Senate rejects pro-gun measure on concealed weapon

[derby378]

Source: Associated Press / Orange County Register

Gun control proponents scored a rare victory as the Senate rejected the carrying of concealed weapons across state lines.

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.

It is an unusual setback for the gun rights side, which has been able to muster majorities of Republicans and pro-gun Democrats to move its agenda through both the Bush and Obama administrations. Opponents say the concealed weapon proposal would force states with tough gun laws to accept gun-carrying visitors from states with weaker laws.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONCEALED_WEAPONS?SITE=CAANR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Good going Senate.

[Endangered Specie]

2. So, why not just pass it as a bill, with 51 votes required?

[sinkingfeeling]

4. Because it failed. Only got 31 votes.

[Statistical]

7. Um no....it had 58 votes for it!

However to amend spending legislation in Senate requires 60 votes so it did fail but it had much more support than 30 votes.

[sinkingfeeling]

9. You're correct. I went back and reread the article.

[JayMusgrove]

6. Because it wasn't introduced that way in the instance.

The 58 who supported it will probably do just that, introduce it as a bill, hopefully a committee will table it, and that will be the end of it.

[imdjh]

12. So your 2nd Amendment rights come and go as you drive I95 or US 50. And you have no problem w/that?

[Mass]

14. My right to live in a non-concealed weapons state remains intact. I'm fine with this.\nt

[Statistical]

17. The bill wouldn't have changed that. Does anyone do their own research anymore?

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

‘(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 a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms, 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.

So if a state doesn't allow CCW then this bill doesn't change that.
It does however allow one to carry in any state that does allow CCW.

[imdjh]

20. The second amendment is clear: keep and BEAR arms. The only state limitation ...

I can see being arguably legal is a law which says that you can only bear arms openly, or that you can only bear arms concealed since it isn't specifically addressed. But if you say that concealed carry is illegal, then open carry must be legal. And if open carry is illegal, then concealed carry must be legal.

[Statistical]

34. I think you are getting the horse before the cart.

1) The 2nd hasn't been incorporated against the states.
2) 2 states currently prohibit all forms of carrying by anyone except LEO and there has been no constitutional challenge.
3) 9 states infringe on the vast majority of the population by having no open carry and only "may issue"/"may infringe" CCW.

So while that may be your political philosophy it isn't settled law that either the 2nd applies to the states or that conceal carry is protected.

I personally agree that both are but baby steps. It is like island hopping in WWII.

Heller -> Incorporation -> Define 2nd as existing outside the home -> ending may issue.... etc.

[imdjh]

36. It is absurd that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states.

At the time of the US Constitution, the states were sovereign. If keeping and bearing arms was a god given right, then the states would have no right to violate that right. Since the 2nd Amendment is as much of a god given right, as the 1st Amendment, then it enjoys the same status.

That's not my philosophy, it's logic. Legal mumbo jumbo be damned.

[Statistical]

41. I agree however we need a precedent first.

Prior to Heller we had no precedent that the 2nd the 2nd was an individual right.

Now using that precedent the McDonald case is possible.
McDonald will give us precedent that the right confirmed in Heller applies equally to the states.

[imdjh]

53. Of course we had a precedent. The First Amendment.

To maintain that the first amendment, with its three protections was an individual right but that the second was something quite different, is to deny the nature of a "god given right". Each of these guarantees of liberty is an individual right. The third amendment makes no reference to apartment houses, it makes a reference to your home. The Fourth Amendment, guarantees not that groups of people have a right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, it states that people have a right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. The fifth amendment doesn't begin with "no group" it begins with "No person.."

The Bill Of Rights is a list of individual rights, it simply cannot be construed any other way, because the nature of liberty itself is individual. Two people are not free, each man is free.

To interpret the 2nd Amendment any other way is dishonest.

[geckosfeet]

76. You can own a gun in any state. However the laws vary by state. This is a federal

mandate to run roughshod over state and municipal laws. This is the kind of federal intervention that gun huggers are always warning us about - except this time it was a gun law so some of them are up in arms - so to speak.

Police departments don't like it and mayors and governors don't like it. It undermines their ability to run their kingdoms.

[damntexdem]

51. For purposes of a well-regulated militia.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

That clearly does not include rights to bear firearms across state lines. That is, unless the Congress decides otherwise on the "... organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States" (Article 1, Section 8).

That clearly does allow for gun control -- the well-regulated part.

[beevul]

54. Not quite.

A reminder of what the Bill Of Rights is:

A list of restrictions on the government, with the intent of preventing government from misconstruing or abusing of its powers:


THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org /


Some examples:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Self explanitory.




Amendment II

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Shall not be infringed by whom?

Government, of course.




Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Soldier, being an agent of the government and all...





Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated , and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Shall not be violated by whom?

Government, of course.





Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime by whom? Be twice put in jeopardy by whom? Compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself by whom? Be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law by whom? nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation by whom?

Government, of course.


Now, the second amendment contains a declaratory clause - "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State", and a restrictive clause - "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".



The "militia" reading and the "collective rights" reading of the second amendment are dead.

Old news.

[rd_kent]

65. Very well put. I hope this explianed it.

[imdjh]

18. Gee, do you have a right to live in a free-speech free state too?

[Mass]

19. Carrying a concealed weapon is not a fundemental right. 2nd amendment does not guarantee that.

[imdjh]

22. You have a right to not keep or bear arms. You do not have the right to deny me my 2nd A rights.

[rd_kent]

64. Really? Where does it say that?

Im not saying it DOES say that, but you pull shit like "Carrying a concealed weapon is not a fundemental right. 2nd amendment does not guarantee that." right out of your ass.

[Recursion]

61. Your right to live in a non-concealed-carry state wasn't affected

This amendment didn't force states that don't have concealed carry to adopt it.

[rd_kent]

63. Where does it say in the Constitution that you have that right?

To live in a non-concealed weapon state? Did I overlook that part?

[friendly_iconoclast]

107. Dude, you *can* get a CCW permit here in Massachusetts

With varying degrees of difficulty, depending on where you live (or who you donate to, frankly).

Sorry to harsh the mellow for you

[HERVEPA]

29. You and your militia driving together up 95?

[X_Digger]

30. Even in 1982, congress knew it was an individual right..

In the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982), a bipartisan subcommittee (consisting of 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats) of the United States Senate investigated the Second Amendment and reported its findings. The report stated:

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

http://books.google.com/books?id=lZc9PQAACAAJ&dq=isbn:1581602545

[damntexdem]

48. I have many problems with nutty claims to 2nd Amendment rights.

Thank goodness this nonsense was stopped here. There is plenty more NRA nonsense to try to 'shoot' down for the future.

[geckosfeet]

74. Just get a permit in the states you want travel in. I don't see a loss of rights.

The problem is states rights. Damn those states rights.

[X_Digger]

81. Works unless you want to travel..

.. to any of the 'may issue' states who do not honor anyone else's permits, and none offer non-resident permits. (At least I'm 75% sure none do.)

[geckosfeet]

82. I know that NH and MA offer non-resident permits. But it is an issue if you need

to travel a lot and carry.

You would need to maintain permits in many states.

Now that you mention it, the legislation as written is not particularly respectful of state laws. If there was some legislation that allowed for people to apply for permits for 5 or 10 or 20 or 48 states at once, instead of one at a time, that would be useful.

Trying to ram an all or nothing bill down states throats is probably not going to work.

[X_Digger]

86. Many folks here in TX..

Apply for an in-state TX permit and an out-of-state UT permit, which gets them an additional 4 states with reciprocity, bringing the total to 34.

I know truck drivers who have five permits, and still can't carry through CA & NY (and MD, if I recall.)

[geckosfeet]

99. That kind of recoprocity makes sense but it is something the states themselves

need to agree on.

I can see a tiered application process where states with relatively lower requirements can issue at one level, and states with greater requirements issue at other levels.

[Statistical]

13. It won't be the end of it.

Even if tabled which is unlikely as Reid voted for it supporters will push to bring it back next year.
Or try to get it done in the house.

[Mass]

10. Non germane?

[JayMusgrove]

3. Wow, it LOST by ONLY 2 VOTES!!

In other words, 58 Senators supported the pro gun amendment.

Let's see the list of the 58 who supported it.

[Statistical]

8. +1 anyone got a link to the rollcall list?

[derby378]

32. Here's the Yea and No votes

YEAs - 58
Alexander (R-TN), Barrasso (R-WY), Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Begich (D-AK), Bennet (D-CO), Bennett (R-UT), Bond (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Casey (D-PA), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Collins (R-ME), Conrad (D-ND), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Dorgan (D-ND), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (R-SC), Grassley (R-IA), Gregg (R-NH), Hagan (D-NC), Hatch (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Johanns (R-NE), Johnson (D-SD), Kyl (R-AZ), Landrieu (D-LA), Lincoln (D-AR), Martinez (R-FL), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Murkowski (R-AK), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Reid (D-NV), Risch (R-ID), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Snowe (R-ME), Tester (D-MT), Thune (R-SD), Udall (D-CO), Udall (D-NM), Vitter (R-LA), Warner (D-VA), Webb (D-VA), Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs - 39
Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Brown (D-OH), Burris (D-IL), Cantwell (D-WA), Cardin (D-MD), Carper (D-DE), Dodd (D-CT), Durbin (D-IL), Feinstein (D-CA), Franken (D-MN), Gillibrand (D-NY), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Kaufman (D-DE), Kerry (D-MA), Klobuchar (D-MN), Kohl (D-WI), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Lieberman (ID-CT), Lugar (R-IN), McCaskill (D-MO), Menendez (D-NJ), Merkley (D-OR), Murray (D-WA), Nelson (D-FL), Reed (D-RI), Rockefeller (D-WV), Sanders (I-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Shaheen (D-NH), Specter (D-PA), Stabenow (D-MI), Voinovich (R-OH), Whitehouse (D-RI), Wyden (D-OR)

NOT VOTING - 3
Byrd (D-WV), Kennedy (D-MA), Mikulski (D-MD)

[Endangered Specie]

98. Glad to see Kay Hagan voted for it

:)

[RamboLiberal]

16. WP says almost 20 moderate Dems voted for it

In a 58-39 vote, supporters of the looser gun law -- including all but two Republicans and almost 20 moderate Democrats -- fell two votes short of the 60 they needed to approve the measure.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/07/democrats_defeat_concealed_wea.html?hpid=topnews

[geckosfeet]

75. The problem is that the bill does not respect state and municpal laws.

[Statistical]

78. Yes it does.

States can limit how, when, where conceal carry happen.

The only thing the states must to under this bill is accept CCW from other states (if and only if they have CCW for their residents).

Just like if you have a driver's license from one state you can drive in another state however you must follow the laws in the state you are driving in.

Driving
License issued in any state, good in any state.
Laws that are applicable are the state you are currently located in.

Carrying
License issued in any state, good in any state.
Laws that are applicable are the state you are currently located in.

[geckosfeet]

83. Laws for permits vary by state and municipality. Telling one state that it's

laws mean squat is not going to fly.

I think that there needs to be some standardization of states permit requirements before this can work.

My view is that the legislation was disrespectful of states laws. There needas to be some mechanism by which people can be licensed in more than one state a ta time. Multi-state carry applications or something.

Just trying to ram something like this through is not going to work.

[Statistical]

87. It is no more "disrespective" than states accepting other states drivers or marriage licenses.

[geckosfeet]

100. In a manner of speaking it's the same idea. But there are no standards.

Gun laws vary tremendously by states, and what makes sense in Montana or Utah makes less sense in NY.

Marriage and driving are much more standardized, with the exception of gay marriage of course.

[Statistical]

101. Gun laws do very that is why the bill states gun laws of the state being carried apply.

The requirements for a CCW vary little from state to state.

First the federal govt puts a rather comprehensive list of prohibited persons as a minimum standard.

Under the GCA, firearms possession by certain categories of individuals is prohibited.

1. Anyone who has been convicted in a federal court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
2. Anyone who has been convicted in a state court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 2 years, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
3. Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
4. Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
5. Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
6. Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa.
7. Anyone who has been discharged from the US Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
8. Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
9. Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner.
10. Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (added in 1996). (See the Lautenberg Amendment.)

So any state is 100% positive the above are unathorized to carry in any state. Also no state allows CCW under the age of 18 setting another standardized minimum standard.

Now training requirements do vary but they vary substantially for driver's license also. The education requirements, the learner permit process, and the restrictions on new/teen drivers vary from state to state. This however doesn't allow VA to exclude TX learner permits from VA roads simply because VA has a higher standard.

[geckosfeet]

104. I know that MA has additional requirements for LTC. Aren't those the basic requirements on

the forms used to purchase a firearms in MA? Been a few months since I last filled one out, but that sure rings a bell.

Some states (MA is one) make a very clear distinction between being licensed for concealed carry, and meeting the minimum requirements to purchase. Even though one meets the minimum federal requirements to purchase, it is possible that same person does not meet the minimum requirements for a concealed carry permit.

In addition, municipal law enforcement agencies can deny your permit for virtually any reason. You can appeal in court, but the point is that the judgment of local law enforcement would be short circuited with this legislation.

[X_Digger]

88. Yup, we need some standardization..

Similar to the Driver's License Compact started in 1960 led to standardization of driver's licenses (and reciprocal reporting of violations), the same needs to happen between the states. I'm still leery of federalization of CCW.

[Statistical]

5. Sad to see it happen but it got more Democratic votes than I expected.

I haven't run down the list but given R only have 40 votes in Senate and the amendment got 58 votes at least 18 Democrats had to vote for it.

There are about a dozen anti-RKBA Republicans so I would guesstimate that 25-30 Democrats voted for it.
The Democratic party is getting better each year on this issue.

If it doesn't pass this year it will in next couple years.

[RamboLiberal]

11. I'm one of those who wished it had passed n/t

Damn, 2 votes short. I'm wondering how my Senators Casey and new Dem Specter voted.

[X_Digger]

21. Specter - Nay

No link yet, I was watching on cspan.

[RamboLiberal]

25. Casey voted Yes

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/concealed-weapons-amendment-shot-down-2009-07-22.html

[Recursion]

15. Well, we'll do better next time

I'm glad it at least got 58 votes.

[DainBramaged]

40. We don't want your stinking guns in our states

your state may be one that gives anyone who can stand a carry permit. Mine makes sure you had better have a good reason (and go before a Judge to boot) to get a carry permit.

[Statistical]

43. Self defense only for the rich, powerful, and politically connected.

I am sure nowhere in the state there is a single racist or homophobic judge who denies permits to minorities or the gays.

Or one who lets his personal view on marriage deny a permit to a separated wife or any other situational he/she finds morally objectionable.

Nope that could NEVER happen.

Not to mention someone being stalked or hunting by a domestic abuser or facing death threats has time to schedule a hearing and wait 3-9 months to go before a judge.

Self defense only for the rich, powerful, and politically connected.

[RantinRavin]

45. You better check your state laws

A lot of states that issue CCW licenses already have recprocal agreements with other states for CCW licenses.

[DainBramaged]

49. I have and we don't. You come into NJ, don't be bringing your gun

and if you do have a license here, it has to be unloaded and in the trunk (unless you are a cop, PI, security with a carry/concealed carry, or permit holder as a citizen.

http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf/firearms/njac-title13-ch54.pdf


N.J.S. 2C:39-6(g)

"All weapons being transported under paragraph (2) of subsection b.,
subsection e., or paragraph (1) or (3) of subsection f. of this section shall be
carried unloaded and contained in a closed and fastened case, gunbox,
securely tied package, or locked in the trunk of the automobile in which it
is being transported, and in the course of travel shall include only such
deviations as are reasonably necessary under the circumstances."

[brendan120678]

47. So you think it's a good thing that an American citizen...

has to go in front of a judge to ask permission to exercise one's Constitutional rights??
And you can only exercise those rights if a judge thinks you have a good reason??

"Excuse me, your honor...I'd like permission to own a gun."
"Excuse me, your honor...I'd like permission to speak in public."
"Excuse me, your honor...I'd like permission to go to Church."
"Pardon me, your honor...I was raped, so I'd like your permission to have an abortion."

[DainBramaged]

50. States rights too bad, you don't like it live where you can fill your house with guns

Why is it gun huggers MUST push guns on everyone who doesn't want them. You people are like Fundies, you won't be happy until everyone has a fucking gun everywhere.

Give me a break.

[brendan120678]

52. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that...

people were trying to force you to buy a firearm. I am not saying everyone must own a firearm.

Do you feel frightened that there are people out there who may legally be carrying a handgun under their jacket?

If you lived in a state like Vermont or Alaska, where there are little to no no restriction on owning handguns, would you be displeased? Would you fear for your life every time you walked out your door?

[DainBramaged]

55. Go polish you gun I don't care I am happy where I live and I don't push

my anti-gun philosophy on the rest of you (or where you live).

Cya....................

RepubliCONs the party of Fear and guns for everyone. Shooty shooty bang bang.

[rd_kent]

67. You really ARE braindamaged

No one is pushing guns on you. You dont want one, dont get one. Who are you to tell me I cannot have one (or a hundred)?

[rd_kent]

66. People in your state DO have a good reason to carry a gun.

BECAUSE THE 2ND AMENDMENT SAYS THEY CAN!!!!! Does someone need a better reason than that?

Sure, your state may make it illegal to carry a CONCEALED gun, but then that would automatically make carrying a gun OPENLY legal, right? Conversely, if your state makes carrying a gun OPENLY illegal, then carrying a concealed gun is legal, right?

You cannot have it both ways. The Constitution says that the government SHALL NOT ABRIDGE the right to bear arms. Period.

[bread_and_roses]

23. good (n/t)

[RamboLiberal]

24. Dems who voted for

Nineteen other Democrats crossed over to support the amendment: Max Baucus of Montana, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Jon Tester of Montana, Tom Udall of New Mexico, Mark Udall of Colorado and Mark Warner and Jim Webb of Virginia.

Two Republicans crossed over to vote against the amendment: Richard Lugar of Indiana and George Voinovich of Ohio

Missing the vote were Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who is undergoing ankle surgery, Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who only returned to the Senate on Tuesday after a long hospitalization, and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who is battling brain cancer.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/concealed-weapons-amendment-shot-down-2009-07-22.html

Wow - Arlen Specter is really trying to cozy up to Dem voters - he voted Nay. IMHO Casey more accurately gauged PA by voting Yes.

[Statistical]

28. "Mark Warner and Jim Webb of Virginia" Woo Hoo.

I need to write them a letter saying Thanks.

I had no real doubts they would support it though pretty moderately solid of RKBA.

[Recursion]

58. Specter doesn't have a good history on gun rights

Like most of the "corporatist" wing of the GOP (and the DLC), they see gun control as a way to look tough on crime without actually addressing the causes of crime.

[onehandle]

26. Stoopid anti-second amendmenters!

There should be no infringement of our right to bear arms.

Every 13 year old girl in America is entitled to the machine gun of her choice.

No stinkin' regional laws should apply!

[Statistical]

27. This bill had nothing to do with minors or machineguns. n/t

[JonQ]

94. Hell yeah!

Also, states should be able to set their own standards for how other basic rights apply to people within their borders.

Like if some states don't think certain, darker skinned, people should vote, well that should be their right.

Or if they think free speech only applies to god-fearing christians who profess their love for the government, they should be free to do so.

Or if they think everyone driving through their state should be subject to what in other states might be considered unlawful search and seizure of their private effects for no reason, what's stopping them?

It's not like those are basic rights guaranteed to all citizens in every state.

[RamboLiberal]

31. Roll Call

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00237

[customerserviceguy]

69. That list is interesting

Among the "no" voters, there are two Republicans. Also, the Democratic Senators on the "no" list are from the bluest of the states, or have been in office for a fairly long time.

The message to take from this is: If a Democratic Senator comes from either a red or even a purple state, they're going to respond to political pressure from constituents.

It's something to remember as we approach the voting on healthcare.

[proteus_lives]

33. Another Senate failure.

:thumbsdown:

[DainBramaged]

39. HAHA

Gun huggers fail.

[proteus_lives]

56. Gun Huggers?

You mean the majority of this nation, who support the 2nd Amendment?

Congrats, the fear and ignorance of you and people like you won a minor skirmish. But realize, your fear will never destroy the 2nd Amendment.

[DainBramaged]

72. When ALL of the states recognize gay marriage, I'll recognize YOUR right to bring

your (paranoid) firearm into my state.

Fair enough?

[proteus_lives]

77. I'll sign, march and vote for gay marriage.

But I'll do that anyway, even while you try to take away my rights.

Will you give up your fear and ignorance? (I know, it's hard. You'll have to evolve higher thought. Or at least attempt to learn any truthful about firearms.)

[DainBramaged]

79. You really have an issue with my NOT wanting to have anything to do with guns, don't you?

Are all of you gun huggers like this? I am not trying to take away anything gunnie, I simply don't want to fucking participate. Oh and when you grant Gays the right to be marry in all 50 states, you can bring your gun into mine.

You folks are really into your fucking guns, like drugs, you're addicted. If your life is focused on guns, your life is focused on death.

Goodbye we're done. You are JUST like the Fundies, your rights are more important than mine. I say no.

[proteus_lives]

90. My god, you're dull.

I don't care if you ever own a gun, look at a gun or think a gun. I care about you having the choice! I'll always respect your rights even when you want to destroy mine. (it's called be a Democrat, look it up.)

As for the rest of your statement, it's just bias and stereotyping. You're no better that racist or a homophobe.

[DainBramaged]

93. You really need to be on my ignore list

goodbye, preach your religion of the gun to someone who fucking cares.

[proteus_lives]

97. running away like the coward you are.

I'm not taking anything from you. But feel free to continue with your ignorance.

You're running because you can't defend your position and all you have is bias and insults.

[rd_kent]

103. Hahaha! You did it AGAIN!

Every time I see you post, someone disagrees with you, and you threaten them with IGNORE. You really are amazing, you know that. I guess you failed to get the memo that this is a place for DISCUSSION! We agree, disagree, learn and change our viewpoint. You seem to be entrenched in your way of thinking and dont have the ability to look at something from anothers perspective. Why do you even post here if you dont want to discuss?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

35. Quite a headline.

[depakid]

85. Impressive, eh?

[bushmeister0]

37. I've always wondered something about you gun nuts.

Since there are so many rabid ones here, this seems the appropriate venue . . .

Question: When you're walking down the street protecting yourself with your weapon concealed in your pants, are you more likely to reach into your pants in anticipation of trouble if a white guy is walking towards you or is more likely that you get an itchy trigger finger when you see a black guy?

Just wondering. Because it seems to me a lot of the DUers here are of a certain hue and income level and probably don't come into contact with a lot of black folk too often, if they can avoid it.

I always marvel at how the same names always appear to vehemently denounce anyone would dare argue that perhaps more guns aren't always good and homelessness is not the fault of the homeless. Being a life-long Democrat, I'm puzzled by how many here, who profess to be Democrats, are so clearly Freeper-ish on these issues.

[derby378]

42. How is Second Amendment activism considered "Freeper-ish?"

Gun legislation is not a "left vs. right" issue, no matter how many media types would have you believe that.

And me, I'm also a Democratic precinct chair, an election judge, and a sucker for homeless cats. I'm not so bad once you get to know me:

http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/2009/07/01/A_Liberal_Democrat_Who_Loves_Guns.aspx

[proteus_lives]

57. As a Democrat, I'm always shocked by the people in my own party....

Who want to chuck our rights down the drain.

All your statements are just stereotypes and bias.

[Recursion]

60. Gun control was invented to disarm newly-freed blacks

Google Rob Williams some time: an African American who -- with the help of the NRA -- organized his community to defend themselves against KKK and other racist attacks.

[geckosfeet]

80. Lots of people live in very rural areas. Concealed carry is not so much an

issue as simple ownership.

That said, you make a valid point for a segment of the urban or city dwelling gun owners. At least half of the times I have been in a gun shop over the last year Obama has come up in a negative manner in someones conversation. I have yet to see a black person or spanish person in a shop.

It is quite amazing.

[slackmaster]

92. I don't carry a firearm for protection, and I think your question is presumptuous and reveals a bias

Your bias.

[JonQ]

95. Funny you should say that

gun control was initially started in this country by rich white folks terrified of the thought of "negros with guns". So the people who favored gun control also favored jim-crow laws. Not company I'd like to keep, but to each their own.

[DainBramaged]

38. The barriers to allowing the crazies unfettered access have survived

[X_Digger]

71. And this law would have change that.. how?

:eyes: :eyes:

[depakid]

108. This legislation would have overturned state laws requiring background checks, training, etc

It was a bad law- and should have gone down to defeat by an even greater margin.

[X_Digger]

109. Do you know of any state that grants a permit..

..without a background check? VT doesn't grant permits at all, so wouldn't apply. AK grants permits for those residents who plan on traveling, and they do a background check in that case. As the two states with the lowest requirements for CHL, I call BS on the background check part. (which refutes brainboy's claim about 'crazies' above.)

Training? Yes, some states require no more training than being handed a pamphlet on state law. Yet even in those states without training (AR for example) there doesn't seem to be a rash of CCW instigated crime.

[Ichingcarpenter]

44. Ted Nugent and the holocaust museum murderer are pissed

State's rights vs gun nuts........... but I guess we have people that support republican sponsored bills

[Recursion]

59. Since DC doesn't allow concealed weapons except for ex-cops...

...this wouldn't have affected the Holocaust Museum shooting.

Come to think of it, the killer there used a long gun, which can't be carried concealed.

[Ichingcarpenter]

68. he tried to conceal the sawed off shotgun in 81... he also crossed state lines....to do it

but we appreciate your position Ted

[JonQ]

96. He also committed murder

which brings in to doubt how much he would have respected any gun-control laws in place.

For instance, not many bankrobbers are prevented from escaping by their refusal to break jaywalking laws.

And yet people think murderers will obey gun laws.

[beevul]

73. Yeah, just like we have people that support REPUBLICAN...

Yeah, just like we have people that support REPUBLICAN founded REPUBLICAN led organizations, like:


THE BRADY BUNCH.


Jim and sara brady:

Republicans when the brady bunch was founded.

Paul Helmke:

REPUBLICAN LEADER of the brady bunch.

[damntexdem]

46. Thank goodness.

Wow, two good votes in a row on measures for the defense spending bill.

[Recursion]

62. All in all, I agree with the amendment, but this was the wrong way to do it

The best answer would be for the states with concealed carry to do this themselves; I'm leery of any federalization of gun rights issues in general beyond a blanked guarantee that the 2nd amendment must be to some extent respected (eg, Heller).

Failing that, let it be a bill in its own right.

[Owl]

70. Good.

[depakid]

84. Not "gun control propenets"

Rational folks.

For a whole lot of reasons.

[Generator]

89. Score one for the less nutfuck wing of America

This along with the birthers being taken seriously on CNN was enough to send me over the edge yesterday.

Reminding my kids, next time let's be born in a real country like one of them European ones-no guns, free health care for ALL and education. You know, a real country.

[Critters2]

91. Exactly. I'm doing my genealogy so I know precisely who to hold

responsible for my being born here, rather than in the sane places my ancestors came from.

[derby378]

102. Uh, Switzerland and the Czech Republic both have guns...

...and, last I heard, they also have free health care and education for all. Go figure.

[joeybee12]

105. And they're not a violent, immature society like we are...

...it's American culture that makes sensible gun control not not only common sense, but guaranteed under the Second Amendment because of all the gun-loving wingnuts.

[Pavulon]

110. Buy a clue..

here are the breaks. If you get shot in the face here is how it happens:
1) You committed suicide. over 50% right there. (lesson fix mental health) You can do that by taking a bottle of tylenol no gun required, just as dead. open casket.
2) Your SO blew your brains out. (not much going to stop that, dont date crazy people. see rule 1)
3) You are a random victim. If you can see a golf course or a body of water from your house, you are safe. If you live in the projects, then you are screwed (poverty, drug culture/war)

It will not be someone like ME who has a CCW who randomly kills you. WHy, because I can see a golf course from my house, I have a good job and give a shit. I have great insurance so if I have a mental problem I can get care.

See how this works.

The term you need is ROOT CAUSE.

[Robeson]

106. I'm so happy to hear this...

...:thumbsup: