• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate kills gun amendment

S

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Senate kills gun amendment

In an unexpected defeat for the gun lobby, the Senate on Wednesday voted narrowly to kill an amendment that would have allowed gun owners to carry concealed firearms across state lines so long as they have valid permits or permission from their state of residence to do so.

Backers of the amendment, sponsored by Sen. John Thune, South Dakota Republican, received 58 votes -- two short of the 60 needed to overcome a minority filibuster and add the measure to a defense authorization bill now on the Senate floor. Thirty-nine senators voted against the amendment.

The loss came despite support from a number of pro-gun-rights Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. The National Rifle Association also had said it would score the vote in its ranking of lawmakers on gun-rights issues.

Guns have proved a tricky political issue for the Democratic majorities in Congress as leaders in both the House and the Senate have sought to avoid votes on pro-gun measures for fear they would pass with the help of conservative Democrats from Western and Southern states.

Earlier this year, Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, attached an amendment to allow people to carry guns in some national parks to a credit-card consumer-protection bill. A Senate amendment that would eliminate most of the District's gun laws all but killed a voting rights bill for the city as leaders in the House would rather delay the bill than risk passage of the gun provision.

Mr. Thune's amendment would allow individuals to carry concealed firearms across state lines so long as they obtain valid permits or are legally allowed by their state of residence to do so. He said that, after entering another state, an individual carrying a firearm must follow respect that state's laws.

...
Click to expand...

Well, there's several issues on display here.

IMO, the most egregious issue is the practice of piggy-backing a gun-related amendment onto a defense authorization bill. That practice should stop, and all parties are guilty of it.

The second issue is I don't see where Congress has the authority to regulate the non-commercial transport of firearms throughout the country. It's not covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause, and national defense isn't interstate commerce, anyway.

And lastly, the Constitution requires that each state give full faith and credit to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
(Art IV - Sect 1)

The issuance of a concealed weapons permit is no less and no more a matter of public act and records as the issuance of a driver's license, and should be treated in the same manner, thereby making this amendment unnecessary.
 
People with CHLs cross state lines at a rate of about 100,000 times per minute in this country.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Well, there's several issues on display here.

IMO, the most egregious issue is the practice of piggy-backing a gun-related amendment onto a defense authorization bill. That practice should stop, and all parties are guilty of it.

The second issue is I don't see where Congress has the authority to regulate the non-commercial transport of firearms throughout the country. It's not covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause, and national defense isn't interstate commerce, anyway.

And lastly, the Constitution requires that each state give full faith and credit to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
(Art IV - Sect 1)

The issuance of a concealed weapons permit is no less and no more a matter of public act and records as the issuance of a driver's license, and should be treated in the same manner, thereby making this amendment unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Repeat after me......

Gun control = Unconstitutional.
 
danarhea said:
Repeat after me......

Gun control = Unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Yep. The good thing is, if someone tries to take your guns from you, you can shoot them.

That's why socialists don't like them. Has nothing to do with crime or safety.
 
Despite not liking the method (amendment), I was hoping this would pass...it is WAY past due.

Anyway, I have two carry permits and they give me about 32 states I can carry in. If I wanted to add a third (nonresident) that would give me a handful more. Not bad, but as was said, all states should give full faith and credit just like DLs.
 
This is probably one of those few instances where I wouldn't mind something being piggy backed onto a unrelated bill.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
And lastly, the Constitution requires that each state give full faith and credit to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
(Art IV - Sect 1)

The issuance of a concealed weapons permit is no less and no more a matter of public act and records as the issuance of a driver's license, and should be treated in the same manner, thereby making this amendment unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Would be nice if states followed this practice consistently, but they don't. There's no full faith and credit for gay marriage, so there's little incentive for them to apply it to concealed carry.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Would be nice if states followed this practice consistently, but they don't. There's no full faith and credit for gay marriage, so there's little incentive for them to apply it to concealed carry.
Click to expand...


Considering that the right to "keep and bear arms" is specifically enumerated in the Constitution, I think it is far more of a slam dunk.
 
Goshin said:
Considering that the right to "keep and bear arms" is specifically enumerated in the Constitution, I think it is far more of a slam dunk.
Click to expand...

Unenumerated rights are just as valid as enumerated rights.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Well, there's several issues on display here.

IMO, the most egregious issue is the practice of piggy-backing a gun-related amendment onto a defense authorization bill. That practice should stop, and all parties are guilty of it.

The second issue is I don't see where Congress has the authority to regulate the non-commercial transport of firearms throughout the country. It's not covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause, and national defense isn't interstate commerce, anyway.

And lastly, the Constitution requires that each state give full faith and credit to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
(Art IV - Sect 1)

The issuance of a concealed weapons permit is no less and no more a matter of public act and records as the issuance of a driver's license, and should be treated in the same manner, thereby making this amendment unnecessary.
Click to expand...




These are all excellent points, Damn. I have a UTAH CCW... Damn..... I live in Jersey.... Damn.... :lol:


Damn......


And Danny's point is right on as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom