Has the Thune amendment been voted on yet?

thought Gillibrand (D-NY), from upstate New York, was pro-gun? Did someone pay her off to convert to anti?

Click to expand...

No, it's a matter of politics. Most of N.Y. is anti-gun.

If it any consolation, the fact that 58 Senators voted in favor of this bill should put to rest any fears that Congress will be passing any "common sense gun contol legislation".

(That last bit was intended as sarcasm)

Hmm.... should I really be suprised that both Illinois senators shot this one down?

I am for a law that if you miss more than 3 votes in a session (or 4 days) you are fired. No, I don't care if they were in the hospital or if their Granny croaked. Either appoint someone who can vote for you or get the hell off the hill. This is serious business and if your granny takes precedence you should never have come.

Hmm.... should I really be suprised that both Illinois senators shot this one down?

Click to expand...

I still don't understand why IL and WI didn't abstain, as the legislation didn't apply to them.

The two that didn't vote were Byrd and Kennedy, surely no votes. Joe

Say thank you!!!

Don't allow those who supported this bill to feel defeated! (assuming you supported it as well) Say thanks and ensure they will make the second attempt. I don't believe this is a "camel's nose" in the least. It just brings your carry permit up to level of respect your driver's license has. I can't recall a single instance where federal "faith and credit" enforcement over states has had negative repercussions (I could be wrong and would be interested to hear about it if I am).
AND ANOTHER THING: I can understand "states' rights" arguments. For those of you making "don't like it, move to a different state" arguments: You have OBVIOUSLY forgotten about our military. We rarely have a say in where we live. I have laid down enough for my country and can't move at the drop of a hat. Kindly stow that narrow-minded $&^@.

I understand the states rights argument also, but why should my Constitutional rights end at the state line?

S 845 was not voted on, it's not dead, todays was just a vote to attach it to another bill. It is still alive and well as a freestanding bill of it's own!

Republicans, George Voinovich of Ohio and Dick Lugar of Indiana both voted no. If those two would have voted yes it would have hit 60 and passed.

You folks in Ohio and Indiana need to remember this come election time. But I wonder,
would it really have been a great idea to give the federal government a "way in"? Would this not have given them a tool to start restricting at a federal level the right to carry?

Click to expand...

Northern Indiana is mostly republican. We have been trying to get rid of Lugar for a long time, it's no use. He keeps running for reelection and wins. The dems don't even campaign in this area. Lugar is a moderate/centrist that we are stuck with until he retires. He does do some good in other areas.

I am very disapointed in my senators from Ohio. I just wrote both of them in to express my displeasure with their vote. Ohio usally is very "pro gun". I am very interested in their reply.

I thought Gillibrand (D-NY), from upstate New York, was pro-gun? Did someone pay her off to convert to anti?


She is doing the schumer shuffle-!! Chuckie got to her and Mccarthy has promised to primary against her.
I called her office and e-mailed her 2 times she shafted us --She was supposed to be Pro Gun -!!
One more call to her office --to tell her Ill be voting against her -Even if its a gun banner running-[Im a dem so I can vote in primaries]

I understand the states rights argument also, but why should my Constitutional rights end at the state line?

Click to expand...

Your rights dont end, but your Constitutional protection should.

The Constitution was best when it was a restriction against federal intrusions only.

Do the people from pro-gun areas think they can gain votes by voting no on this? Claire McCaskill is from Missouri, a very pro gun state. Does she understand that there are people that won't vote FOR her because she voted no; but there are many that will vote AGAINST her because she voted no.

The average pro-gun voter cares a lot about this issue; the average anti-gun voter is not as committed and can be persuaded to change who they vote for based on other issues.

Blonde

Ok.. so now I'm confused..

I understand that under the current law I'm covered with my Texas CCL going to another state that honors the Texas permit.. (basically I can drive through any of the lower SE 48 states) .. Did this create a prohibition?

The news articles are leading out with:

The 58-39 vote Wednesday defeated a measure giving people with concealed weapons permits the right to carry their firearms into other states that have similar gun laws. Sixty votes were needed to approve the provision, an amendment to a defense spending bill.

and from Fox:
WASHINGTON -- The Senate sided with gun control advocates Wednesday by rejecting a measure that would have allowed people with concealed weapons permits to carry those hidden weapons across state borders.


aren't they sensationalizing just a bit? if a neighboring state has reciprocity agreement with another isn't that still allowed?

Wolf,

Your understanding is correct. The fact that the Senate did not pass the Thune Amendment does not change the state-to-state reciprocity already agreed to by the state gub'ments.

Your Texas permit is good except in Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, West Virginia, Washington, Oregon, Kali, Nevada . . . .

Blonde

It seems to me that we should vote out as many of the no votes as possible and then reintroduce the bill at the earliest opportunity. Chances are it would pass with just a small change in the make up of senators.

What a surprise, both senators from California voted no. It is time we got rid of boxer/feinstein.

It seems to me that we should vote out as many of the no votes as possible and then reintroduce the bill at the earliest opportunity. Chances are it would pass with just a small change in the make up of senators.

Click to expand...

S 845 is it's own bill. Todays vote was for S1618, another form of the same thing. S1618 was an attempt to attach it to the defense bill. As S845, it is alive and well. I believe S845 is scheduled for floor time in the next week. On the plus side, we know there are enough votes to get S845 through the senate, and if we can pick up 2 more votes it will be veto proof! And we should NEVER vote for an incumbent no matter how they voted.

Considering that not even gun owners can agree on whether or not it is a good thing, if you're truly upset about your senator voted, take a chance and ask them.

More than likely it will be because of party lines, but maybe they've got valid reasons.

neverjeg said:

Republicans, George Voinovich of Ohio and Dick Lugar of Indiana both voted no. If those two would have voted yes it would have hit 60 and passed.

You folks in Ohio and Indiana need to remember this come election time. But I wonder,
would it really have been a great idea to give the federal government a "way in"? Would this not have given them a tool to start restricting at a federal level the right to carry?

Click to expand...

George V has already announced his retirement..

Blonde..

Thanks!!

Passing this will come back to bite us.

First we have federal recognition of carry permits, then minimum standards, then issuance, then taxation...

Secondly, when assault weapon bans come up we yell loudly about states right, but now just because it happens to benefit us we take the opposite stance?

We need to strike firearm laws, not make new ones.

A far better start would be to remove federal restrictions on carrying.

For all the Chicken Littles going on about "nose in the tent, States right, Federal evil..

You do remember a little thing called Heller, the only people currently bound by 2A ARE the Federals.

You do remember a little thing called Heller, the only people currently bound by 2A ARE the Federals.

Click to expand...

The Heller decision also stated that the Federal government had broad powers to regulate the 2A, they just cannot ban a commonly used class of weapons.

Certainly, there is nothing in Heller that would prohibit the Federal government from regulating concealed carry laws.

Heller really has no application here.

leagleeagle45:"If it any consolation, the fact that 58 Senators voted in favor of this bill should put to rest any fears that Congress will be passing any "common sense gun contol legislation".

(That last bit was intended as sarcasm")

Click to expand...

Sarcasm or no, I think that you're right. The simple fact that this came so close to passage won't be lost on those who are champing at their bits ready to introduce anti-gun legislation of several kinds including assorted returns to restriction of types of weapons.

This must have seemed to be a near catastrophe to the likes of Boxer and Feinstein who no doubt take great pride in their part of keeping California safe from gun crime. (Now THERE is some sarcasm for you )