Jump to content

Brady Campaign "warns" of possible national carry reciprocity amendment


GarandFan

Recommended Posts

Apparently, Thune thinks the vote will be Wednesday.

 

There will be some kind of committee debate on the issue beforehand.

 

I can only imagine the hysterics that can be generated in two days ...

 

 

BTW, it's hitting the mainstream now:

 

CBS News

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/20/po...ry5175231.shtml

 

US News and World Report

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whi...n-proposal.html

 

MSNBC

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...20/2002278.aspx

 

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9071901689.html

 

Associated Press

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...Hs9ZyAD99IDQN00

 

and others ...

http://news.google.com/news?ned=us&hl=...7boM&cf=all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a quorum call is a procedural move it can be used to stall or try to get more time.

 

It looks like Lautenberg was trygin to get the opening shots in. Thune's Bill will be before the Jud committee on Wednesday from what I can tell. I think the antis are hoping to try and derail the issue in committee so they can then have it pulled from the floor.

 

They don't like us forcing floor votes especially when the loose. If we do have the 55 votes Schumer things we have then it really throws somethings in to a tailspin for them. Outside of saw the AWB RTC is their top issue. Loosing that is a very big stake in the heart of the vampire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be thinking about this a little too deeply, but i have a few concerns...

 

A state that allows citizens to carry based on 12 hours of training (I'm making up that number) has set this criteria as their absolute minimum for citizen carry. When tourists having fewer hours of training come into their state carrying firearms then the home state LTC requirements are suddenly pointless. Permit holders will ask, "Why should citizens have to get more training than tourists?" The anti's will ask, "Why shouldn't tourists be required to get as much training as the home citizens?" Funny how we don't seem to have this problem when it comes to the training needed for drivers' licenses, but I think it would be a problem with LTC permits. Both the anti's and permit holders would complain about it, although for different reasons.

 

An LTC state could talk about lowering their training requirement, but then realize some states don't require training at all. They could talk about eliminating their training requirement entirely only to realize some states don't require fingerprints either. After reducing or eliminating each requirement to get to the lowest common denominator the state may decide they aren't comfortable having so few requirements for an LTC permit. They decide to leave their requirements exactly where they are, but are not comfortable with less-qualified armed tourists coming into their state. They would be unable to do anything to stop those armed tourists, unless they eliminated LTC permits entirely. It's possible we'd see more states become like IL and WI. They would do so in the name of "safety" as the federal law infringes upon the bare minimum standards which had been set by the state for LTC permit holders.

 

Of course, all the LTC states could eliminate all their requirements and go "Alaska-style", but it's unlikely.

 

Meanwhile, states like IL and WI will try to use the passage of this bill as further reason to demand their 2A right be honored as it is in the rest of the country. However, it could hurt our efforts when politicians realize that allowing LTC for IL or WI citizens based on very strict criteria automatically opens up the state to armed tourists who acquired an LTC permit with less rigid requirements. They aren't going to like that idea any better than allowing LTC permits to citizens. I don't see this bill helping our cause in IL at all. This bill actually gives them one more reason to oppose LTC.

 

I would have liked to see this bill force ALL states (even IL and WI) into honoring ALL permits, even if the home state didn't offer them. That way a state wouldn't be tempted to repeal their LTC laws simply to deal with the armed tourist issue.

 

Edit: I should also add that the anti's (assuming they fail to stop this bill) will still try to use it to their advantage. They will call for national standards for LTC permits which are set at the HIGHEST common denominator. If successful, all states would have the same strict requirements, even Alaska and Vermont.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I like to see the Brady's wetting their pants, I thought the democrats controlled the congress now. Doesn't that mean this is unlikely to pass?

 

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6589

 

Don't forget there are at least 65 democrats who told Obama by letter that they opposed reinstatement of the AWB. This isn't to say they would support this particular bill, but it's clear some of them are not following party lines on gun-control issues. That's the House, I would presume there are some in the Senate who would stray as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I like to see the Brady's wetting their pants, I thought the democrats controlled the congress now. Doesn't that mean this is unlikely to pass?

You can't assume that the democrats will vote in unison on anti-gun bills.

 

Yes, the democrats picked up many seats, and a lot of these are from pro-gun areas.

So some of these newly seated congress folk are either ideologically or pragmatically pro-gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there actually a chance this could survive both houses and be signed? (by chance I mean greater than 45%)

 

while this doesn't solve our problems directly, it just seems too easy.

 

They're trying to attach it to a DoD authorization bill, so if that happens, a veto isn't really an option for Obama. This was proven to be a very effective strategy when the National Parks RTC measure was attached to the "must pass" credit card legislation.

 

I believe there are enough pro-Second Amendment Democrats in both chambers that there is a > 45% chance of passage. That is only my personal opinion, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the anti gunner in Wisconsin is on the rant in the UK forum....here is his post.

 

WASHINGTON, July 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study (http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf) released today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC). The release of the study comes as the U.S. Senate is expected to take up today -- Monday, July 20 -- an amendment to the defense authorization bill (S. 1390) that would create a de facto national concealed carry system, overriding the rights of states with more restrictive laws governing the carrying of concealed handguns.

 

The amendment is sponsored by Senator John Thune (R-SD). Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) has said he will filibuster the amendment.

 

Because most state systems allowing the carrying of concealed handguns in public by private citizens release little data about crimes committed by permit holders, the VPC reviewed shooting incidents as reported by news outlets. It is likely that the actual number of fatal criminal incidents involving concealed handgun permit holders is far higher.

 

The study, "Law Enforcement and Private Citizens Killed by Concealed Handgun Permit Holders -- An Analysis of News Reports, May 2007 to April 2009," finds that during the two-year period reviewed --

Concealed handgun permit holders have slain seven law enforcement officers resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All of the killings were committed with guns. An additional three law enforcement officers were injured in these incidents.

Concealed handgun permit holders have slain at least 44 private citizens resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All but one of the killings were committed with guns. An additional six private citizens were injured in these incidents.

In six of the 31 incidents (19 percent), the concealed handgun permit holder killed himself, bringing the total fatality count to 57.

VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, "State concealed handgun systems are arming cop-killers and other murderers. It is beyond irrational for Congress to vote to expand the reach of these deadly laws."

 

The study offers detailed descriptions of the 31 incidents, which occurred in 15 states. Law enforcement officers were killed in: Florida, Idaho, Ohio (two incidents), and Pennsylvania (two incidents). Private citizens were killed in: Alabama, Colorado, Florida (nine incidents), Idaho, Kentucky, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina (two incidents), Ohio (three incidents), Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah (two incidents), and Virginia.

 

The Violence Policy Center (www.vpc.org) is a national educational organization working to stop gun death and injury.

 

CONTACT: Mandy Wimmer, Communications Associate of the Violence Policy Center, +1-202-822-8200 ext. 110, mwimmer@vpc.org

 

SOURCE Violence Policy Center

 

 

 

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...l,897298.shtml

 

http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From today's Senate Calendar of Business:

 

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...docid=sc001.pdf

 

Ordered further, That on Wednesday, July 22, 2009, when the Senate resumes consideration

of S. 1390 and Amdt. No. 1618, offered by the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.

Thune), the time until 12 noon be for debate with respect to the amendment, with the

time equally divided and controlled between the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune)

and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), or their designees; provided, that no amendments

be in order to Amdt. No. 1618 during its pendency; provided further, that at 12 noon,

the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment, with the adoption of the amendment

requiring an affirmative 60 vote threshold; provided further, that if the amendment

achieves that threshold, then it be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered

made and laid upon the table; further, that if it does not achieve that threshold, then

the amendment be withdrawn. (July 16, 20, 2009.)

 

So ...

(1) there will be a floor debate tomorrow, at 1000 lasting possibly until 1200 hours.

(2) a super-majority of 60 votes is required for approval (can someone explain why?)

(3) Thune is leading the arguments in support, our own Durbin is leading arguments in opposition (even though this amendment does not affect Illinois).

(4) If the amendment does not receive 60 votes, it's dead for now.

 

Recall that the Senate vote on expanding right-to-carry to the National Parks and Wildlife Refuges passed by a vote of 67.

 

You can bet that the NRA will be scoring votes. And don't forget that there is a congressional election next year ... and public support for democrats is waning from it's post-Obama election high ...

 

I give this a decent chance of passage in the Senate. The antis sure are taking it seriously (and hysterically), and that's indicative of something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(3) Thune is leading the arguments in support, our own Durbin is leading arguments in opposition (even though this amendment does not affect Illinois).

 

It doesn't affect Illinois...yet.

 

Perhaps this opposition is less reflexive and more indicative of his feeling the winds change even in Illinois.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(3) Thune is leading the arguments in support, our own Durbin is leading arguments in opposition (even though this amendment does not affect Illinois).

 

It doesn't affect Illinois...yet.

 

Perhaps this opposition is less reflexive and more indicative of his feeling the winds change even in Illinois.

 

Agreed. He's anticipating quadruple the number of irate constituents bitching to him about why the lowly serfs of Illinois still can't carry when almost everyone else can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(3) Thune is leading the arguments in support, our own Durbin is leading arguments in opposition (even though this amendment does not affect Illinois).

 

It doesn't affect Illinois...yet.

 

Perhaps this opposition is less reflexive and more indicative of his feeling the winds change even in Illinois.

 

Agreed. He's anticipating quadruple the number of irate constituents bitching to him about why the lowly serfs of Illinois still can't carry when almost everyone else can.

 

I was thinking more along the lines that he sees we RTC knocking at our door and if IL gets RTC and reciprocity passes we'll have armed visitors from all over the country wandering around IL with the ability to defend themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(3) Thune is leading the arguments in support, our own Durbin is leading arguments in opposition (even though this amendment does not affect Illinois).

 

It doesn't affect Illinois...yet.

 

Perhaps this opposition is less reflexive and more indicative of his feeling the winds change even in Illinois.

 

Agreed. He's anticipating quadruple the number of irate constituents bitching to him about why the lowly serfs of Illinois still can't carry when almost everyone else can.

 

I was thinking more along the lines that he sees we RTC knocking at our door and if IL gets RTC and reciprocity passes we'll have armed visitors from all over the country wandering around IL with the ability to defend themselves.

 

Yes, although I believe my scenario is a precondition of yours. In any case, both are inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I'm reading it, No. (hence my lil rant earlier) In section b. , there's several mentions of "residents of the state..." So I'm guessing N/A to non-residents. I hope I'm wrong though.

 

Also, it looks like IL & WI won't be the only states not really affected by it. The folks in CA, HI, and any other state that is difficult to get a permit in, will be in the same boat as us.

 

Only they get to feel the sting of their state letting out-of-staters carry in their state when they're not permitted to do so! :thumbsup: How screwed up is that???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric, I believe your interpretation is wrong. The way I read it, licenses must be issued by a state in order to be honored ... not by the licensee's home state.

 

 

Anyway, a Politico article outlines some of the issues surrounding this bill ... and as I suspected, the protection of the Democrat majority is high on their priority list. That is a good thing, because this proves that the Dem leadership fully knows and understands that gun control is a losing issue. But then again it appears that the liberal Dems might try to derail this, or otherwise load it down with stuff we don't want (closing the "gun show loophole").

 

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25193.html

 

Harry Reid green-lights controversial gun vote

By GLENN THRUSH | 7/21/09 4:19 AM EDT

 

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is supposed to be the protector of the Senate’s skittish Democratic flock — the guy who soothes intraparty spats and shields his 60-member majority from dangerous, career-threatening votes.

 

Yet Reid — whose low approval ratings in Nevada make him a tempting GOP target in next year’s midterms — put many of his members in a sticky situation when he OK’d a floor vote on a controversial GOP amendment that could significantly alter the nation’s gun control laws.

 

Reid says the bill deserves a hearing and reflects his commitment to supporting gun rights in a state that sanctifies the Second Amendment. Other Democrats say he approved the vote out of personal political necessity — to avoid the ire of the National Rifle Association during the 2010 elections.

 

“Nobody’s angry at Harry, but it’s created a problem for us,” says a Democratic aide, speaking on condition of anonymity. “There’s a huge level of sympathy for him, because we don’t want to have another Daschle situation.”

 

That was, of course, a reference to Tom Daschle, the last Democratic majority leader who was knocked off in 2004, by Republican John Thune.

 

By astounding coincidence (not), Thune, now the No. 4 man in the Senate, just happens to be the guy who authored the current amendment to allow licensed gun owners to transport their weapons across state lines.

 

“This has nothing to do with electoral politics,” said Reid spokesman Jim Manley, who emphasized that the amendment has the support of many other Democrats besides Reid.

 

Two previous NRA-backed measures, one loosening D.C. handgun restrictions and another allowing guns in national parks, passed by comfortable 60-plus vote margins in the Senate earlier this year.

 

“Harry Reid has always supported gun rights and intends to do so in the future,” Manley added.

 

Still, Reid’s decision prompted a mini-uprising among two top lieutenants — Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) — who are considering a filibuster to kill the measure before it comes to a vote, as expected on Wednesday.

 

In the meantime, gun control groups were working with Durbin, Schumer and New Jersey Democrat Frank Lautenberg to craft an alternative amendment that would put the GOP on the defensive — one that would impose tough new federal restrictions on interstate transport or even insert a provision closing the so-called gun-show loophole.

 

Reid is “likely” to vote in favor of the Thune amendment, an aide said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I'm reading it, No. (hence my lil rant earlier) In section b. , there's several mentions of "residents of the state..." So I'm guessing N/A to non-residents. I hope I'm wrong though.

 

Also, it looks like IL & WI won't be the only states not really affected by it. The folks in CA, HI, and any other state that is difficult to get a permit in, will be in the same boat as us.

 

Only they get to feel the sting of their state letting out-of-staters carry in their state when they're not permitted to do so! :thumbsup: How screwed up is that???

I agree that if passed and signed into law, this helps to level the field and sets another brick in the foundation of lasting gun-rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric, I believe your interpretation is wrong. The way I read it, licenses must be issued by a state in order to be honored ... not by the licensee's home state.

 

I have trouble with legal-ese, but from GF's prior post:

 

(8.) Congress therefore should provide for the interstate carrying of firearms by such individuals in all States that do not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by their own residents.

 

I would interpret this to mean if a state allows permits for residents, then ALL out-of-state permits are also valid in that state. In reverse, NO permits from ANY state will be honored if that state does not allow permits to be issued to their own residents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what if I'm outside of Illinois, with my out-of-state PA LTC? could I use that in any other state then?

 

MAYBE? From Thune's web sight:

 

"Currently, some states with concealed carry laws grant reciprocity to permit-holders from other select states. Senator Thune's bill strikes the appropriate balance between individual and states' rights by allowing an individual to carry a concealed firearm across state lines if they either have a valid permit or if, under their state of residence, they are entitled to do so."

 

 

AND YET... From the Library of Congress/Thomas sight:

 

S.AMDT.1618

Amends: S.1390

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.

 

 

My best guess, though I am hopeful that I am wrong, is a big NO.

 

If traditional reciprocity persists, we could still carry in the states our current non-resident permits allow. If traditional reciprocity disappears... Illinoisans may be limited to legal carry only in states from which we are issued non-resident permits.

 

Would this unfortunate development ignite those who currently have non-resident permits and yet remain silent and uninvolved???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what if I'm outside of Illinois, with my out-of-state PA LTC? could I use that in any other state then?

 

 

Eric, I believe your interpretation is wrong. The way I read it, licenses must be issued by a state in order to be honored ... not by the licensee's home state.

 

I have trouble with legal-ese, but from GF's prior post:

 

(8.) Congress therefore should provide for the interstate carrying of firearms by such individuals in all States that do not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by their own residents.

 

I would interpret this to mean if a state allows permits for residents, then ALL out-of-state permits are also valid in that state. In reverse, NO permits from ANY state will be honored if that state does not allow permits to be issued to their own residents.

 

 

Thanks GF & SirM :thumbsup:

 

I have a lot of trouble interpreting Legalese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what if I'm outside of Illinois, with my out-of-state PA LTC? could I use that in any other state then?

 

MAYBE? From Thune's web sight:

 

"Currently, some states with concealed carry laws grant reciprocity to permit-holders from other select states. Senator Thune's bill strikes the appropriate balance between individual and states' rights by allowing an individual to carry a concealed firearm across state lines if they either have a valid permit or if, under their state of residence, they are entitled to do so."

 

 

AND YET... From the Library of Congress/Thomas sight:

 

S.AMDT.1618

Amends: S.1390

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.

 

 

My best guess, though I am hopeful that I am wrong, is a big NO.

 

If traditional reciprocity persists, we could still carry in the states our current non-resident permits allow. If traditional reciprocity disappears... Illinoisans may be limited to legal carry only in states from which we are issued non-resident permits.

 

Would this unfortunate development ignite those who currently have non-resident permits and yet remain silent and uninvolved???

 

 

Bingo! This is what I've been trying to find out. You just worded it a lot better than I did. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what if I'm outside of Illinois, with my out-of-state PA LTC? could I use that in any other state then?

 

MAYBE? From Thune's web sight:

 

"Currently, some states with concealed carry laws grant reciprocity to permit-holders from other select states. Senator Thune's bill strikes the appropriate balance between individual and states' rights by allowing an individual to carry a concealed firearm across state lines if they either have a valid permit or if, under their state of residence, they are entitled to do so."

 

 

AND YET... From the Library of Congress/Thomas sight:

 

S.AMDT.1618

Amends: S.1390

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.

 

 

My best guess, though I am hopeful that I am wrong, is a big NO.

 

If traditional reciprocity persists, we could still carry in the states our current non-resident permits allow. If traditional reciprocity disappears... Illinoisans may be limited to legal carry only in states from which we are issued non-resident permits.

 

Would this unfortunate development ignite those who currently have non-resident permits and yet remain silent and uninvolved???

 

This is where court cases come into play. That section is not part of the law, but does signal legislative intent. By the wording of the actual law we would be able to carry, but who knows how a court would rule if it came down to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AND YET... From the Library of Congress/Thomas sight:

 

S.AMDT.1618

Amends: S.1390

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.

 

 

My best guess, though I am hopeful that I am wrong, is a big NO.

 

I submit that you are making the mistake of reading the "purpose" or introductory language as the language of the law itself. That is in error. The quote above is not what would be codified law.

 

The language that would be codified law includes the following:

 

``(a.) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof--

 

``(1.) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that--

 

``(A.) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

 

``(B.) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes;

 

The next section, (2.), merely takes care of AK and VT, where carrying us done without a license. It basically says law-abiding people from AK and VT can lawfully carry in any state that has a carry provision, and do so without no stinkin' license.

 

 

Moreover, regarding SirMatthew's statements:

 

I have trouble with legal-ese, but from GF's prior post:

 

(8.) Congress therefore should provide for the interstate carrying of firearms by such individuals in all States that do not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by their own residents.

 

I would interpret this to mean if a state allows permits for residents, then ALL out-of-state permits are also valid in that state. In reverse, NO permits from ANY state will be honored if that state does not allow permits to be issued to their own residents.

 

The (8.) that you quote is not language of the codified law. It is merely among the list of the Congress's findings. I would not be binding law.

 

 

SOOO ... what most people here are interested in. For Illinoisans with non-resident licenses to carry, I read the language to authorize you to carry in any state other than IL and WI, pursuant to the various "off-limits" locations in those 48 states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sweet, so I can carry in all but 2 states! That's a relief! But by the same token, what about tourists from outside Illinois going into Chicago? Anyone think Daley won't arrest them, defying the law altogether?

 

Doesn't he already? This law won't change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I have heard, there are not 41 Dems willing to hold up this vote. The amendment should have enough votes to pass, especially if Reid supports it becasue then the Blue Dog Dems wont have the leadership breathing down their neck to oppose it.

 

This, however can change because a day is an eternity in politics. Even if Nancy in the House tried to kill it, there might be enough blue dog dems in the House to stop her from stripping the amendment (but I wouldnt be surprised if she found a way to kill it). As of right now, I bet it will pass the senate and because it is attached to the defense bill.

 

The LTC in national parks was attached to the "must pass" credit card bill, and most in Congress believe that the defense bill is a "must pass" as well. I guess you cant say that about the DC voting bill, thats why Nancy was able to kill it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am not mistaken, the Senate will be taking up this bill today at 0830 central time, with a vote scheduled after discussion (and before 1100).

 

You can watch it here:

 

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN2_wm.aspx

 

I hope someone keeps us updated here, I am the office and can't watch...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...