House Passes Concealed Weapons Permit Bill

[TPaine7]

House Passes Concealed Weapons Permit Bill
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

text size A A A WASHINGTON November 16, 2011, 05:57 pm ET
WASHINGTON (AP) — A state permit to carry a concealed firearm would be valid in almost every other state in the country under legislation the House passed Wednesday.

The first pro-gun bill the House has taken up this year and the first since Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., was severely injured in a gun attack in January, it had the National Rifle Association's backing and passed by a comfortable margin. The vote was 272-154, with only seven Republicans voting against it and 43 Democrats supporting it.

The Democratic-controlled Senate has no parallel bill. But two years ago, GOP Sens. John Thune of South Dakota and David Vitter of Louisiana nearly succeeded in attaching a similar measure to a larger bill.

Under the House legislation, people with a concealed carry permit in one state could carry a concealed weapon in every other state that gives people the right to carry concealed weapons. While states have various standards for issuing such permits, currently only Illinois and the District of Columbia prohibit the concealed carrying of weapons.

http://www.npr.org/tablet/#story/?storyId=142383169

Good news.

Unlike spying on Americans or lying in court, this is an issue that Obama actually should fold on. Hopefully the Senate passes this and he signs it. I really don't want a president Romney, or worse a President Gingrich.

[baldguy]

1. Obama has kowtowed to the fascist Republicans too much as it is.

You want him to kowtow some more.

[TPaine7]

2. I usually don't mind presidents kowtowing to the Constitution. YMMV

[baldguy]

15. Thank you for posting the standard RW talking point

But you know as well as I do this has nothing the Constitution and EVERYTHING to do with subverting state & local gun control laws, making guns easier for criminals & children to obtain and maintaining the escalation of gun violence in inner cities. Gotta reduce that excess population, doncha know.

[TPaine7]

18. Cluelessness isn't becoming.

Educate yourself. Read about the history of the 14th Amendment. See what the authors thought they were doing (I know, they didn't have the benefit of modern Joyce Foundation and Brady "scholarship", but give them a shot).

Read up on full faith and credit.

Stop spouting silly BS. People can easily read original sources online these days. BS propaganda just won't cut it anymore.

[gejohnston]

19. subverting how?

Wyoming does not accept NY or CA permits at the moment. Wyoming has laxer laws in general. How does it make it easier for criminals or children to participate in inner city shoot outs over market share?

shooting fish in a barrel.

[Union Scribe]

21. I believe you're confusing rights with right wing

Common enough in knee jerk moanings of doom.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Thank you for showing why we are losing more votes on this topic than we should

[Atypical Liberal]

26. Why is it?

...making guns easier for criminals & children to obtain and maintaining the escalation of gun violence in inner cities.

Why is it that people adopt such a paternalistic attitude towards people that live in urban areas? Don't you think people who live in inner cities can handle firearms appropriately?

[ObamaFTW2012]

34. It must be lonely

living in your alternate reality. Nobody is advocating for criminals or children to have easier access to guns. Forcing states to honor each others' pistol permits in the same manner they honor drivers' licenses would have no bearing on "gun violence" in the inner cities, as nearly all of the perpetrators AND victims of violent crimes with guns are prohibited by law from possessing firearms (convicted felons, known drug users, etc).

What it would do is make it lawful for people who are not inclined to commit violent crimes against others to carry firearms for their own defense in places where they are currently prohibited from doing so because they are non-residents. That's it.

[SteveM]

5. So, 43 Democrats have joined the "fascist Republicans?" Nice of you...

to reveal how single-issue you really are.

Incidentally, I agree that Obama has kowtowed too much to the Far Right. I don't believe, however, he is stupid when it comes to the gun-control 360 degree firing squad.

[RSillsbee]

3. Colorado has reciprocity

w/ pretty much anyplace I'd go anyway but this is good

[spin]

4. If this bill actually made it to Obama's desk and he signed it ...

the NRA would have egg all over its face.

[TPaine7]

6. Truer words... n/t

[SteveM]

7. I agree. The "left" ain't gonna start a revolution over gun-control...

because gun-control is neither revolutionary or leftist.

[iverglas]

43. ... because they know perfectly well

what fucking bullies and liars organized gun militants are, and how little chance the public interest and the truth have against bullies and liars these days ...

[rl6214]

44. Yeah, those "fucking bullies and liars" sure do seem to be able

to round up all sorts of support, even though there are only 4 million that belong to the NRA, even though we are told all the time how the majority of US residents really don't want guns and really want stricter gun control.

Fucking bully gun militants :sarcasm:

[iverglas]

46. well, you haven't actually quoted me there, but yes

Bullies and liars do tend to succeed in rounding up support. I thought that was my point.

People vote against their own interests in so many places and so many ways, don't they?

[rl6214]

47. Actually I did quote you there

I just didn't feel like putting ALL the BS you posted.

[iverglas]

49. ah, so you did

I misremembered how I had structured my sentence.

I guess you also didn't feel like responding to what I said.

Organized gun militants are bullies and liars, and every person of integrity who pays any attention knows it.

Too many people don't pay attention ... they think universal healthcare means death panels, and higher taxes for the super-rich means higher taxes for them, and the NRA is on their side.

Darks days.

[rl6214]

50. Actually one would first need to know WTF a "gun militant" is

[iverglas]

57. often you can tell the content of a concept

by considering examples of the things/people it covers.

In this instance, consider the NRA-ILA/PVF. That should help you.

Then there are things like the Buckeye whatever it is and its various local counterparts.

And people who display firearms on their person while attending children's soccer games and other people's religious services, and shopping at the mall, and perhaps say, when asked why they are doing it, that they are "expressing their Second Amendment rights".

I wonder what some here would think if they were on public transit with their young children listening to the person in the seat behind them unleash a tirade of abusive obscene language, or relate the details of their sexual escapades the night before, who, when asked why they were doing it, said they were "expressing their First Amendment rights".

[krispos42]

55. We also know what liars and bullies organize anti-gun militants are, too.

Seen anybody shooting down an airliner with a .50 caliber recently?

[TheCowsCameHome]

8. That wouldn't stop their BS propoganda machine.

They will never be satisfied that he ain't comin' to get yer guns.

[TPaine7]

13. It would take a lot of fuel out of the tank and drain the oil. It would be brilliant politics.

I think the Republicans may be outsmarting themselves.

[jeepnstein]

23. Never stop your opponent from harming himself.

That's one of my first rules of politics. So the Republican House has their base all riled up right now over this relatively simple matter. They'll use it to raise money. If it makes it through the Senate the President should sign it quietly and watch heads explode all over the political landscape. It's really not that big of a deal for normal every day lawful American citizens. Signing it won't cost Obama a single vote. Vetoing it may very well harm him in the Midwest and South. So he should sign it with a big smile and send the pen to Wayne LaPierre in a perfumed envelope.

[Simo 1939_1940]

29. "It would be brilliant politics" +1 -- NT

[gejohnston]

48. I don't know about them but

I'm satisfied that he ain't comin' to get my guns.

[Hoopla Phil]

9. And off the the Senate it goes. Hope it passes there too.

[Maine_Nurse]

10. Happy to say one of our Dem Reps voted for it. Butter, bread--he understands. nt

[onehandle]

11. Goes well with 'bullet hits White House.'

The GOPNRA is always on target. They keep aim on their goals religiously. They like to gun for their objectives. And enjoy hitting the bulls-eye.

[rl6214]

45. Yup, as if this bill had anything at all to do with a nut job with a rifle

You keep on slinging that GOPNRA bullshit.

[Betsy Ross]

12. Jobs? Jobs? Jobs?

It's still guns, G-d, and gays. And women's bodies.

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. Priorities, m'am.

It's all about priorities........

[SteveM]

17. Seems you are more obsessed by this issue than any of us...

Try getting out to an OWS rally, clearing invasives from local parks, contributing to wildlife conservation, arguing against RW shit face-to-face, and not on a keyboard (keeps the bullies at bay, instead of preaching to the choir).

I do these things and have done them for nearly 50 years. And I especially go after the energy-sucking, corrupt, arrogant policies of prohibitionism so that we might see our way clear to the "priorities."

Remember: "Gun-control" came along well after the Beatles had sold tens of millions of albums. It's a trumped-up issue.

[SteveM]

16. You may have just missed the point by a little...

Prohibition gets in the way of more substantial stuff like jobs:

Gin, guns, gays, ganja, abortion and now tobacco: Prohibition doesn't work. But there are folks who keep feverishly steering that sinking ship, hoping that they will make port, Nirvana, or some other fanciful dream.

Best we drop the gun-control "issue" as a party, no?

[DonP]

20. I'm sure you can tie those together for us...

and as soon as oyu explaint to me how a woman's right to choose relates directly to gay marriage, I'll listen to your whining ... about this bill and how it relates to those too.

Or are you just whining ignorantly and generically?

[Betsy Ross]

51. Is there an emoticon for irony?

It was a comment on all the governing the Republicans have done. The Senate killed job bills, the House goes after gun laws. At the state level it's taking away a woman's control of her own body or banning gay marriage; in none of those "winning" states has any serious job's bill passed.

[gejohnston]

52. going after what gun laws?

nothing is being repealed, just forcing Wyoming to accept New York and California CCW permits, just like drivers licenses.

[Betsy Ross]

53. Laws of which guns are the subject.

I chose the phrase "gun laws" because it is ambiguous, at its base not indicating any particular stance.

[jeepnstein]

24. If you knock one leg off of a three legged table, it falls over.

Why not take a shot at your opponents' base? It's an easy issue.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

31. I have no idea what you were trying to say. N/T

[ileus]

22. one small win for human rights...but it'll be slapped down in the senate.

Mr. Obama will never have to worry about backlash from vetoing it.

[DWC]

27. Future History will decide but

my crystal ball says the democratic senators who are up for re-election in 2012 are going to be a lot more concerned about keeping their own jobs than worrying about backlash others may have to face.

I personally think the President will sign it with no problem.

Semper Fi,

[ileus]

37. I hope you're right, but I don't think it'll escape the senate.

If it does pass and Barack signes it, he'll win all 50 states next election....well 49 he may not win Alaska.

[Atypical Liberal]

28. 43 Democrats supported it, 150 did not.

Gun control is a losing issue for Democrats. They need to drop it.

[HockeyMom]

30. IF the Senate passes it,

IF Obama supports it, there will be no "if" that there WILL be States which will challenge it in the courts. You have a long road ahead of you before you can bring your guns into others states with stricter gun control.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

32. You have a longer one...

...if you think the Supreme Court is going to reverse itself and say that states have the authority to disregard rights just because they want to.

[TPaine7]

33. If you read the history of the 14th Amendment and read up on full faith and credit,

you will see why those states should lose.

Of course, courts in anti-rights enclaves have thumbed their noses at the Constitution before. Any traveler eligible to own guns can take a gun through New York, New Jersey, LA, Chicago or even DC under current federal law--they just can't carry it concealed. But the goons in some of those places love trampling on the rights of citizens under cover of law.

They will fold eventually, on travel and on CCW. If it comes down to it, perhaps Congress will use the Florida model--personally charge, fine (or hopefully imprison) thugs with badges who intentionally violate rights under color of law.

Right will triumph over wrongs. But there will be screaming and foot-dragging. It's to be expected.

[HockeyMom]

35. When it "does", you can go to NYC

and ride the subways during rush hour and see how long your gun is "concealed".

[We_Have_A_Problem]

36. It isn't that difficult to conceal a firearm

Or to do so in such a way that it remains secure.

Slipping a 2-3lb pistol out of a concealed retention holster is not like lifting a wallet.

I take it you don't actually know that much about firearms, which would certainly explain your fear. Perhaps if you learned a little bit about them, you would discover there is nothing to be afraid of. Respect? Yes - like any tool. Fear? Nah - that's the reaction of the ignorant.

[Hoopla Phil]

38. Why would it be any more difficult on a NY subway during rush hour than

at any other time or in any other place?

[HockeyMom]

39. You won't have see it

You will be able to FEEL it. I guess you have never been packed like a sardine in a subway car.

[Hoopla Phil]

40. "You won't have see it"???? Could you please try that again in English?

Thank you.

[HockeyMom]

41. concealed

as in cannot see it? hiding it from view? Concealing it from view will mean nothing when it can be felt when you are standing that close to somebody.

A joke comes to mind, but I won't go there. :evilgrin: I guess you have never been on the subways.

[TPaine7]

42. Ah, Mae West

I've been to NYC. I've been packed like a sardine--probably very tightly even for the NY Subway. (We were on our way to Obama's innaguration and the DC subway was verrrrrry tight.)

You can be sure that there are people carrying concealed now, criminals, politicians, judges, detectives, mobsters, FBI agents, undercover Homeland Security, etc. There are ways to do it that might surprise you. Ankle carry springs to mind. There are many other methods.

NY might actually have a LEGITIMATE case to legislate about weapons that are too easily felt in situations like the one you describe--a case that isn't simply a way to try to deny rights.

Thanks for raising an interesting issue!

[Hoopla Phil]

54. Jokes aside (why is it that anti's always want to make jokes about such a serious subject?)

Why would you think that a properly secured concealed firearm would be subject to interpretation (upon bodily contact) of anything other than other legally carried objects (cell phones and wallets come to mind)?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

56. Again - wrong.

All depends how it is carried.

I assure you, many NYPD plainclothes cops carry on the subway, and I'll bet real money, none of them has ever had a firearm taken from them.

Besides, even if someone does feel it, so what? How does that harm anyone? It doesn't, and you know that, but you just want to pretend it is a problem.