Senators from Right-to-carry states that voted against the reciprocity legislation today
The vote on the Thune amendment was very close. 58 voted "yes" and 39 voted "nay." If only two had switched their vote, it would have passed. West Virginia's Byrd would have voted "yes," but he has been very ill. Specter should have virtually always voted "yes," but he appears to have misread the legislation.
21 Senators from right-to-carry states voted against the amendment. If only two of these Senators had switched their votes, the amendment would have passed.
The one senator from a state that bans concealed carry.
I am getting so many email questions, here is a copy of Amendment:
21 Senators from right-to-carry states voted against the amendment. If only two of these Senators had switched their votes, the amendment would have passed.
Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Franken (D-MN), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Specter (D-PA), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
The one senator from a state that bans concealed carry.
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
I am getting so many email questions, here is a copy of Amendment:
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:``ยง926D. 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.
Labels: ConcealedCarry
posted by John Lott at 8:02 PM
12 Comments:
John:
What was equally disappointing was Kristen Gillibrand. She has been a gun rights supporter in the past. Had she voted yes with Lugar and Voinovich it would have passed. It's time to hold some people's feet to the fire.
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
These two surprise me.
Surely there are lots of former NYers in Florida who wish they could legally carry when going back up I-95 to visit friends and family. Nelson obviously didn't think about this.
I'm surprised by Lugar's vote given the state he represents is probably THE most pro-gun state in the Midwest, and with one of the highest RTC percentages of any state to boot.
i think this is a good thing. even though i favor reciprocity agreements between states for CCW-permits, i dont think the federal government has the authority (or ability) to force them on the states.
this seems like a clear states-rights issue to me, and the individual states should be free to continue to negotiate with each other for these agreements without federal interference. if it ISNT a violation of state's rights, then the supporters havent done a very good job explaining to me how it isnt.
Radio:
Since when should the right to keep and bear arms, even with a pistol, be a states rights issue?
its forcing the several states to recognize each other's carry laws that is a states-rights issue.
whether or not the individual state's licensing or restrictions on firearms runs afoul of "shall not be infringed" or not is a different question. but i think the whole reciprocity issue is absolutely the pervue of the states and should be left between them as to whether or not they recognize another state's CCW/OC laws or not, free from federal mandate or interference.
in other words, how is the federal government telling states that they MUST honor the regulations of another state NOT a states-rights issue?
Radio:
My question is, why should it be a states rights issue? 2 states don't allow a concealed carry permit at all. It's a shame our founding fathers couldn't have been clearer in respect with the second amendment. Sure, the courts have said states can regulate firearms ownership...Have they also allowed the states to interpret all the other 9 amendments in the bill of rights? No. Abortion is less regulated than firearms and yet there are no amendments that allow abortion. It depends on whose ox it being gored. I'd rather not have the federal government decide this as it should already be clear.
well sure... id *rather* a lot of things. id rather a determination of the second amendment's application to the states be settled once and for all. but it isnt. and until it IS, the states still have the right to regulate gun ownership and carry, and any attempt by the legislature to FORCE them to recognize the laws of another state is a violation of state's rights. period.
id rather it not be. but it IS. even though im a gun owner and NRA member, i am ALWAYS going to come down on the side of state's rights in a question like this. this is a matter of limiting federal interference. just because i happen to agree with what the federal interference is trying to accomplish in this case doesnt mean i should support it.
the question of the second amendment and what in a perfect world it would mean to the states is a separate issue, and shouldnt be confused with this one.
What about full faith and credit?
I always side with individual rights.
The first nine Amendments to the Constitution come before the Tenth for a reason.
[T]here are some limitations upon the extent to which a state may be required by the full faith and credit clause to enforce even the judgment of another state in contravention of its own statutes or policy. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657; Finney v. Guy, 189 U.S. 335; see also Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611; cf. Gasquet v. Fenner, 247 U.S. 16. And in the case of statutes...the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events. Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 306 U.S. 493, 502 (1939)
it would appear that "full faith and credit" in the modern sense applies to records and judgements more than it does law. but IANAL so...
but again, the question of the correct application of the full faith and credit clause is a different issue, and no doubt were it applied differently then the question of reciprocity would also be different. but it isnt. and until it is, i dont think it is relevant here.
Well, states rights has it's limits. Slavery deniers like to say the the civil war was about states rights and slavery had nothing to do with it. Try reading Mississippi's declaration of secession, slavery is a well stated reason. That being said, the states have been allowed to interpret the right to bear arms as a states rights issues, BUT, if you read the 10th amendment :
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You have to admit that the second amendment is in the constitution so for a state or any other territory under US jurisdiction to de facto or de jure deny the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional, even if it is there interpretation of what to keep and bear arms is. What I am saying is the 10th amendment does not apply as a restrictor to the second amendment. If John would PLEASE jump in here, I would like to hear his opinion, or may be he could get someone like Mark Levin to clarify. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home