National CCW Law

and I was going to register as a Dem to:

1. Support her in the primary.

2. Sabotage Dem frontrunners in other primaries.

Gillibrand is on her own now. Any bets on her support for the SCOTUS nominee who found the 2A is NOT incorporated under the 14th?
 
I just posted this to the NY Times blog in response to news of the vote

It's at the top of the reader's choice and editor's pick.
Let's not forget that the amendment did pass, 58 to 39 (not 38). It just did not have the votes to overcome the threat of a filibuster (not a veto). 48 states already have concealed carry permit issue. No less than 40 of them are mandatory issue, meaning if you pass the background check and the course, the permit must be issued. Most of the concealed carry states already have reciprocity with most other such states.

What is astounding is the doomsday rhetoric that measures like this continue to inspire:

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, and generally a supporter of gun rights, said she opposed Mr. Thune’s amendment because it infringed on states and cities. “The Thune amendment would invite chaos in our cities,” she said.

"The passage of this amendment would have done more to threaten the safety of New Yorkers than anything since the repeal of the assault weapons ban,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer.

The so-called assault weapons ban was not repealed, Senator Schumer, it was allowed to expire, because everyone knows it didn't and couldn't deliver as promised The so-called assault weapon ban outlawed certain semi-automatic rifles with military-style cosmetic features unrelated to the performance characteristics of the firearm.

Violent crime has steadily dropped before, during and since the expiration of the ban. Gun accidents are now at an all-time low, while gun and ammunition sales are at an all-time high. Finally, rifles of all types have a statistically insignificant role in gun violence, according to the FBI uniform crime report. This issue is nothing more a political football kicked around to distract voters from the ineptitude of our leaders to fix the more pressing problems of joblessness, poverty, rampant foreclosure, and health care.

In every single state that has passed concealed weapon permit legislation, 48 out of 50, the same old chicken little dialog erupts. Alas, the sky does not fall, the old West doesn't reappear, and blood does not "run in our streets". What does happen where lawful citizens carry? Violent crime, especially gun crime plummets at a disproportionate rate. Home invasions, rapes, robberies, gay bashing, all fall in numbers wherever lawful, trained, and screened citizen exercise their gun rights.

The assertion by Feinstein and Bloomburg that the demise of this measure will save lives is undermined by the facts. Indeed, lives will be lost, rapes and robberies will be committed, and gay bashing will proceed unhindered by any fear that the victims may successfully resist the attacker.

In the next term, the Supreme Court of the United States will step in again where congress has failed, by incorporating (applying) the Second Amendment to the states as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals already has done in Nordyke vs Alameda County (2009).

One day soon, a lawful, peaceable gun owner will be able to enter the Kingdom of New York with his legally transported, locked, unloaded handgun, without risking a felony, as is the case in New York at present. New York State will not issue the required pistol permit under any circumstances to a non-resident. Forget about a carry permit, even if it's unloaded and locked in your hotel safe, you are now facing a felony. This is the complete and utter disregard for the 2nd amendment that exists in New York, and Illinois. Policies such as this will fail any constitutional standard of review.

As the Heller vs DC court indicated and as common sense dictates, "keep" means own, store, transport, and possess, and "bear" means carry. Plain and simple. The scope of the Heller case happened to be limited to possession in the home. But some confuse the scope of that case with a restriction on the right. This is a misunderstanding that gun control extremists are seizing upon to spin the meaning of the Heller ruling. But no other fundamental constitutional right ends at your doorstep, and the courts will have plenty of opportunity to clarify the extent of permissible restrictions going forward.

Take a deep breath, folks. Nationwide, licensed concealed carry is coming, and it's going to be OK, really it will. The sky will not fall, nor will the old West reappear, and blood will not run in our streets. We don't have to guess about the outcome. There are 40 states that already have mandatory issue for CCW licenses, and there are 8 more states that have discretionary licensing. Together, 48 States have demonstrated in the last decade that licensed, concealed carry works, that public safety and security is enhanced, and that as a public policy, it measurably suppresses violent crime.

Americans have demonstrated once again that we can be trusted with our own safety and security. And that we can and must be trusted with our liberty.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Gillibrand is being challenged next year in a primary by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, who among other things is attempting to paint Gillibrand as a gun nut. So for the time being, she's going to be no doubt erring on the side of caution as far as guns go.
Click to expand...
And by her cowering away from supporting us she needs to be made to lose. She disowns us, we disown her. It needs to be made painful to not be clearly and unconditionally on our side--this cowering to the anti gun political complex is unacceptable and needs to be put to an end. Who gives a crap about political context, this is about right and wrong--if you're against us you're wrong no matter if you're in Wyoming, NYC, or Mars.
 
ADB said:
"I'm afraid my original suspicion may have been correct, this probably would have garnered an extra couple of votes if it had been sponsored by a member of the Democratic majority."
Click to expand...
Not so sure about that.

One of the major surprises here for me was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the same guy who comes off as an uber-liberal 99% of the time, voted to support the measure.

You would think he'd be able to be fairly pursuasive to other Democrats, if he so chose...
 
Last edited:
And by her cowering away from supporting us she needs to be made to lose. She disowns us, we disown her. It needs to be made painful to not be clearly and unconditionally on our side--this cowering to the anti gun political complex is unacceptable and needs to be put to an end. Who gives a crap about political context, this is about right and wrong--if you're against us you're wrong no matter if you're in Wyoming, NYC, or Mars.
Click to expand...

West Central NY? Whereabouts? I'm 30 miles ESE of Buffalo.

In any event she's likely to be the most gun-friendly candidate we're going to see. Maloney is anti-gun, likely Republican challenger Peter King is anti-gun, and dark horse Republican candidate George Pataki is about as likely to beat Gillibrand as, well, I am. And I'm not running.

As I continually remind everyone who will listen, politics is the art of compromise and slow, steady progress. A year ago nobody would have imagined New York would have a Senator who's strongly opposed to new gun bans, and treats gun owners with respect. If staying in office means she has to help vote down a national CCW reciprocity law that wouldn't have made it even with her vote, I'm okay with that.

One the the major surprises here for me was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the same guy who comes off as an uber-liberal 99% of the time, voted to support the measure.

You would think he'd be able to be fairly pursuasive to other Democrats, if he so chose...
Click to expand...

Enh. My opinion of Reid's leadership qualities is pretty low. He spent a lot of his time in this job crumpling on cue for the Bush administration, and he's definitely never carried the big stick in terms of keeping the Dem caucus in line.
 
According to ABC Evening News, this was a "major defeat for the NRA." "The first defeat for the NRA in 10 years" and then asked, "Does this mean the NRA's power is decreasing."

After getting 58 senate votes with the senate, house and white house controlled by democrats, they think the NRA is dead?
 
ADB said:
"Enh. My opinion of Reid's leadership qualities is pretty low. He spent a lot of his time in this job crumpling on cue for the Bush administration, and he's definitely never carried the big stick in terms of keeping the Dem caucus in line."
Click to expand...
It isn't that he's some huge charismatic Democratic disciplinarian - it's more symbolic: Harry's the Senate Majority Leader. He and Pelosi are jointly supposed to be ushering in the Brave New World. And Harry voted in support of a position advocated by the NRA.

Go figure.

You go, girl...
 
This will certainly be used against or possibly hurt Bingaman, Lugar, and McCaskill.

If WV(among others) didn't continually re-elect their Senators based upon the wet monkey theory(Because that's who we've always voted for) it would possibly hurt Rockefeller.
 
A year ago nobody would have imagined New York would have a Senator who's strongly opposed to new gun bans, and treats gun owners with respect.
Click to expand...
And it doesn't look like we have one now, either. She's completely distanced herself from us and has planted herself in Schumer's front pocket. I want someone who's going to him to go to hell, not stand there one hand holding his and the other holding his pitchfork.
 
I am shocked and appalled by the behavior of one of my state's illustrious Senators - Russ Feingold voted for this?! Shocking... He is definitely not of the "Blue Dog" crowd.

I would bet he thought he could say he had a pro-gun vote on a law that would in no way affect his state for the foreseeable future though.

For the larger discussion, I must concur with the notion that as we champion states' rights, the 10th Amendment etc we have to be consistent about it. This law would seem to countermand that position and we look hypocritical as a political group of gun owners.

I purport that the long term strategy of emphasizing states' rights to enact legislation such as this, developing reciprocity agreements between the states themselves, may not be the most expedient way to national concealed carry rights, but it would be more in line with our current enthusiasm for state "sovereignty."

All of this discussion of "state sovereignty" has become an intriguing breeze of potentially forthcoming winds of change. I only hope that is so.

Then I'll move!
 
One of the major surprises here for me was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the same guy who comes off as an uber-liberal 99% of the time, voted to support the measure.
Click to expand...

Pinkie's up for reelection next year, and is in trouble. His poll numbers are low-low-low, and if the GOP can come up with a decent candidate we may be able to oust him.

Also, the NRA sent a mailer to its Nevada members asking us to thank Reid for his support of 2A issues; he's usually pretty solid on guns. Absolutely freaking awful on everything else.
 
Mr X said:
I purport that the long term strategy of emphasizing states' rights to enact legislation such as this, developing reciprocity agreements between the states themselves, may not be the most expedient way to national concealed carry rights, but it would be more in line with our current enthusiasm for state "sovereignty."
Click to expand...
And that, my friends, is exactly how the States reciprocated each others Drivers Licensing.

The Feds had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Neither the Privileges and Immunities clause (Art IV sect 2), the Full Faith and credit clause (Art. IV sect 1) nor the 14th amendment, had a thing to do with it.
 
Once every state is required to stop infringing on 'keep and bear' by the application of the 2nd to the states, (i.e. shall issue) the leap to reciprocity won't seem as long.

It 's going to be a fine day when Daley, Bloomberg, Schumer, and Feinstein finally sit down to their crow banquet. They SO have it coming.
 
I am a contrarian (surprise surprise:p) on this issue. I agree with Glenn Beck (as shown on that clip) and Mr. X. I really think we invite a lot of problems and a potential backlash from the public if we try to force this at the federal level as the amendment tried to do.

I know it is slower and not as uniform at the state level but I also think it strengthens our position and makes it harder to shut down later. If the fed approves it then they can disapprove it. I don't want them to have that power.

I think many states would not honor such an amendment and they would fire up their voters with some of the same rhetoric that conservatives use about the encroaching federal government. They would be suing and arresting CCWs in places like NY and CA who carried there and I think it would turn the public off IMO.

We are seeing some of that here in TN with some of the gun bills we just passed. The parks measure really riled up a lot of local entities and now they are claiming interference from the state government blah blah blah.

I like states rights and I like the CCW process at that level.
 
Thune totally blew the opportunity to articulate it a LOT better. He could have convinced Glenn but didn't give anything compelling. What he should have done was to have made the case against the governments of anti gun states and why this needs to happen. NY, NJ, CA, MA, and IL are clearly not controlled by the people but instead their governments are basically self electing by means of gerrymandering and political machines. States that have free elections rather than every one being a forgone conclusion from the start choose shall issue CCW and reciprocity almost every time. Right now the citizens of the handful of no-issue areas are being discriminated against because of their zip code which is blatantly wrong. People shouldn't have to choose between their job and home and their 2nd Amendment rights and it is wrong for a state or local government to force them to do so.
 
Let's not forget the poor souls in the so-called "may issue" states. Here in MD there's virtually no chance for an ordinary citizen to get a carry permit; they're reserved for the rich and politically connected.

As it happens, the violent crime rate is significantly higher than in all the surrounding states, which are shall-issue states.
 
Bob.A does remind me of something.

Unfortunately the northern midwest trio of IL-IA-WI isn't very CCW friendly.
IA is a MAY issue state and outside of a few counties (of an absurd 99), few permits are issued with some sheriffs being downright hostile (e.g. Story Cty) to their constituents and other residents with permits. AND, Iowa does not have reciprocity with any other states for people visiting Iowa. The reverse has reciprocity provided the CCW holder has applied for the UT and FL permits when the got their IA one.

WI: were it not for Dane Cty and Milwaukee Cty there would have at least been some measure of CCW in WI 3 years ago. With the largest population centers representation in state legislatures, the 51>49 effect is playing out against us. Not to mention our useless governor. We're a funny state in that we keep governors for a long long time. I think CCW will happen here. There are active gun owners and the bill did pass the legislature but fell 2 ( I believe) votes short for a veto-override.

IL: Sorry mates, until you can kick Chicago out of your state...maybe you can sell it to Indiana? We don't want it. Has the Bears and all...

The point of all this is sadly, I think long term, there will be pockets of states that will not go for reciprocity. I think a good number of formalized CCW laws are still new statutory entity and the concept under the general public's radar - ergo - until it normalizes as an institution such as driver's licenses, the patchwork mess will remain. Slow normalization, acceptance, good behavior on our part and I think that like driving tests, the states will generally accept standardized testing for CCW licenses leading to reciprocity.

Now... driving may have been a poor example if we consider IL... just kidding, Flat-landers!
 
Let's not forget the poor souls in the so-called "may issue" states. Here in MD there's virtually no chance for an ordinary citizen to get a carry permit; they're reserved for the rich and politically connected.

As it happens, the violent crime rate is significantly higher than in all the surrounding states, which are shall-issue states.
Click to expand...
Didnt Mr Bloomberg tell you? Its us dang Virginians fault your crime is so high... :rolleyes:

I'm glad a couple of you on here have come out and said you were against this federal law. I woulda chimed in sooner, but thought this would have been the wrong crowd to go against a pro gun measure :p. I just think its hipocriptal to go preach states rights on one hand, but support any pro gun bill regardless on the other. I totally agree with what Yellowfin is saying about how its not fair that some states hold out on their citizens the way they do, but throwing the most important thing we have, state sovereignty, out the window just isn't the way to go about fixing it.
Anyway, don't hate me...
 
A well regulated federally controlled militia, being necessary for a free police state, the right of the people to sometimes keep and bear arms, might not be infringed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top