Brady Campaign "warns" of possible national carry reciprocity amendment

[SmershAgent]

Just got this from the NRA. Maybe there's a real chance for this amendment after all...

 

The U.S. Senate is now considering the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390). As a part of the consideration of that legislation, Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) will offer an amendment on Monday to provide for interstate recognition of Right-to-Carry permits. There is a very high likelihood of a Senate floor vote on this important and timely pro-gun reform on Monday or Tuesday.

While the right to possess firearms for self-defense within the home has long been respected under the law, for most of our nation's history, state and local governments have prohibited ordinary citizens from possessing firearms for self-defense in many settings outside the home. Recently, however, most state legislatures have taken steps to reduce those restrictions. In the last twenty years, the number of states that respect the right to carry has risen from 10 to 40 -- an all-time high.

[anonymous too]

The benefit of the Thune/Vitter legislation is that -- unlike other, competing measures -- it would protect the right of any U.S. citizen to carry out of state (regardless of whether he possesses a permit), as long as he is authorized to carry in his home state.

 

So.......us IL and WI residents couldn't carry in our respective states, but people from other states could.

[Federal Farmer]

The benefit of the Thune/Vitter legislation is that -- unlike other, competing measures -- it would protect the right of any U.S. citizen to carry out of state (regardless of whether he possesses a permit), as long as he is authorized to carry in his home state.

 

So.......us IL and WI residents couldn't carry in our respective states, but people from other states could.

 

No, there is a provision that respects the carry laws of the state.

[GarandFan]

Interestingly ... this vote is tomorrow, and I have scarcely seen anything in the "mainstream" media. There was an article in the Salt Lake City paper, but other than that, most of the noise has come from the Bradys and the Joyce-funded groups.

 

NYT did an anti-gun editorial four days ago ... but it was in support of the common-sense prohibition of defensive guns in people's homes (welfare housing). It is funny how what used to be the Nation's number one newspaper is now calling defiance of Supreme Court precedent "common sense." The Times, they are a changing.

[eric2281]

So, not only does this mean absolutely NOTHING for IL & WI residents but my out-of-state permits don't apply to this either because they're...well...OUT-OF-STATE!

 

Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009

 

A bill 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.

[GarandFan]

So, not only does this mean absolutely NOTHING for IL & WI residents but my out-of-state permits don't apply to this either because they're...well...OUT-OF-STATE!

 

Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009

 

A bill 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.

 

 

Eric, before you go crashing your skull into the bricks ... it would be prudent to note where your quoted text came from. Who wrote that, and what is the source?

 

You are not quoting the Thune senate amendment. It can be found here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111...19pJE0D:e91047:

 

And its language, confusing as it may be, is as follows (the actual legalese begins at (b.)):

 

 

SEC. 1083. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

 

(a.) Findings.--Congress finds the following:

 

(1.) The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

 

(2.) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

 

(3.) Congress has previously enacted legislation for national authorization of the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

 

(4.) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms to individuals, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without need for a permit.

 

(5.) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

 

(6.) Congress finds that the prevention of lawful carrying by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

 

(7.) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

 

(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.

 

(b.) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:``§926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

 

``(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;

 

``(2.) 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 is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), 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.

 

``(b.) A person carrying a concealed firearm under this section shall--

 

``(1.) in a State that does not prohibit the carrying of a concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes, be entitled to carry such firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern the specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a resident of the State; or

 

``(2.) in a State that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, be entitled to carry such a firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a person issued a permit by the State in which the firearm is carried.

 

``(c.) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or permit issued to a resident of the State.

 

``(d.) Nothing in this section shall be construed to--

 

``(1.) effect the permitting process for an individual in the State of residence of the individual; or

 

``(2.) preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.''.

 

(c.) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

 

``926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.''.

 

(d.) Severability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

 

(e.) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

[w00dc4ip]

Essentially this is a crappy idea for reciprocity, it effectively says anyone with a concealed carry license has the right to carry in any state that issues concealed carry licenses, according to each state's restrictions and limitations. I guess it's good in that it would allow those of us with out-of-state permits from PA, NH, FL, or anywhere else to carry in any other state, even those that currently only recognize resident permits, like for instance, Michigan, although we'd still have to learn the specifics of the regulations of any state we plan to visit. It doesn't create any sort of national standard However it does nothing for Illinois or Wisconsin residents while in their home state, or anyone else visiting Illinois or Wisconsin.

[GarandFan]

I am not sure I'd call it crappy.

 

It's a good step towards effecting (restoring) our the right to bear arms on a national level.

 

The biggest winners are travelers, particularly travelers to may-issue states.

 

We have to effect carry in Illinois via the legislature. Our legislature. For supporters of carry in Illinois, we have three alternatives. Enact it here, move away, or tolerate our rights being denied.

[GarandFan]

OK, here is some new information. As we all would have assumed, Chuck Shumer is a huge fan of this amendment ... and it looks like once-pro gun rights Gillibrand is siding with her "new friends."

 

 

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics...0,5836292.story

 

Schumer sounds alarm over 'sneak' GOP gun bill

 

BY REID J. EPSTEIN | reid.epstein@newsday.com

9:17 PM EDT, July 19, 2009

 

Sen. Charles Schumer warned that Republican "sneak attack" legislation could render New York State's law requiring handgun owners to obtain concealed carry licenses toothless.

 

The legislation, an amendment to the defense appropriations bill offered Friday by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), would require New York and other states that issue concealed-carry firearms permits to honor such permits issued in other states.

 

"To say that someone who gets a license in another state can then take their gun into Central Park or into Eisenhower Park without any checking with local law enforcement is appalling and could affect our safety," Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in an interview.

 

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who opposed restrictions on gun ownership as an upstate congresswoman, opposes the amendment, her spokeswoman said Sunday.

 

New York is one of 10 states that does not recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states.

 

Criteria for obtaining a concealed carry permit vary widely among the 46 states that allow the practice. Illinois and Wisconsin do not allow any form of concealed carry, while Alaska and Vermont allow it and do not require a permit.

 

Getting a handgun license in New York requires a county application and State Police approval.

 

To get a state license and a concealed carry permit here, a person must be 21 years old, never been convicted of a felony, never suffered from documented mental illness and never had a state handgun license revoked. State law also allows for a license to be denied if the applicant is deemed without "good moral character."

 

Schumer estimated the amendment has the support of about 55 senators and pledged a filibuster to prevent a vote on the amendment if necessary.

 

The National Rifle Association Friday announced its steadfast support for the Thune amendment.

 

"Now is the time for Congress to acknowledge these changes in state laws and recognize that the right to self-defense does not end at state lines," the NRA said.

 

A May amendment to federal credit card legislation that allowed concealed carry permit holders to take guns into national parks passed with bipartisan support in both houses.

[w00dc4ip]

I am not sure I'd call it crappy.

 

It's a good step towards effecting (restoring) our the right to bear arms on a national level.

 

The biggest winners are travelers, particularly travelers to may-issue states.

 

We have to effect carry in Illinois via the legislature. Our legislature. For supporters of carry in Illinois, we have three alternatives. Enact it here, move away, or tolerate our rights being denied.

There are two more alternatives, one of which I'll discuss on this board. While I'm all for pressuring the legislature to pass concealed carry legislation, and I will continue to do so, the way I see it eventually coming to Illinois is through law suits following incorporation of the 2nd Amendment by SCOTUS. Don't get me wrong, it will eventually be the legislature that passes concealed carry legislation, but they will be forced to do so by the courts.

 

This could happen a number of ways (assuming incorporation of course). The slow way would be the "DC" way: the courts rule a law is unconstitutional; local government X tweaks it the slightest bit; citizens challenge the new rule; repeat ad infinitum. The fast way as I see it: NRA, ISRA, SAF, and a few hundred individual citizens file a few hundred law suits ASAP following incorporation; some could be simple challenges to things like the transportation restrictions; some could be expensive class actions such as claiming charging a fee for a FOID card is an unconstitutional practice and any citizen who has ever had a FOID card should be repaid the fees they've been charged all these years plus interest. The point is twofold: 1. Force the three governments of Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois to realize they are going to pay millions in legal fees just to delay the unavoidable; 2. Make this process very public to demonstrats to the citizens of Illinois how these three governments are wasting taxpayer dollars by trying to restrict the civil rights of their residents, fighting a battle they know they're going to lose. Essentially, turn the tide and use the same tactics they've been using against us law abiding gun owners all these years.

[pyre400]

I am not sure I'd call it crappy.

 

It's a good step towards effecting (restoring) our the right to bear arms on a national level.

 

The biggest winners are travelers, particularly travelers to may-issue states.

 

We have to effect carry in Illinois via the legislature. Our legislature. For supporters of carry in Illinois, we have three alternatives. Enact it here, move away, or tolerate our rights being denied.

There are two more alternatives, one of which I'll discuss on this board. While I'm all for pressuring the legislature to pass concealed carry legislation, and I will continue to do so, the way I see it eventually coming to Illinois is through law suits following incorporation of the 2nd Amendment by SCOTUS. Don't get me wrong, it will eventually be the legislature that passes concealed carry legislation, but they will be forced to do so by the courts.

 

This could happen a number of ways (assuming incorporation of course). The slow way would be the "DC" way: the courts rule a law is unconstitutional; local government X tweaks it the slightest bit; citizens challenge the new rule; repeat ad infinitum. The fast way as I see it: NRA, ISRA, SAF, and a few hundred individual citizens file a few hundred law suits ASAP following incorporation; some could be simple challenges to things like the transportation restrictions; some could be expensive class actions such as claiming charging a fee for a FOID card is an unconstitutional practice and any citizen who has ever had a FOID card should be repaid the fees they've been charged all these years plus interest. The point is twofold: 1. Force the three governments of Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois to realize they are going to pay millions in legal fees just to delay the unavoidable; 2. Make this process very public to demonstrats to the citizens of Illinois how these three governments are wasting taxpayer dollars by trying to restrict the civil rights of their residents, fighting a battle they know they're going to lose. Essentially, turn the tide and use the same tactics they've been using against us law abiding gun owners all these years.

 

Sue em till they cant afford to come to court... not a bad idea.

[GarandFan]

Sue em till they cant afford to come to court... not a bad idea.

 

I agree ... but doing so costs money. Lots of it. Money that might not be seen again until the city/state lose ... and even then, perhaps not all that had been invested.

[w00dc4ip]

Sue em till they cant afford to come to court... not a bad idea.

I agree ... but doing so costs money. Lots of it. Money that might not be seen again until the city/state lose ... and even then, perhaps not all that had been invested.

That's why I figure we'll see things like class actions. Something like the one I mentioned above might be a good way to get a decent lawyer involved who'll do the legwork for free knowing there's a big payday in the end. Obviously those of us who've dealt with the FOID system for several years aren't going to care too much about getting our $5-$50 back, the money's just there to get the lawyer involved. Seeing the FOID card ruled unconstitutional is the payoff for the law-abiding gun owners.

 

What pisses me off is cases like ckmorley. He did not break the law. In fact, he made every attempt possible to follow the stupid, unconstitutional laws in place. If what I've read is correct, at the time of his arrest his firearm was in a case, unloaded, and posessed by someone with a valid FOID card. Knowing all that, the police still arrested him, took him to jail, had his FOID suspended, confiscated his private property, forced him to hire a lawyer to defend himself, etc. He tried to follow the law and it cost him time, aggravation, and money. I'd just like to see the system reversed and watch those who brought about a system like that get run through it.

 

Also, when a civil rights law suit is won against the state, isn't the state required to pay the plaintiff's legal fees? Not sure about that one, would be a good question for Gura.

 

tangent off, back to the legislation, anyone know when we can expect to hear if the Amendment to S1390 will pass, and if it does, what can derail it later down the line?

[SmershAgent]

I am not sure I'd call it crappy.

 

It's a good step towards effecting (restoring) our the right to bear arms on a national level.

 

The biggest winners are travelers, particularly travelers to may-issue states.

 

We have to effect carry in Illinois via the legislature. Our legislature. For supporters of carry in Illinois, we have three alternatives. Enact it here, move away, or tolerate our rights being denied.

 

And it will also have the effect of putting the spotlight on how out of step IL and WI laws are regarding defensive firearm carry. This will motivate citizens to become involved in the effort to demand a legislative remedy at the state level.

[GarandFan]

tangent off, back to the legislation, anyone know when we can expect to hear if the Amendment to S1390 will pass, and if it does, what can derail it later down the line?

 

Supposedly, the vote on the amendment is early this week. It will be an up/down vote. If it passes the senate, and the main bill passes the senate, it will go back to the house for reconciliation (bill without amendment has already passed house).

 

It's much like the national parks carry amendment. Schumer has vowed to filibuster it in the senate ... but not sure how that works, or if he can.

[GarandFan]

It's hitting the MSM ... and they even pull out a "gun pun." They must be serious. And they obviously assume that any guns are bad, no matter who has them (other than the police, I suppose).

 

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

 

Editorial

Hidden Danger

The Senate must shoot down a concealed-weapons amendment.

 

Monday, July 20, 2009

 

THE GUNS-everywhere-guns-for-all crowd in Congress is at it again. This time it's Sen. John Thune's turn. The South Dakota Republican has attached an amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill that would create a national standard for carrying concealed weapons. Those who are permitted to have them in their home states would be allowed to travel with them to almost any other state. We urge senators to vote no when it comes up for a vote Monday.

 

Illinois and Wisconsin are the only states that do not issue concealed-carry permits. The District doesn't have such permits for civilians. Forty-six states have varying requirements to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. In Maryland, Virginia and at least 29 other states, some form of safety training is required, and abusers of alcohol are prohibited from getting a permit. At least 35 states reject those convicted of certain misdemeanors. In Maryland that includes extortion; in Virginia that includes simple assault and stalking. Both states require law enforcement to assess whether the applicant will endanger others.

 

None of this, including existing reciprocity agreements among some of the states, will matter if Mr. Thune's amendment passes. It would make concealed-carry permits akin to driver's licenses. If you meet the requirements for concealed carry in your home state, your permit would be honored in another. You just have to abide by the laws of the state you're visiting with regard to where and in what manner you carry the gun.

 

This is a frightening prospect. The argument that this will help law-abiding citizens is unconvincing. According to a coalition of gun violence prevention groups, there have been three confirmed mass shootings carried out by people who had concealed-carry permits. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence reports there have been at least 19 shootings around the country in 2009 involving such permit holders.

 

Conservatives usually argue against the federal government telling states what they can and can't do. If approved, the Thune amendment would trample all over the rights of states and cities to enforce reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. There are already enough guns on America's streets. A vote for Mr. Thune's bill would make them that much more dangerous.

[lockman]

Yea! I feel the same way. Let us get driver's licenses from all the states we must travel. States rights! We should not let the federal government jam unified standards down our throat. Some activity may be considered a fundamental right in one state and punishable by death in another, that is the price we pay for liberty.

[Federal Farmer]

None of this, including existing reciprocity agreements among some of the states, will matter if Mr. Thune's amendment passes. It would make concealed-carry permits akin to driver's licenses. If you meet the requirements for concealed carry in your home state, your permit would be honored in another. You just have to abide by the laws of the state you're visiting with regard to where and in what manner you carry the gun.

 

Funny they aren't making the argument for licensing firearms that we license drivers...

 

I'm against licensing at all, but my gut feeling is SCOTUS will not prevent licensing of guns, at least for carry, if not for ownership.

 

Given that, an analogy to driver's licenses makes a lot of sense. You can buy a car, you can have a car on your property, you can operate it on your property or another's private property with permission, but you are licensed to drive the car on the publc way. If applied to guns, ownership and possession can be unlicensed, but to carry it in public could necessitate a license.

[GarandFan]

The anti's are in full panty-pooping mode .... something good must be imminent.

 

 

VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, "State concealed handgun systems are arming cop-killers and other murderers.

 

 

Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Kill 7 Police, 44 Private Citizens Over Two-Year Period

 

31 Incidents Result in Criminal Charges or Suicide of Concealed Handgun Permit Holder

 

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

[Tvandermyde]

FF

 

your take is one I have been disscussing with lawyer types since Heller.

 

it may well be possible to knock out the FOID card on a couple of issues once we prevail in chicago with a butress of Heller and maybe strict scrutiny.

 

I understand that you don't have to have a license to be a journalist or be a lawyer to exercise your 4th or 5th amendment rights. But it took us 70 years to get from Miller to where we are today, 134 years from Cruikshank. It will not turn over, overnight. nor will the Schumers of the world go quietly -- for now.

 

Heller was like the footing for building a house. Chicago will be the foundation. after that we have to build the walls and so on. our job will be to cherry pick the types of cases and issues that will build on what we have. It will be a bit slow and aggravate mnay of the "shall not be infringed at al costs" types but if the goal is to win the war, we have to win battles.

 

The diggins case is one of those types of things. It seems small on it's face but it builds on what can come after it. likewise, would you rather have someone charged for having a thumbhole stock on a 10/22 or 11-87 be the case that is tried for vagueness or an other part of a semi-auto ban or they guy with an AK?

 

Part of this is a PR war. Notice all the pink and blue guns major makers are coming out with. Same rreason we have built several 10/22s in different colors, red, purple, blue when they end up on TV it isn't something that looks like it just came off the set of Navy SEALS.

 

So now, aside from the elections that start in 2 weeks, and planning for the next veto session, incase 182 doesn't make it. And the next regula session, we are working on looking at what laws are the best to take down and where. And that includes a review of all of the Illinois statutes.

 

My guess is the FOID card will be in there.But is New York's sullivan law or Mass permit a better one to take down based on how bad it is? dunno. but those are the larger questions we have to look at tacitcally.

[dan]

The anti's are in full panty-pooping mode .... something good must be imminent.

 

 

VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, "State concealed handgun systems are arming cop-killers and other murderers.

 

 

Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Kill 7 Police, 44 Private Citizens Over Two-Year Period

 

31 Incidents Result in Criminal Charges or Suicide of Concealed Handgun Permit Holder

 

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

 

They must be really concerned to put this out now. Good they should be. We had that many cases in Chicago on the average weekend where handguns are banned!!and they are looking at a two year period for their very biased report. Their desperation is showing

[Federal Farmer]

VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, "State concealed handgun systems are arming cop-killers and other murderers.

 

State driver's licensing systems are putting drunk drivers and other murderers behind the wheels of automobiles.

 

Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Kill 7 Police, 44 Private Citizens Over Two-Year Period

 

31 Incidents Result in Criminal Charges or Suicide of Concealed Handgun Permit Holder

 

Licensed drivers kill 86,000+ private citizens and police over two-year period.

[SirMatthew]

VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, "State concealed handgun systems are arming cop-killers and other murderers.

 

State driver's licensing systems are putting drunk drivers and other murderers behind the wheels of automobiles.

 

Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Kill 7 Police, 44 Private Citizens Over Two-Year Period

 

31 Incidents Result in Criminal Charges or Suicide of Concealed Handgun Permit Holder

 

Licensed drivers kill 86,000+ private citizens and police over two-year period.

 

You said exactly what I was thinking.

 

Unless there is a better link out there somewhere, progress of the bill can be monitored here:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s845/show

[Lou]

Talk about hysteria and a major gaff:

 

July 20, 2009

 

 

 

Urgent Call to Action:

 

 

 

Senator John Thum (R SD) has introduced Amendment No. 1618 to the defense authorization bill (S. 1390). This amendment would require states to accept concealed carry permits that are issued by other states. The practical effect of this change would be to reduce concealed carry permit regulations to the lowest common denominator. This is particularly dangerous as many states have weak laws and issue individuals permits after only a simple computerized background check-through a database that is missing millions of disqualifying criminal and mental health records. This year, there have already been three confirmed MASS shootings by concealed carry permit holders.

 

 

 

Illinois is only one of two states in the Union that does not have conceal and carry. This legislation would require Illinois to recognize conceal carry permits of citizens from other states. This is a very dangerous piece of legislation.

 

 

 

The Senate is expected to vote on this measure on Monday night. Please contact Illinois's US Senators Roland Burris (D) and Richard Durbin (D) TODAY at the numbers listed below and tell them to vote against the Amendment No. 1618 to the defense authorization bill S 1390.

 

 

 

US Senator Richard Durbin: (202) 224-2152

 

US Senator Roland Burris: (202) 224-2854

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your support and dedication to reducing gun violence.

 

 

 

Brought to you by the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (ICHV).

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then came the correction:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Urgent Call to Action: CORRECTION

 

 

 

Earlier today ICHV sent out an alert regarding Amendment No. 1618 introduced by Senator John Thune (R SD). This amendment would require states that allow concealed carry to accept concealed carry permits issued by other states. The practical effect of this change would be to reduce concealed carry permit regulations to the lowest common denominator. This is particularly dangerous as many states have weak laws and issue individuals permits after only a simple computerized background check-through a database that is missing millions of disqualifying criminal and mental health records. This year, there have already been three confirmed MASS shootings by concealed carry permit holders.

 

 

 

However, we were incorrect in describing how this amendment would impact Illinois. Contrary to earlier information, this legislation would not affect Illinois as described. As one of two states that do not allow concealed carry of a handgun, Illinois would not be forced to recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states. We apologize for this misinformation, but nonetheless encourage you to contact your representatives and ask then to vote no on this dangerous legislation.

[Tvandermyde]

it's started, lautenberg has started

[GarandFan]

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

 

Yep ... he's reading from the Brady fact sheet.

 

This would even let you carry a concealed ASSAULT WEAPON!

 

Frankly, he's not very impassioned.

 

Now he's reading the Violence Policy report on 7 cops and 44 others killed by carry permittees ...

 

He's claiming the Binghamton NY killer was permitted to carry a concealed handgun. Totally untrue.

 

He's claiming that CCW licensees are a bunch of unstable murderers.

 

Gun dealers could drive carloads of guns to sell in distant cities, as long as he had a carry permit. Jesus ... Lautenberg is no stranger to fiction.

 

Offering a letter from the Joyce-funded International a**. of Chiefs of Police. Nice.

 

 

Darn ... I have to run soon.

[Federal Farmer]

I see a lot of walking around and shuffling papers and the marquee says "Quorum Call" so I think they have to drag in all the Senators that were out goofing off.

[Federal Farmer]

I see a lot of walking around and shuffling papers and the marquee says "Quorum Call" so I think they have to drag in all the Senators that were out goofing off.

 

Wow they just hit me with some muzaak.

[Chris]

We're back.

[Chris]

Looks like they will bring it up for a vote and debate on Wednesday.