IMPORTANT: Call or email your US Senator today about a new CCW bill

[Jer]

I'm a n00b and did a search but I can't believe this isn't being discussed here already. I think this is a GREAT idea and is something that should have been done years ago. Seems every conversation I have with someone regarding CCW permits comes back to this point: If you have a CCW from one state it should be recognized by every other state that allows permits.

The U.S. Senate is now considering the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390). As a part of the consideration of that legislation, Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) will offer an amendment on Monday to provide for interstate recognition of Right-to-Carry permits. There is a very high likelihood of a Senate floor vote on this important and timely pro-gun reform on Monday or Tuesday.

While the right to possess firearms for self-defense within the home has long been respected under the law, for most of our nation's history, state and local governments have prohibited ordinary citizens from possessing firearms for self-defense in many settings outside the home. Recently, however, most state legislatures have taken steps to reduce those restrictions. In the last twenty years, the number of states that respect the right to carry has risen from 10 to 40 -- an all-time high.

Here's a link to the official info as well as a link at the bottom to email.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5061

So, if you currently have your permit, are thinking about getting one or just support the 2nd amendment please forward this to those you know who will also help support.

Thanks!

[Graves]

You do realize that this gives the Fed the ability to regulate concealed carry right? It would be foolish to think of that as a good thing.

[Jer]

You do realize that this gives the Fed the ability to regulate concealed carry right? It would be foolish to think of that as a good thing.

I disagree as do most CCW holders and the NRA. Not sure why the NRA would want to risk losing any gun rights but who am I?

[Batteriesnare]

If you have a CCW from one state it should be recognized by every other state that allows permits.


Doesn't this happen already?

[hurley842002]

Doesn't this happen already?

Only certain states will recognize permits from a given state. I believe 26 other states recognize Colorado Permits (including 2 that don't require permits at all)

[Jer]

Doesn't this happen already?

You would think but alas, no. I have a resident permit for CO which is good in 28 states and then I have a non-resident Florida permit (using the exact same credentials) that I used to get the Colorado permit. It's recognized in a few more states including Nevada since my wife and I frequently travel to Las Vegas. It seems silly that if I'm already properly trained and qualified in another state that I shouldn't be able to have that permit recognized in EVERY state that allows this sort of permit to exist. I don't need a driver's license for each state and am allowed to drive through them just fine and I don't have to do anything other than have a pulse and be 16yrs old to get that permit. I had to go through a class, a lengthy background check along with submitting my fingerprints as well as personal approval from my publicly elected Sheriff so why shouldn't this be recognized in other states that allow it?

[Batteriesnare]

Only certain states will recognize permits from a given state. I believe 26 other states recognize Colorado Permits (including 2 that don't require permits at all)

Ah, my mistake, thanks for the correction![Beer]

[DeadElephant]

Link to the actual amendment

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=111&amdt=s1618

(S. 1390 National Defense Authorization Act) S.Amdt. 1618: To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow...To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.

Having read the amend I don't see where this allows the federal government to regulate concealed carry (ie Graves). All state laws still apply.

Comments and opinions are always interesting but it you may want to read the actual amend first.

[Jer]

Looks like it was rejected. I wish people would put half as much effort into fighting for gun rights as they do bitching about them being taken away.

[DeadElephant]

I haven't seen the actual vote posted yet but many of the anti-gun sites are claiming victory.
The amend was scheduled to be voted on at 12:00 today.

[Jer]

I haven't seen the actual vote posted yet but many of the anti-gun sites are claiming victory.
The amend was scheduled to be voted on at 12:00 today.

Good call. The vote details were just posted here (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00237) and it claims that it's rejected on the main page but in the details it's clear that it had 3/5 majority. The main page says rejected but if my math is correct 69% yea is more than 60% required.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot??

[DeadElephant]

Failed

Yea 58
Nay 39
Not Voting 3

Needed 60 yea to pass. It is interesting to see how the States voted. Both CO Senators voted Yea.

Jer - good link
Alabama:Sessions (R-AL), YeaShelby (R-AL), YeaAlaska:Begich (D-AK), YeaMurkowski (R-AK), YeaArizona:Kyl (R-AZ), YeaMcCain (R-AZ), YeaArkansas:Lincoln (D-AR), YeaPryor (D-AR), YeaCalifornia:Boxer (D-CA), NayFeinstein (D-CA), NayColorado:Bennet (D-CO), YeaUdall (D-CO), YeaConnecticut:Dodd (D-CT), NayLieberman (ID-CT), NayDelaware:Carper (D-DE), NayKaufman (D-DE), NayFlorida:Martinez (R-FL), YeaNelson (D-FL), NayGeorgia:Chambliss (R-GA), YeaIsakson (R-GA), YeaHawaii:Akaka (D-HI), NayInouye (D-HI), NayIdaho:Crapo (R-ID), YeaRisch (R-ID), YeaIllinois:Burris (D-IL), NayDurbin (D-IL), NayIndiana:Bayh (D-IN), YeaLugar (R-IN), NayIowa:Grassley (R-IA), YeaHarkin (D-IA), NayKansas:Brownback (R-KS), YeaRoberts (R-KS), YeaKentucky:Bunning (R-KY), YeaMcConnell (R-KY), YeaLouisiana:Landrieu (D-LA), YeaVitter (R-LA), YeaMaine:Collins (R-ME), YeaSnowe (R-ME), YeaMaryland:Cardin (D-MD), NayMikulski (D-MD), Not VotingMassachusetts:Kennedy (D-MA), Not VotingKerry (D-MA), NayMichigan:Levin (D-MI), NayStabenow (D-MI), NayMinnesota:Franken (D-MN), NayKlobuchar (D-MN), NayMississippi:Cochran (R-MS), YeaWicker (R-MS), YeaMissouri:Bond (R-MO), YeaMcCaskill (D-MO), NayMontana:Baucus (D-MT), YeaTester (D-MT), YeaNebraska:Johanns (R-NE), YeaNelson (D-NE), YeaNevada:Ensign (R-NV), YeaReid (D-NV), YeaNew Hampshire:Gregg (R-NH), YeaShaheen (D-NH), NayNew Jersey:Lautenberg (D-NJ), NayMenendez (D-NJ), NayNew Mexico:Bingaman (D-NM), NayUdall (D-NM), YeaNew York:Gillibrand (D-NY), NaySchumer (D-NY), NayNorth Carolina:Burr (R-NC), YeaHagan (D-NC), YeaNorth Dakota:Conrad (D-ND), YeaDorgan (D-ND), YeaOhio:Brown (D-OH), NayVoinovich (R-OH), NayOklahoma:Coburn (R-OK), YeaInhofe (R-OK), YeaOregon:Merkley (D-OR), NayWyden (D-OR), NayPennsylvania:Casey (D-PA), YeaSpecter (D-PA), NayRhode Island:Reed (D-RI), NayWhitehouse (D-RI), NaySouth Carolina:DeMint (R-SC), YeaGraham (R-SC), YeaSouth Dakota:Johnson (D-SD), YeaThune (R-SD), YeaTennessee:Alexander (R-TN), YeaCorker (R-TN), YeaTexas:Cornyn (R-TX), YeaHutchison (R-TX), YeaUtah:Bennett (R-UT), YeaHatch (R-UT), YeaVermont:Leahy (D-VT), NaySanders (I-VT), NayVirginia:Warner (D-VA), YeaWebb (D-VA), YeaWashington:Cantwell (D-WA), NayMurray (D-WA), NayWest Virginia:Byrd (D-WV), Not VotingRockefeller (D-WV), NayWisconsin:Feingold (D-WI), YeaKohl (D-WI), NayWyoming:Barrasso (R-WY), YeaEnzi (R-WY), Yea

[Jer]

[Bang] [Rant1] [M2] [Mad]

[SA Friday]

This type of legislation is going to be an uphill battle until you get some of the higher populated states to change their stance on firearm laws. I have personally lived in a few of them over the last 10 years and I doubt this will change in the next 20 years or so at least. NY, MA, MD, NJ, CA, and HI have the votes to stop a bill like this. Throw in to the mix NE and KA are both very very restrictive on this issue and have only had CCW laws on the books for about 12 months now, and you have bill death.

If you want more reciprosity between other states and your CO CCW, find out why states with CCW have no reciprosity with CO CCW holders. I would imagine it has a lot to do with what training is required to receive a CO CCW in comparison with the other state's requirements and visa versa. The other portion of reciprosity is CO has to request reciprosity for their CCW holders and have a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with them allowing the other states CCWs to be valid in CO. This takes govt time and manpower to get accomplished. It also requires that both states validate the other states training reqirements and background checks to allow the CCW.

Example; state 'x' doesn't require any proof of handgun training to approve a CCW in their state. CO requires NRA basic pistol course or higher. CO wouldn't approve state x's CCW holders because it doesn't meet the CO minimium standard of training. State 'x' in return denies approval of an MOU with CO and disallows CO CCW's in their state...

You want better reciprosity, an across the USA CCW, as your representative to try to standardize CCW training requirements for all CCW's. Then there's minimal Fed impact to CCWs, but much easier across the board approvals for reciprosity.

Just don't hold your breath for many areas of the USA to ever have CCW's: Chicago, CA, MA, MD, NJ, NY, and HI. Even though some of these states have CCW's, the way the bills are written are so F'ed up it's impossible to get one or legally dangerous. HI has a CCW law. They have ONE that's been approved. Yep, just one. CA is written so every Sheriff has county approval. You cross county line carrying, and you are running the risk the next sheriff won't allow it. You go to jail...

[Jer]

This type of legislation is going to be an uphill battle until you get some of the higher populated states to change their stance on firearm laws. I have personally lived in a few of them over the last 10 years and I doubt this will change in the next 20 years or so at least. NY, MA, MD, NJ, CA, and HI have the votes to stop a bill like this. Throw in to the mix NE and KA are both very very restrictive on this issue and have only had CCW laws on the books for about 12 months now, and you have bill death.

If you want more reciprosity between other states and your CO CCW, find out why states with CCW have no reciprosity with CO CCW holders. I would imagine it has a lot to do with what training is required to receive a CO CCW in comparison with the other state's requirements and visa versa. The other portion of reciprosity is CO has to request reciprosity for their CCW holders and have a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with them allowing the other states CCWs to be valid in CO. This takes govt time and manpower to get accomplished. It also requires that both states validate the other states training reqirements and background checks to allow the CCW.

Example; state 'x' doesn't require any proof of handgun training to approve a CCW in their state. CO requires NRA basic pistol course or higher. CO wouldn't approve state x's CCW holders because it doesn't meet the CO minimium standard of training. State 'x' in return denies approval of an MOU with CO and disallows CO CCW's in their state...

You want better reciprosity, an across the USA CCW, as your representative to try to standardize CCW training requirements for all CCW's. Then there's minimal Fed impact to CCWs, but much easier across the board approvals for reciprosity.

Just don't hold your breath for many areas of the USA to ever have CCW's: Chicago, CA, MA, MD, NJ, NY, and HI. Even though some of these states have CCW's, the way the bills are written are so F'ed up it's impossible to get one or legally dangerous. HI has a CCW law. They have ONE that's been approved. Yep, just one. CA is written so every Sheriff has county approval. You cross county line carrying, and you are running the risk the next sheriff won't allow it. You go to jail...

Both senators from NE and both senators from KA voted yea. Granted it would still have to get singed if it passed the house but two votes is REAL close to getting senate approval. REAL close.

[DeadElephant]

I was actually surprised by the NE vote.

[XJ]

What's with our Senators, is it possible they aren't complete party drones?

Maybe they each get a thank-you note, for this

[Bowtie]

SA Friday
"You want better reciprosity, an across the USA CCW, as your representative to try to standardize CCW training requirements for all CCW's. Then there's minimal Fed impact to CCWs, but much easier across the board approvals for reciprosity."

I think this is the right answer. We need to keep the federal goverment out of states rights issues.

[GunTroll]

I love the flip side argument that butt pirate marriages should be valid in every state but gun rights shouldn't and be put up to the state to decide. Don't get me wrong I want state rights/laws to supersede fed laws but the irony is funny. And correct me if I'm wrong but guns made it into the Bill of Rights not HOMO marriages???!

[SA Friday]

Both senators from NE and both senators from KA voted yea. Granted it would still have to get singed if it passed the house but two votes is REAL close to getting senate approval. REAL close.
Ya, I was really suprised by this. Remember though, if it would have made it out of the Senate, it would have been voted on in the House. Now there's where you would have seen the insanity occur. The amount of House reps is based on residence. Lots of reps for the anti's.

[Jer]

Ya, I was really suprised by this. Remember though, if it would have made it out of the Senate, it would have been voted on in the House. Now there's where you would have seen the insanity occur. The amount of House reps is based on residence. Lots of reps for the anti's.

I realize that but one victory at a time. We can't lose the house if he lose the senate.

[robsterclaw]

I agree. I was very surprised by both Udall and Salazar voting yea. I think they either are smarter then I thought and realized that even though the dems got a lot of wins last election, it was anti Bush agenda pushing that got them in. And if they want to stay in, they better conservative up real quick. Or they might actually believe Americans do have the right to defend themselves. Either way, I am surprised and both will get an email from me with a thank you.

[Jer]

Great point. Everyone be sure to follow up with your senators. Be sure to thank them for their vote if they voted for since this will come up again and we want to reaffirm that they made the right vote this time so they do it again next time. If they voted against make sure you do everything in their power to sway their judgment while it's still fresh so the next time it rolls around we can get those two more votes that we need. The more the better though 'cause while two more gets it to the house a landslide would help the cause even more once in the house where things are going to be VERY difficult since it's based on population and the heavily populated states are anti.

[Jer]

Before you send any letters thanking senators you better read this: [Rant1] [AR15]



Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072203282.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)

Quote:
Gun-Shy

By Dana Milbank
Thursday, July 23, 2009

[B]How do you outgun the NRA? Very, very carefully.

Mark Pryor knows all about that. The Democratic senator from pro-gun Arkansas was nowhere to be seen on the Senate floor during Wednesday's showdown over a proposal, championed by the National Rifle Association, that would have gutted state gun-control laws across the nation.

After a morning of angry speeches, a vote was called at high noon. Toward the end of the vote, Pryor entered the chamber through the back door, took a few steps inside, flashed a thumbs-down to the clerk, and retreated as fast and furtively as somebody dodging gunfire.

Several minutes later, the Democrats had racked up more than enough votes to block the proposal. "Are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote?" the presiding officer inquired.

Pryor burst back in, this time through a side door. "Mr. President!" he called out. "Mr. President!" He stopped in the well to consult with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a gun-control advocate who was keeping the whip sheet. Schumer gave Pryor a nod, and the Arkansan -- reassured that his vote was not needed to defeat the proposal -- changed his vote to an "aye."

If Pryor wasn't exactly a profile in courage, keep in mind: The gun lobby has a lot of money and a lot of clout, not to mention a lot of guns. And it doesn't mind firing off a few rounds to keep lawmakers in line.

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) served this function during the debate when he reminded his colleagues that the NRA would factor this vote into its ratings. "The National Rifle Association, the NRA, is a strong supporter of this amendment," he warned, and it's also "specifically scoring this amendment in terms of member votes."

Looking down the barrel of that gun, 20 of the 60 Democrats in the chamber defected to the NRA's side. Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a gun-loving lawmaker whose aide was charged in 2007 with trying to carry a loaded pistol and extra ammunition into a Senate office building, even spoke on the floor about how his Democratic colleagues were spreading "misinformation."

A couple of seats away, Sen.Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), a gun-control supporter, raised his eyebrows and shook his head.

Only two Republicans went against the gun lobby, but that was enough to leave supporters just short of the 60 votes they needed. The slim margin was no accident: Other Democrats, such as Pennsylvania's Bob Casey and Colorado's Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, were said to have been willing to vote "no" if necessary. Twenty minutes after the voting began, Bennet and Udall left the cloakroom together and walked into the chamber. Bennet went to the well to consult with Schumer, who indicated that it was safe for Bennet -- a product of D.C.'s St. Albans School -- to vote with the NRA. Bennet looked to Udall, who gave an approving nod, and cast his "aye" vote.

Schumer found himself in the unusual position of opposing many of the moderate Democrats he helped bring to office as the head of Senate Democrats' campaign efforts, including Webb, Casey, Jon Tester (Mont.) and Mark Warner (Va.). "Senator," a reporter noted to Schumer at a post-vote news conference, "you were staring down some of the folks you were losing on the floor."

"No. I wasn't at all," Schumer replied. "There was no staring down at all -- none."

Lautenberg tried to defend his colleague. "He was, I thought, mellow, very specific, and not at all threatening or suggesting punishment," he offered.

Either way, it had been clear that Democrats needed some more discipline on gun-control measures. They had already lost votes earlier this year on proposals to allow the carrying of concealed firearms in national parks and to repeal most of the District's gun controls.

The D.C. measure passed with 62 votes. But this time, two Democrats, Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Arlen Specter (Pa.), were persuaded to switch sides -- and they weren't the only lawmakers caught in the crossfire between the NRA and gun-control forces.

Earlier this week, Lautenberg told reporters that Harry Reid (Nev.), the Democratic leader, would vote against the proposal. But Reid testily refuted Lautenberg. "I'm not going to explain why I'm voting for it," he explained. "I'm just voting for it."

Reid stayed out of view Wednesday while the true believers on both sides abandoned their usual positions

Urban liberals, who typically champion federal authority, lined up to proclaim their fealty to states' rights. "Leave us alone! Leave us alone!" demanded Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). Her California colleague, Dianne Feinstein (D), even displayed an enlarged photo of the flag-draped caskets of police officers who have been killed.

Southerners, who historically promote states' rights, demanded that the federal government overrule the states on gun laws. John Thune (R-S.D.), who sponsored the measure, said that he was merely trying to "clarify this patchwork" of state laws, and he accused the Democrats of "wild exaggerations" and "scare tactics."

For once, the gun-control crowd won a shootout with the NRA. But nobody was talking about disarmament. "We know the gun lobby is strong," Schumer said after the vote. "We know they will be back."

[sweetm1]

Colorado already recognizes the concealed carry permits from a majority of states, and generally grants reciprocity to states that recognize the permits of Colorado gun owners. Any concealed carry permit holder from another state must follow our criminal statutes, and that would have remained the law if the Thune amendment had passed.

This is pretty important to note. Although we'd all like to see gun rights laws in our favor, we should not bulldoze state's rights in the process.

Legally, the real problem is that states are permitted to ban carrying firearms in the first place. It seems pretty incompatible with "shall not be infringed" to me.