Brady Campaign "warns" of possible national carry reciprocity amendment

[Ol'Coach]

An FFL dealer in Cayuga, Indiana, a very knowledgeable person, once told me that IN didn't need an organization such as the ISRA or GSL, or IllinoisCarry.com, 'cause they already had it right!

 

I called him to let him know how his Senator voted.

[Tvandermyde]

ok guys and gals,

 

While the headlines scream defeat for gun guys, they don't want to acknowledge the truth. First aclear majority of the US Senate support some form of Right To Carry.

 

Second, just like moving the goal posts on us here in Illinois, that was the only way for them to win.

 

Third this should put down any notion that they can revive a semi-auto ban. On three votes, they have all had more than a simple majority, RTC/state law in parks and DC preemption, and Thune amendment.

 

The real story is that even with their utopia of Dems in control of everything, the antis are having to fight and claw their way for anything.

With a little bit of luck, this can be used to savage Specter and flip that seat. That helps on breaking the Dem super majority. While the anti- swill spin this as a win for them, I think that outside of feeling they dodged a bullet, pun intended, they see themselves in deep kimchee at least until the 2010 elections. Maybe longer.

 

 

My favorite part was Thune calling them hypocrites for voting for the retired cops bill but not this one.

[Tvandermyde]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/..._went_down.html

 

 

 

July 22, 2009

Categories: Guns

 

How the gun vote went down

 

Senate Democrats know the NRA will soon come a-calling again but they are savoring their victory on the Thune Amendment as a watershed.

 

Even though the measure stood little chance of actually passing both houses, the NRA-backed amendment would have given permit holders the right to bring their firearms across state lines. That frightened local governments who value their right to regulate -- and spurred the defection of two GOP elder statesmen, Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio).

 

Politically, the amendment was engineered to splinter the Democrats' gun-control base in the Senate from a new crop of moderate-to-conservative Dems who had been elected in pro-gun states.

 

On its surface that effort succeeded. But it also revealed the Democrats' new bend-don't-break strategy on gun issues -- and underscored a caucus-wide unwillingness to hand the GOP a Second Amendment wedge issue.

 

The Democratic coalition, which fractured on NRA-backed initiatives stripping DC of handgun restrictions and allowing the importation of concealed weapons in national park, bent again -- with Majority Leader Harry Reid himself backing Thune.

 

But Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer, who led the whipping effort to get the 40 votes needed to kill the amendment, say the vote showed that even NRA-fearing Democrats will draw the line when the group's agenda gets too radical.

 

"We found where the wall was," said Schumer, who described the win as a team effort that also included New Jersey's Frank Lautenberg and Ohio freshman Sherrod Brown, who lobbied Voinovich.

 

"We have a universe of 30 Democrats who have voted [with the NRA] and today we lost 20 of them," Durbin said. "But we got ten of them and most importantly, we didn't have to twist arms to get them."

 

Noteworthy Dems who voted for previous pro-gun bills this year but against the NRA this time included Minnesotan Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Oregonians Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, and Pennsylvania wild card Arlen Specter.

 

One senior Senate Democrat tells POLITICO that Schumer was informing his colleagues on the floor "I have five more Senators in my pocket," just before the vote.

 

Durbin, the majority whip, said that a fair number of the 20 Democrats who voted for the Thune amendment held their noses to do so -- while professing growing hostility to a group with a deep hold on the Midwest, South and Mountain West.

 

"Several of [the Democrats who voted with Thune] said, 'This is really disgusting,'' Durbin says. "They didn't believe they would face so may votes on guns this year. They are troubled because they ran on the premise of the Second Amendment but are really feeling like the NRA and Republicans are pushing these votes for political purposes."

 

Nonetheless, Durbin thinks the NRA and GOP will come back soon -- with amendments that are less radical and less easy to defeat.

 

"We're not going to win every time," he cautioned.

[GarandFan]

ok guys and gals,

 

While the headlines scream defeat for gun guys, they don't want to acknowledge the truth. First aclear majority of the US Senate support some form of Right To Carry.

 

Second, just like moving the goal posts on us here in Illinois, that was the only way for them to win.

 

Third this should put down any notion that they can revive a semi-auto ban. On three votes, they have all had more than a simple majority, RTC/state law in parks and DC preemption, and Thune amendment.

 

The real story is that even with their utopia of Dems in control of everything, the antis are having to fight and claw their way for anything.

With a little bit of luck, this can be used to savage Specter and flip that seat. That helps on breaking the Dem super majority. While the anti- swill spin this as a win for them, I think that outside of feeling they dodged a bullet, pun intended, they see themselves in deep kimchee at least until the 2010 elections. Maybe longer.

 

 

My favorite part was Thune calling them hypocrites for voting for the retired cops bill but not this one.

 

I have to agree ... this is some really good perspective, and a rational summary of where we stand and where things will probably go.

[soundguy]

When they say the media does not support Concealed Carry, I believe they are wrong. Nearly every day I run across another fellow journalist who shoots or would like to. We are everywhere and just a bit in the closet on the issue. Why... I can't quite figure that out. Still, we will get there... And many of us are as ardent as anyone.

 

 

My first post from the iPhone.

[Silver Guardian]

When they say the media does not support Concealed Carry, I believe they are wrong. Nearly every day I run across another fellow journalist who shoots or would like to. We are everywhere and just a bit in the closet on the issue. Why... I can't quite figure that out. Still, we will get there... And many of us are as ardent as anyone.

 

 

My first post from the iPhone.

 

You might try brining them to SAFR or IGOLD. Maybe then we could get some real coverage.

[soundguy]

When they say the media does not support Concealed Carry, I believe they are wrong. Nearly every day I run across another fellow journalist who shoots or would like to. We are everywhere and just a bit in the closet on the issue. Why... I can't quite figure that out. Still, we will get there... And many of us are as ardent as anyone.

 

You might try bringing them to SAFR or IGOLD. Maybe then we could get some real coverage.

 

Working on it. Taking two to the range tomorrow. One is a first timer with a keen interest to learn.

[Don Gwinn]

Hey, I'm technically "authorized media" now.

 

Who's going to take me shooting?

[SirMatthew]

Hey, I'm technically "authorized media" now.

 

Who's going to take me shooting?

 

Forget buying ammo for shooting, you need to buy some ice melt. Why? Every time someone here complains about the media you're doing to have to take their words with with a few grains of salt.

[gravyboy77]

My first post from the iPhone.

 

I love my iphone, just traded in my first gen for a new 3gs

[soundguy]

Hey, I'm technically "authorized media" now.

 

Who's going to take me shooting?

 

 

Three J's and a gun curious formerly-anti attorney. Nearly 2000 rounds through 8 pistols. Beers and burgers after. Everyone had a great time and we'll do it again. I'll clean everything tomorrow.

 

Bring different guns and ammo and you can come next time, Don! I'll have a new batch of guys.

[Chris]

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...0319/-1/NEWSMAP

 

Concealed guns every place? No, thank you

 

July 27, 2009

Congratulations and a job well done to U.S. Senators who stopped the latest concealed-weapon measure in its tracks as fast as a shot to the leg.

 

A group of mostly Republican senators, with the help of some key rural-state Democrats, had attempted to attach a provision to the defense authorization bill that would have allowed permitted concealed-gun carriers from one state to carry their weapons into another state. But while the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees Americans' right to bear arms, states themselves can make laws specifically addressing conditions for ownership. And the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee any right to carry a concealed weapon into a state that does not allow them. The measure failed to get the required 60 votes. Pennsylvania senators Robert Casey and Arlen Specter, both Democrats, opposed the provision.

 

Gun advocates hold a tremendous influence over state and federal elected officials, including in Pennsylvania. Just two months ago Congress approved a measure that allowed gun owners with proper permits to carry loaded, concealed weapons in national parks. Several supporters vowed to bring even more weapons measures to the floor. Add to that the fearsome political power wielded by the National Rifle Association, which brooks no legislative interference with its ongoing campaign to broaden the United States' already extremely generous gun-ownership laws. Thus it's a bit surprising to see Wednesday's vote putting a halt, at least temporarily, to the strong momentum gun rights advocates have enjoyed for so long.

 

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., blamed "overheated rhetoric and fear mongering" for the concealed-carry measure's defeat. That's ironic, given that the NRA and gun lobbyists themselves are responsible for some of the most overheated rhetoric ever heard as they work to convince more and more American citizens that the only way for people to "protect themselves" is to buy and wear firearms.

 

Enough senators seemed to agree with mayors' argument that concealed weapons would threaten more people than they protected. Several senators also argued that Thune's amendment infringed on cities' and states' own rules on concealed weapons.

 

Want to buy a gun? Go for it. Want to carry it concealed? By all means, get the permit. And feel free to visit a national park, feeling perfectly safe among the deer and squirrels.

 

But when in Rome, respect the Romans. States and cities have the right to make their own, specific gun laws.

[GarandFan]

And the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee any right to carry a concealed weapon into a state that does not allow them.

 

States and cities have the right to make their own, specific gun laws.

 

There we go again ... states and cities and the "rights" they have.

 

Frankly, this incorporation issue is going to remove the wind from many a sail.

[Silver Guardian]

And the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee any right to carry a concealed weapon into a state that does not allow them.

 

States and cities have the right to make their own, specific gun laws.

 

There we go again ... states and cities and the "rights" they have.

 

Frankly, this incorporation issue is going to remove the wind from many a sail.

 

Then they'll start hammering on Cities having rights. It'll be a long slow road, but I look foward to the eventual forced compliance.

[Federal Farmer]

And the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee any right to carry a concealed weapon into a state that does not allow them.

 

States and cities have the right to make their own, specific gun laws.

 

There we go again ... states and cities and the "rights" they have.

 

Frankly, this incorporation issue is going to remove the wind from many a sail.

 

Then they'll start hammering on Cities having rights. It'll be a long slow road, but I look foward to the eventual forced compliance.

 

Cities only have powers delegated to them by the State from the powers that the State has. If the State must respect all civil rights of its citizens, then each and every county and city must as well. Incorporation wipes out home rule with respect to whatever the heck they decide 2A covers.

[soundguy]

And the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee any right to carry a concealed weapon into a state that does not allow them.

 

States and cities have the right to make their own, specific gun laws.

 

There we go again ... states and cities and the "rights" they have.

 

Frankly, this incorporation issue is going to remove the wind from many a sail.

 

Then they'll start hammering on Cities having rights. It'll be a long slow road, but I look forward to the eventual forced compliance.

 

Hmmmm... From Federal rights to State rights to City rights to Neighborhood rights to the rights of each and every block.. Yep, a tortuously slow road back to individual rights.

[Chris]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/op...bob-confer/1519

 

Right to Self-defense Should Know No Borders

 

 

Written by Bob Confer

 

Monday, 27 July 2009 12:00

 

On July 23, the U.S. Senate voted to defeat one of the most promising gun rights bills to come to the Senate floor in recent memory. The provision was introduced by Senator John Thune as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill. It would have granted national reciprocity for concealed-carry permits, requiring all states that allow concealed firearms to honor those permits of other states.

 

A majority of the senators — 58 in total — voted in favor of the amendment. Another 39 did not and the bill saw defeat as this tally put the measure 2 votes short of the 60 required for passage by Senate rules.

 

It was those 39 senators and their supporters — which included 450 of the nation’s mayors — who brought about the amendment's demise through intense fear-mongering and misguided applications of constitutionality.

 

The aforementioned mayors had joined together in an organization called the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition, which, prior to the Senate vote, took out a full-page advertisement in the July 21 edition of USA Today. The ad was an open letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid attacking the amendment. Its central claim was this: “Doing so (recognizing concealed-carry permits) would threaten the safety of our police officers, by making it far more difficult for them to separate law-abiding gun owners from common criminals.”

 

That statement, in one form or another, is a talking point commonly used by gun-control advocates, one that a good number of Americans tend to believe without any further analysis of the situation. They fail to see that it makes note only of a distinct minority of our population (the police) who are, in the gun-control lobby’s eyes, granted special privilege to carry guns over the average citizen. That selectivity begs the following question: why should their safety be any more important than that of every one of us; shouldn’t the average citizen also be empowered (armed) to deal with the threat of the common criminal? Unfortunately, in many states, we are not. Taking away our guns has, ironically, granted a special privilege to lawbreakers as well: the predators have the distinct advantage of being armed while their prey is not.

 

Thune’s amendment addressed this disconnect. Its supporters knew the best way to protect one’s self and those he loves from criminal threats is through the same means by which he would be able to do so in his home state, the same means that the police officer would be allowed to use. That is, allowing him to carry a weapon that at least equalizes his chances against a thug.

 

Granting pistol-permit reciprocity could easily be deemed a necessity because, unfortunately, evil can be found everywhere in our country, and we are a very mobile people who, not of our own deliberate doing, have the potential to find ourselves in some unpleasant situations during our travels for business or pleasure. Typically, the vacationer, the truck driver, and the businessman are all unfamiliar with the far-flung cities to which they travel. One wrong turn or innocent stroll into a crime-ridden locale could easily put them into harm’s way. Under such circumstances, Thune’s amendment would have given these travelers much-needed peace of mind while enhancing their ability (one that has been greatly restricted by laws) to exercise their natural, God-given right to self-defense.

 

Our Founding Fathers, even back in the 1700s, knew that tempering of this right could occur, even though they understood that man has certain unalienable rights, so they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, ensuring that the loss of certain rights would never occur. Among them was the Second Amendment, which says: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

 

Legally, the states were not originally bound to the Bill of Rights; it was a list of limitations for the federal government. Philosophically, though, it was a set of rules that should be applied to all governments within the United States because those rights are universal to the pursuit of liberty and life as a free individual.

 

Some of the senators who voted against the Thune amendment cited the former, saying that it broke yet another of the rights, specifically the Tenth Amendment, which noted that powers not delegated to the United States belong to the states themselves. One-time gun rights proponent Senator Kirsten Gillibrand issued a statement along those lines that read: “It is wrong for the federal government to overrule a state’s ability to enact reasonable, constitutional gun laws designed to prevent criminals and other violent and dangerous persons from carrying guns in city streets.”

 

It was quite the turning of tables, because those who evoked the Tenth Amendment — such as Gillibrand’s fellow New York Senator, Charles Schumer — are typically the officials who defy that amendment through the continued, unabated expansion of the federal government.

 

While mentioning the Tenth Amendment, the anti-gun crowd failed to look further into the Constitution. The 14th Amendment says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In application, the 14th Amendment has required that the states recognize the Bill of Rights within their realm of governance, meaning that the Thune Amendment would have legs because it negates the overbearing rule of any state that has a concealed-carry permitting process because such a process infringes on one’s Second Amendment rights.

 

Despite the 14th Amendment's passage in 1868, the Second Amendmenthas yet to be incorporated into the 14th Amendment because the Supreme Court has declined to hear any cases that would do so. The Thune Amendment’s passage would have finally forced the court’s hand in this matter and, based on past rulings, the right to carry would have to be recognized as a universal right.

 

But, alas, it never got far enough. It was a scant two votes shy of passage.

 

Those who believe in the God-given right to protect ourselves and our families know can only hope for the future. A bill that was this close to fruition deserves another look in 2010. Maybe then will we be able to claim the right to freely — and safely — move about the United States of America.

[Chris]

I wouldn't mind seeing some letters written to this fellow.

 

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburgh...e/s_635551.html

 

What if these gun bills were fired off?

 

 

By Mike Seate - mseate@tribweb.com

TRIBUNE-REVIEW

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

 

Buzz up!

 

 

 

Last week was a tough one for the gun lobby.

 

First, the National Rifle Association's legal challenge to overturn a Pittsburgh ordinance requiring owners of lost or stolen firearms to report them to police was rejected in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court because of a legal standing issue.

 

A day later, the U.S. Senate told the NRA that no, it isn't a good idea to allow citizens with concealed-carry permits in their home states to travel to other states while armed.

 

These are significant developments, considering the nation's firearms lobby recently won a decision allowing people to carry firearms into public parks, places where gangs of criminally inclined elk and bison must have caused a great deal of alarm.

 

That legislative win is no surprise, given that the gun lobby has been pretty strong going back to the era of flintlocks and powderhorns. But after these most recent defeats, you have to wonder whether the NRA still has the firepower to introduce some of the gun proposals we've heard might be on the legislative agenda for the future.

 

It's all tongue-in-cheek, but what if proposals like these surfaced:

 

The Underwater Firearms Act: This law was reportedly being discussed to allow gun owners to carry their pistols and rifles into public swimming pools and YMCA showers. If approved, Congress would have to allocate $2 million annually into waterproof gunpowder research.

 

The Schoolyard Law: Aimed (no pun intended) at reducing the probability of schoolyard shootings by requiring every child in grades K through 6 to own, maintain and qualify on a rifle range with an AR-15 assault rifle. Children unwilling to attend class armed would be subject to afterschool detention.

 

The Pulpit Power Law: Discussions are on hold for a move to require pistols in all places of worship. Prompted by a pair of church shootings over the past year or so, this measure would have pastors packing in pulpits and give new meaning to "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."

 

The Hostile Hospitality Law: This plan would require all female employees of establishments where celebrities, sports figures and wannabe celebrities sometimes get out of hand to carry sidearms of at least .38 caliber. Handgun upgrades would be made available.

 

The Big Apple Law: This bill is shelved. It would have made it illegal for residents of New York City — home to two of the country's worst terrorist attacks — to leave their homes without loaded sidearms. Bill was shelved when it became apparent that most New Yorkers are armed.

[Chris]

Interesting how there is no comment section open on many of these stories.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0727/p08s01-comv.html

 

A trigger lock for the gun lobby

 

 

The Senate and state legislators have blocked efforts to extend 'conceal-and-carry.' That should stiffen their resolve.

 

By the Monitor's Editorial Board

After years of being pushed around by the pistol-packing gun lobby, many lawmakers on Capitol Hill and in state capitals are finally pushing back. They have successfully blocked efforts by the National Rifle Association to expand certain "conceal-and-carry" provisions. Now they must go the extra step and actually advance reasonable restrictions on firearms.

 

A string of defeats has disheartened gun-control advocates: in 2004, Congress failed to reauthorize the 10-year assault-weapons ban; in 2008, the Supreme Court overturned a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C.; in February, the Senate passed a measure that stripped D.C. gun regulations, including registration; and in May, both houses of Congress approved licensed gun owners bringing loaded firearms – hidden or carried openly – into national parks (including urban ones).

 

Last week the Senate found the courage to say, "Freeze!" It defeated, if narrowly, a bill that would have allowed people with permits to carry a concealed gun across state lines. Every state except two (Illinois and Wisconsin) allows gun owners to carry hidden weapons. The NRA argued that self-protection shouldn't stop at a state border.

 

But state conceal-and-carry laws differ vastly. Some wisely require background checks and training in gun-use and safety, and rule out people convicted of certain misdemeanors, including simple assault – but also extortion (Maryland) and stalking (Virginia).

 

Others grant conceal-and-carry permits to nonresidents (even in cases where the person did not qualify for a permit at home), or require nothing more than a background check. Alaska doesn't put any of these restrictions on folks who want to tote and hide.

 

Thankfully, the Senate stopped this bullet that would have essentially made the least restrictive state law the standard of the nation.

 

State legislators have also rediscovered their political bullet-proof vests as the gun lobby has pushed aggressively to extend conceal-and-carry to college campuses, taverns, and the workplace.

 

Since the mass fatal shooting at Virginia Tech in 2007, gun-rights advocates have made an all-out effort to allow students to carry hidden firearms – on the dubious theory that students would be better protected from mass killers. But 22 states saw the folly of this idea and defeated it, even in strong gun-rights states such as Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oklahoma.

 

Interestingly, those injured in the Virginia Tech shooting and those who lost loved ones have spoken most vigorously against guns on campus. Police would have no way to distinguish good guys from bad in a shooting spree, nor would students with guns necessarily be able to react quickly or accurately enough in such a situation, they argued.

 

Neither is it very smart to mix armed students with alcohol, which flows freely on many college campuses. The same logic applies to conceal-and-carry in taverns. Why is it that even two states – Tennessee and Arizona – approved this lethal cocktail of weapons and drinking establishments?

 

Meanwhile, 22 states have also said "no" to the NRA's effort to extend conceal-and-carry to the "workplace" – specifically, to a gun owner's car in the company parking lot. Offices can be tense places where emotions suddenly boil over – and thus no place for a readily available gun. (Thirteen states, however, have approved such workplace measures).

 

These victories show that some lawmakers have rediscovered reason when it comes to gun control. Will they find the resolve, for instance, to approve legislation in Congress that requires background checks even at gun shows? Forty percent of guns are sold at these shows and the vast majority of Americans approve the checks there. Yet the gun lobby strenuously resists.

 

In its landmark 2008 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the right of individuals to bear arms. But it left the door open to regulation. Gun-control advocates don't seek to take away Second Amendment rights, as is so often and tirelessly alleged by the gun-rights side. Rather, what they want is restricting easy access to guns by criminals, the responsible use of guns, and the heading off of a quick resort to lethal firepower that makes the job of law enforcement so much harder.

[Chris]

The stories just keep rolling in.

 

http://www.arkansascca.org/blog/?content=detail&id=759

 

Mark Pryor Coordinates with Anti-gun Senators to Help Defeat Thune Amendment

 

07 27 2009, 11:23

UPDATE - Call returned from Senator Pryor's office. Micheal Teague, his Comunications Director tells me the "no" vote was because they initially saw this as a "states rights" issue and blamed a lot of the confusion over his changed vote on a lapse in initial understanding of the amendment and his staffs recent developments in their understanding of the bill. According to him Pryor was not getting some important updates, after his staff talked to the NRA and the Arkansas State Police. He also said that Pryor was busy chairing a committee at the time and had to talk to Schumer because he had the whip sheet on the Hate Crimes bill and was informing him of his intention to change his vote.

 

He says that the wapo article was a gross misrepresentation of the events.

 

Make of it what you will.

 

I'm not entirely convinced, but it does sound plausible.

 

Turns out that Senator Pryor's vote on the national reciprocity amendment to the hate crimes bill wasn't exactly so cut and dry.

 

Thanks in advance to some studious readers as I have been totally preocupied with staining the floors in my home.

 

This from the Washington Post (via Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner), “Toward the end of the vote, [sen. Mark Pryor, D-AR] entered the chamber through the back door, took a few steps inside, flashed a thumbs-down to the clerk, and retreated as fast and furtively as somebody dodging gunfire.

 

Several minutes later, the Democrats had racked up more than enough votes to block the proposal. ‘Are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote?’ the presiding officer inquired.

 

“Pryor burst back in, this time through a side door. ‘Mr. President!’ he called out. ‘Mr. President!’ He stopped in the well to consult with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), a gun-control advocate who was keeping the whip sheet. Schumer gave Pryor a nod, and the Arkansan -- reassured that his vote was not needed to defeat the proposal -- changed his vote to an ‘aye.’”

 

I called Mark's office and left a voice mail with his press secretary. I'll let you know if I hear anything.

 

We've also sent a letter to Marks office and I'll have that up as soon as possible.

 

What was Mark Pryor doing coordinating with the poster child for anti-gun zealots in the Senate? Not sure but we'd like an explanation Mark.

[RXtion]

Chicago Tribune ...

 

Interestingly (and this notion might be wrong) ... they said not a peep about this whole thing, until the moment they were able to pen a "great victory for gun control" type article.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politic...0,7938417.story

FYI - This article appears to have been removed. I had been commenting on it and went back to it today to see how the comments were going and it just dumps you to this page: http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/politi.../11016004.topic

 

I was able to dig up the comments section from my browser history though:

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/chicago-...229NL71OQDHC0HB

[Chris]

Stupid Hippies

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-...i_b_247790.html

 

Everyone Packin' - A Gun in Every Pocket?

 

Judge H. Lee Sarokin

Retired in 1996 after 17 years on the federal bench.

Posted: July 30, 2009 11:17 AM

 

The recent but failed effort of the gun lobby to nationalize local gun permits, particularly after its big win on the right to bear arms, piqued my interest. I accept the NRA slogan that: "Guns Don't Kill People; People Kill People". But, call me crazy, I think a person who did not have a gun would have difficulty shooting anybody. So I want to understand why it is that the NRA and the gun lobby do everything they can to protect and expand the sale, possession and use of guns and oppose any common sense and reasonable restrictions to limit them. In that quest, I learned that the NRA served many useful purposes in training the military and law enforcement, educated about safety, launched contests in marksmanship and did other good works.

 

But despite that history, the current justification for its actions does not rest primarily on its historical basis of training, hunting and sport, but rather self-defense. The rationale is that there are about 250 million guns out there, many in the hands of bad guys, and the public needs and has the right to protect itself. The irony to me in this argument is that the danger caused by the vast prevalence of weapons in this country has been caused, or at least encouraged, in large measure by the acts of the NRA and its advocates. It is their policies which have made guns so accessible and available.

 

I have read the arguments that restrictions do not work, that gun deaths are down; that restrictions only affect the law-abiding not the criminals, etc., but the numbers of dead and wounded from guns seem to be irrelevant. I read statistics that 30,000 die each year and about 70,000 are wounded by guns, many of whom include children. Many of these are not caused by "bad guys" but are the result of suicides and accidents. However, the answer by gun advocates seems to be more guns, more powerful guns, more people carrying guns, more concealed weapons and less restrictions on the sale and possession of guns.

 

I also wonder about the role of our government in all of this. Nothing mystifies me more than Congress granting immunity to gun manufacturers from certain lawsuits. With all of the industries in this country which produce products that save lives, why would Congress single out for immunity an industry which makes a product that kills people! I suppose the easy answer is votes and the power of the NRA and its members. But I know persons who have NRA cards (admittedly not many), and they are decent people, and I cannot believe that they are insensitive to the cries of the Brady Campaign and the tragedy of gun violence.

 

The thought of "A Gun in Every Pocket" frightens me. The goal of the old political slogan: "A Chicken in Every Pot" was to feed everyone, not improve their chances of killing others or being killed. Please, someone explain to me this persistent goal to expand gun ownership and possession and limit sensible restrictions. I am Vox Clamantis In Deserto.

[eric2281]

Stupid Hippies

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-...i_b_247790.html

 

Everyone Packin' - A Gun in Every Pocket?

 

Judge H. Lee Sarokin

Retired in 1996 after 17 years on the federal bench.

Posted: July 30, 2009 11:17 AM

 

It frustrates me to no end how badly this got blown out of proportion. Sometimes I wonder if the anti's truely believe their lies. The backback filled with guns for example. I mean, seriously?!?! No matter how many times they are corrected by someone with the facts, it goes in 1 ear & right out the other. Example #2, I was watching CBS news last wed. & They there talking about the failed bill & how it would've allowed "ANYONE to carry firearms, ANYWHERE in the U.S."

 

:lips sealed:

 

 

It's like dealing with stubborn children that are in desperate need of a good spanking!

[GarandFan]

Stupid Hippies

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-...i_b_247790.html

 

Everyone Packin' - A Gun in Every Pocket?

 

No offense meant, and the answer to this question is not that important, but I fail to comprehend what "hippies" have to do with this article.

[Chris]

Stupid Hippies

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-...i_b_247790.html

 

Everyone Packin' - A Gun in Every Pocket?

 

No offense meant, and the answer to this question is not that important, but I fail to comprehend what "hippies" have to do with this article.

 

 

I'm just being a smart a** since it's from the huffington post and all my friends that I call hippies always refer to the huffington post's articles. That or it's me watching too much South Park and such while on pain killers.

[Chris]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/opinion/01collins.html

 

 

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Have Gun, Will Travel

 

By GAIL COLLINS

Published: July 31, 2009

Plaxico Burress, the former football star, appeared before a grand jury in Manhattan this week to explain how he came to carry a concealed weapon into a nightclub. Burress, you may remember, had cannily tucked his loaded pistol into the waistband of his sweatpants when he went out for a night on the town. The gun started to slip, as objects in waistbands are wont to do. When he grabbed it, he accidentally shot himself in the thigh.

 

This is what is known as a bad plan.

 

The reason I am bringing all this up is that Burress’s spokespeople keep pointing out that he did have a permit to carry a handgun in Florida. (It was expired, but as the waistband business demonstrates, this guy does not excel in attention to detail.) So the story gives us an excellent entry into the question of whether states should be required to recognize other states’ gun carry permits.

 

The Senate recently held a debate on just such a proposal, during which the sponsor, John Thune of South Dakota, said that if people from his state were able to go to New York and visit tourist attractions while carrying their concealed weapons, “Central Park would be a much safer place.”

 

This suggests how much Americans have to learn about each other. Central Park is way safer than South Dakota. There were no murders and three serious assaults in Central Park in 2008, compared with five murders and 341 assaults in Sioux Falls alone. There was a horrible near-fatality in the park this week, but it involved a rotting tree limb that fell and hit a man on the head. If South Dakotans would like to come to visit carrying concealed chain saws, it is possible that we can do some business.

 

The vote on the Thune amendment was 58 to 39 in favor, which, of course, in the Senate world means that it was defeated. But it will be back. These days, whenever Congress feels the yen for a good old-fashioned debate about a hot-button social issue, it goes for guns. This year, we have already been blessed with legislation giving people the right to carry concealed weapons in national parks. Maybe soon there will also be a Plaxico’s Law, affirming that a gun permit, once granted, is good for a lifetime, just like Social Security numbers.

 

I like to think this gun obsession is progress of a sort, since it has almost completely replaced the offering of divisive gotcha amendments on abortion or gay rights.

 

Given the fact that lawmakers yelling about assault rifles and Glocks very seldom feel compelled to quote from the Bible, you’d think we could work toward a sensible national consensus on guns. Senator Charles Schumer of New York offered to work on a compromised concealed weapon bill that would only apply to truck drivers who haul valuable cargo around the country. Maybe, in turn, the other side would be a little more rational about regulating weapons sales at gun shows.

 

One barrier, of course, is the National Rifle Association, which is dedicated to the cause of making everybody as loony as possible on the subject. Another is the suspicion on the part of gun owners that people who favor gun control look down on them.

 

In that Senate debate, opponents of loosening the current laws did get a tad carried away, particularly when they kept equating carrying a concealed weapon with being a mass murderer. Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey claimed that the newly empowered gun owners coming into his state would be “like Richard Poplawski, the white supremacist, armed with an AK-47, who allegedly murdered three Pittsburgh police officers on his front porch.”

 

Perhaps Menendez was having a bad day, what with a large chunk of the New Jersey Democratic Party teetering on the verge of indictment. But given the fact that nearly half the householders in America have guns, it doesn’t make sense to suggest that they’re all homicidal or that only good gun owners are the hunters. There are an estimated 250 million guns in America. Jim Kessler of the Third Way, a nonpartisan think tank, noted that if the noncriminals only used them for hunting, “there wouldn’t be a varmint left in the country.”

 

Gun advocates tend to think of themselves as representatives of small-town or rural values. But their worldview is so dark, you’d think they were living in a dystopian Gotham City. Senator Thune said he was worried that his daughter might have to drive home from college through states that would not allow her the protection of a pistol in the glove compartment. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia fretted about his elderly father checking into a motel without a loaded gun to keep the criminals at bay.

 

In New York, I have never heard a single parent say they were afraid their kid couldn’t make it home from school unarmed. However, we do worry a little bit about idiots wandering into nightclubs with Glocks tucked in their sweats.

[Chris]

These people really have no clue about their own state's licensing laws thinking they are a more difficult state then they are for permits.

 

http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/letters/...0,3909209.story

 

Concealed weapons law result would be more guns, violence

August 3, 2009

In his July 26 column, Paul Carpenter decries the vote in the U.S. Senate which failed to attach an amendment requiring states to allow those with concealed weapons permits in one state to carry guns in all others. In other words, states would have no control over those carrying concealed weapons. This would effectively gut all states' gun laws.

 

Mr. Carpenter uses the analogy of driver's licenses. Perhaps a better one would be speed limits. Should a resident of Montana, for example, where the speed limit on an interstate might be 85 mph, be allowed to drive that speed on Pennsylvania's interstates? Do states have rights to make their own safety laws?

 

I applaud Sen. Specter for, at least in this instance, standing up to the NRA in its campaign to arm every person in the U.S. in the name of ''safety.'' Logic dictates that more guns equal more gun violence. We see that every day. Our cities, at least in Pennsylvania, are prohibited from enacting their own gun laws, and the threat of violence steadily increases.

 

Let's hope that soon our state and national legislators will grow a spine and stand up to the gun promoters. Common sense laws can be enacted that will deprive no ''law-abiding citizens'' of their rights, while going a long way to promote public safety.

 

Nancy Brosius

 

Sellersville

[Chris]

http://theimpudentobserver.com/world-news/...herever-i-want/

 

HAVE GUN, CAN TRAVEL WHEREVER I WANT!

August 3rd, 2009 by Fred Stopsky · No Comments

 

In the NRA version of America criminals roam the streets of large cities killing at will unless brave citizens are allowed to carry weapons and shoot down the bad guys. Of course, in this fantasy world, facts and figures are not part of the National Rifle Association view of reality. In the 1970s, New York City had over 2,000 murders and last year it was under 700, figures which are consistent with murder rates in other parts of the country. Senator John Thume of South Dakota is sponsoring a bill allowing anyone from a state which legalizes carrying a concealed weapon to be able to carry a concealed weapon all over the nation– we are certain Senator Thume will soon fight for an amendment that any nation receiving aid from America must allow its citizens to enter their nation with a concealed weapon.

 

Senator Thume offered as a rationale for his bill that if people from his fair state who went to New York City as tourists and could bring along their concealed weapon, “Central Park would be a much safer place.” Unfortunately, for this argument, there were no murders in Central Park in the past year and only three serious assaults. Back in his native Sioux Falls where NRA idiots can carry around concealed weapons there were five murders and 341 assaults. For some reason unknown to this writer those with concealed weapons did not use them to prevent the assaults. Could it be that talking about bravery for NRA supporters is really what they mean rather than actually doing anything with the concealed gun.

 

Americans continue believing that crime is rising and threatens the individual citizen. Any historian of the history of crime would be able to prove America in 2009 is among the least crime ridden societies in human history. But, when it comes to reading the history of crime, you can give NRA members an “F.”

 

If a rational idea about weapons ever entered the mind of an NRA supporter it would die of loneliness.

[Chris]

http://onemansthoughts.wordpress.com/2009/...an-defeated-it/

 

 

Pro-Gun Amendment Rejected – 2 Republican Defeated It!

August 4, 2009 · Leave a Comment

 

The Senate narrowly rejected a measure to allow gun owners to carry concealed firearms across state lines.

 

The amendment to a major defense-authorization bill attracted 58 votes – including 20 Democrats – but fell two short of the supermajority needed to defeat a promised filibuster by opponents. Two Republicans, Sen. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and George V. Voinovich of Ohio, joined 35 Democrats and two independents in voting to strip the gun provision from the bill.

 

Sen. John Thune, South Dakota Republican, sponsored the amendment. Among those backing him was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat.

 

Mr. Thune and other supporters argued that the concealed-weapon proposal would reduce violence and enable truck drivers and travelers to protect themselves as they crossed state lines.

 

“Criminals commit crimes; that’s what they do. Criminals kill people. This isn’t directed at criminals – this is directed at law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves,” Mr. Thune said.

 

Under the amendment, an individual with a permit to carry a concealed firearm in his state of residence would have been able to take his gun across state lines, but then would have to abide by that state’s gun laws.

 

Forty-six states have concealed-gun laws under which permits are issued. Illinois and Wisconsin don’t allow any carrying of concealed firearms, while Alaska and Vermont permit doing so without a permit.

 

Mr. Thune, who recently replaced Sen. John Ensign of Nevada as head of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, is regarded as a rising star among Republican lawmakers. His 2004 victory over incumbent Sen. Tom Daschle was the first defeat of a sitting Senate majority or minority leader in more than 50 years.

 

Mr. Thune’s was not the only controversial amendment proposed to the fiscal 2010 defense-authorization bill. In two other contentious votes, the Senate approved a bolstered hate-crimes measure targeting crimes against gays and stripped out $2 billion in funding for new F-22 Raptor fighter jets that Obama opposed.

 

Well, I think it is plain where the Democrats stand. Anti-law abiding citizen, Anti-military, and pro-sodomite.