Has the Thune amendment been voted on yet?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It goes both ways. Republicans have historically claimed to favor states' rights, and this bill arguably infringed on states' rights. Personally I would like the outcome of the Thune amendment but not how it gets there.
 
The facts are:

1. It IS world-class hypocrisy for the gun-ban crowd to argue state's rights, given their history of continually trying to nationalize gun laws, but
2. They have a point - it does indeed violate state's right in my view, at least in theory, with the caveat that
3. The 2nd amendment is all that should be needed to carry a concealed or open weapon in all 50 states, so CCW laws are unconstitutional anyway, so #2 doesn't really matter - or at least it shouldn't matter. But #2 does matter until such time as the courts rule the 2nd amendment to mean what it says.

This is violative of state's rights to choose their requirements for carry - they one time these nincompoops are right, we need to say that they're right. Point out the hypocrisy, yes, but also admit that they're right.

I really don't care too much if it passes either way - it's a borderline call - but it IS violative (seems to me) of the 10th amendment.
 
The goofiest part of the debate -- and I watched it all -- turned out to be when opponents started talking about gun runners taking advantage of state reciprocity to carry concealed semi-auto rifles from one state to another.

ROTFLMAO

At first, I thought it was possibly an innocent mistake from a politician who doesn't really know anything about guns. But about the second or third time somebody brought it up, it occurred to me (okay, I'm kind of slow on the uptake :rolleyes:) that this was a strategy.

So, I'm going to maybe hijack my own thread :banghead:

How many of you guys have ever tried to cover up a semi-auto rifle with some garment? (Hey, it's in the interest of education :D) because frankly, the "concealed rifle" argument is just plain ridiculous IMHO.

But I've been mistaken before. ;)
 
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.
Click to expand...
I agree. This is sort of a victory? considering the current administration.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Heller ruled against the District Of Columbia Government and the Federal Government. DC is a local government, not federal. It is overseen by Congress but it can pass it's own laws through quasi home rule as long as Congress doesn't object to the changes.
 
On the one hand I'm disappointed that residents of other states will not have the benefit of this reciprocity. Sorry guys.

On the other, I'm happy that Leahy and Sanders voted against it, as it offered no benefit for their constituents (we don't have any permitting at all to be reciprocal with other states), and could even have been a detriment in that the obvious end goal here is to unify handgun carry laws at the federal level, making federal law usurp VT's permit free system.

Who here believes that a federal handgun carry policy would resemble VT's more than NY's?
 
This completely flabbergasts me:

Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) votes "NO" on the Thune amendment......

...SHE'S FROM MISSOURI!!!!

Missouri already recognizes ALL STATES CCW PERMITS!

What does this accomplish other than to disbar we Missourians from carrying in other states? WOW! She shoots her own state's citizens in the foot. What was she trying to do?
 
Who here believes that a federal handgun carry policy would resemble VT's more than NY's?
Click to expand...
Who here believes that the amendment in question actually defined any CCW/CHL law? If you raised your hand - a virtual smack on the back of the head to ya, and a reminder that next time you need to do your homework. ;)

The amendment in question made NO NATIONAL CARRY POLICY. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

It merely stated that if you possessed a legal CCW license in your home state, you were free to travel to other states that issue CCW licenses and be governed by the laws of that host state, as would any other CCW license holder in that state. Each state was still free to enact and enforce their own regional and autonomous carry laws.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.371:

SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

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

`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 is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.

`(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.

(b) 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.'.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Click to expand...
 
It merely stated that if you possessed a legal CCW license in your home state, you were free to travel to other states that issue CCW licenses and be governed by the laws of that host state, as would any other CCW license holder in that state. Each state was still free to enact and enforce their own regional and autonomous carry laws.
Click to expand...

And the federal government will be free to create additional laws to regulate the permits. If this is passed, how long will it take for someone to decide that interstate commerce is affected in some twisted way by this law?

You know the Supreme Court has ruled that growing your own wheat and consuming it on your own homestead affects interstate commerce. I don't think it is too far fetched to think that some lawmaker will manipulate the commerce clause here.
 
Passing this will come back to bite us.

First we have federal recognition of carry permits, then minimum standards, then issuance, then taxation...
Click to expand...
SERIOUSLY?! Oh, yes. That's EXACTLY how it worked with driver's licenses (anybody pay a driver's license tax lately?). And TAXATION of a permit sanctioning a constitutional right????!!!! Oh, yes. I'm sure that will pass completely unopposed. ANYTHING even resembling a tax on carry permits has met with SEVERE backlash. That is paranoia and it is unfounded. SOMEBODY has to say it. I'm a stone's throw from saying "screw your states rights" (especially for those of you living lives small enough to exist exclusively in ONE state). States have had free license to dance on the constitution long enough. If "The Feds" are the only ones willing to sign off on sanctioning a constitutional right, I'm sorely tempted to switch sides.
 
Different states have different requirements to CCW.

If they (states) were all the same; state rules/regs/checks/requirements AND all the states that had CCW had reciprosity, the bill would have most likely passed. There would have been no LOGICAL reason for it not to.

I know, logic...
 
Logic indeed

States will NEVER have the same regs/requirements without federal intervention. But I don't recall all driver's license exams being identical either... Weird right?
 
To the best of my understanding, all this bill proposed was to make CCW reciprocity universal across the states, rather than the current patchwork system.
 
You know the Supreme Court has ruled that growing your own wheat and consuming it on your own homestead affects interstate commerce. I don't think it is too far fetched to think that some lawmaker will manipulate the commerce clause here.
Click to expand...

Somewhat, but I think Raich as it applies in your example is a much more important example that set much larger precedent from a legal perspective.

The reason is because the guy (Filburn) that was growing wheat was receiving a federal subsidy like many farmers do. He was accepting federal money for that very crop (wheat). So even though it was a specific portion of that crop he declared was only for himself and his cattle, it is overall quite different. Only a court with an agenda would declare that was the same as the Raich situation to arrive at thier desired conclusion in Riach, where someone not growing anything for sale, and with no federal subsidy or contracts was no different than Filburn.

Just as schools which accept federal money are subject to a federaly approved curriculum. Filburn and many other farmers agreed to a contract previously to only produce a certain amount of wheat with the federal government to artificialy keep wheat prices about 3x higher than in the rest of the world by intentionaly keeping supply low.
The deal insured they could make a good living growing wheat because customers would be forced to pay 3x more for thier main food staple ($1.16 a bushel vs 40 cents a bushel), but required them to adhere to the limited supply.
Filburn was breaking his contract with the government by producing more.

The Gonzales v. Raich case on the other hand essentialy declared absolute power to regulate anything, even if never intended to enter commerce, with no government funding or a subsidy involved, and with no products or resources ever crossing a state line.

Totaly different. So citing Raich would be more accurate than Filburn.

Yes after Raich the federal government can regulate anything and everything, regardless if it has anything to do with commerce, simply by declaring the same logic as existed in Raich. From guns (as already done in United States v. Stewart) to just about any federal law or restriction they decide to come up with. Under Raich there is no state's rights.
 
Last edited:
Either way - I have not seen a cogent argument yet on how the Thune bill could morph into a nationwide CCW licensing scheme.
 
A smart man once said we should not view a law based on its affects when administered properly. We should view it based on its effects when administered improperly.

The federal government will try to expand its power and control at every turn.

We won't be happy long term with what happens after this amendment.
 
Who here believes that the amendment in question actually defined any CCW/CHL law? If you raised your hand - a virtual smack on the back of the head to ya, and a reminder that next time you need to do your homework.

The amendment in question made NO NATIONAL CARRY POLICY. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

It merely stated that if you possessed a legal CCW license in your home state, you were free to travel to other states that issue CCW licenses and be governed by the laws of that host state, as would any other CCW license holder in that state. Each state was still free to enact and enforce their own regional and autonomous carry laws.
Click to expand...
Thank you!!! I've posted so many times on so many threads trying to tell people this, I've posted the bill (S845) and the amendment (S1618) repeatedly, and either no one read it, or they just don't comprehend the simplicity of it! Thank you public schools. Most people can't even figure out that they are 2 separate things and actually believe that the bill is dead due to the fact that the amendment didn't pass under the specially agreed upon terms. I for one see this as a rallying point, now we know the bill has enough votes to pass, and if we can pick up 2 more votes it will be veto proof.
 
Like I said in one of my previous posts if this did pass the anti states that would have to honor this would make it such a hassle I myself would be scared to carry there anyway. Heres an example say you were driving down RT35 in Woodbridge NJ and were carrying and got pulled over in front of the local high school that as far as I remember the campus crosses the road with the school being on one side and some other buildings on the other. Knowing the local cops like I do in that area chances are you would be arrested for carrying too close or on school property. Sure you cuold probably beat it in court with a good lawyer but at this point in my life I can barely afford the ammo for my CCW.
 
rbernie, IMHO it's more important to ask:
Is there a cogent argument on how the Thune bill can not possibly morph into a nationwide CCW licensing scheme?
 
Do not let the apparent closeness of the Senate vote fool you. The two senators from Colorado waited until failure of the amendment was assured before voting FOR the amendment so they could ride the 2nd amendment side of the issue when faced with their real agenda.
Both CHAMPIONS of the Bill of Rights!!! Gag!
 
rbernie, IMHO it's more important to ask:
Is there a cogent argument on how the Thune bill can not possibly morph into a nationwide CCW licensing scheme?
Click to expand...
Have driver's licenses and marriage licenses morphed into nationwide licensing schemes?
 
Oooh!
We might ask if the SSN (issued (FREE) to each and every US citizen as an identification number between you and the IRS for the purpose of paying SS taxes) has morphed into an identification number for ALL gov't purposes?
Despite the original statute preventing the legal use of the SSN for any other identification purpose?:scrutiny:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
U.S. Senate To Vote On National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Amendment Early This Week
Replies
12
Views
1K
ArmedBear
A
B
  • Locked
Thune Passes Daschle In The Polls
Replies
16
Views
1K
tulsamal
T
D
  • Locked
When will the Thune Amendment get debated or voted on?
Replies
3
Views
525
223lover
2
JonB
  • Locked
Gotta Love it - SD Senator / Conceal Carry Amendment
Replies
3
Views
695
dullh
D
Librarian
  • Locked
House and Senate votes on HR 627 - Credit card and national Parks carry amendment
Replies
0
Views
400
Librarian
Librarian
Back
Top