patriot act comes to mind). So I suppose it would be more accurate to say Republicans are more respectful of the Constitution unless it gets in their way. Where Democrates barley recognize the Constitution at all, and see it as an archaic outdated document.

reply to post by TheAssociate


Some States have reciprocity with other States in regards to Concealed Weapons. Here in Texas with a CHL (Concealed Handgun License) you can carry in several States. Now there are other States that do not recongize your ability to carry- California and NY are two.

Texas Reciprocity List

When I lived in Colorado it was Open Carry (except in Denver and Denver county)... I only ever saw a few people carring. I carried once in awhile for work. I believe that if you have a CHL you should be able to Open Carry- but I do not think that was signed in yet.

Easy solution, when you cross the state line stop concealing the gun, put it in plain sight and it is no logger a concealed weapon. You only need a permit to carry concealed, you don't need one to carry in plain sight.


I could be wrong, but that was my understanding of the law.

[edit on 23/7/09 by SG-1-9er]

First, I'm pro 2nd and a gun owner. I have a concelaed weapons permit in a state where they are very hard to get. Although I personally favor this legislation, the issue for some states is that they may have restrictive concealed policies but would be required to allow people from very lax states to carry concelaed within their borders. Makes things a bit complicated.