RSS Feed
Washington - Senate Defeats Bill To Ease Carrying Guns Between States |
|
| |
Text Size
|
The measure, introduced by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), won votes from 58 senators, two short of the 60 needed for approval.
"Lives have been saved with the defeat of this amendment," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who had threatened to filibuster the legislation. "If this had passed, it would have created havoc for law enforcement and endangered the safety of millions of New Yorkers."
The legislation would have required all states that issue permits to carry concealed firearms to honor such permits issued by other states, regardless of each state's law. New York is one of 10 states that do not honor such permits issued by other states.
The amendment had support from the National Rifle Association, but Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who received high marks from the gun group during her days in Congress, opposed the measure.
"It is simply wrong for the federal government to overrule a state's ability to enact reasonable, constitutional gun laws designed to prevent criminals and other violent and dangerous persons from carrying guns in city streets," she said.
Earlier, a coalition of mayors, including New York City's Michael Bloomberg, is voicing their opposition Wednesday to a federal bill that critics say would undercut state laws that limit carrying concealed handguns.
The proposal to the defense appropriations bill would require states that issue permits to carry concealed firearms to recognize such permits that other states issue, regardless of each state's existing gun law.
The bill would "strip cities and states of the right to set their own permitting requirements for those who wish to carry concealed guns," Bloomberg said Wednesday at a news briefing at City Hall.
More of today's headlines
“New York - New York's attorney general is suing 35 law firms over what he says were botched attempts to collect debts from thousands of people. The lawsuit seeks to...”
New York - AG Cuomo Sues 35 Law Firms Over Debt Collection Mess
New York - Long Island Man Charged in Attack on U.S. Base in Afghanistan
Total20
Read Comments (20) — Post Yours »
1
Jul 22, 2009 at 01:23 PM yosse nathan Says:
based on this not passing , what is to stop states from saying as follows , out of state drivers can't drive in a different state. this concept is totally wrong. if a person has permit to carry a concealed weapon in one state it should be good for all states.
2
Jul 22, 2009 at 01:20 PM NYCESQ Says:
Now we are all "sitting ducks".
3
Jul 22, 2009 at 01:30 PM Charlie Hall Says:
A victory for states' rights.
4
Jul 22, 2009 at 01:52 PM Joshua Says:
“ A victory for states' rights. ”
This is not a state's rights issue in that it does not assert state's rights over federal rights.
In fact, this is quite the opposite, this is a violation of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. The federal government is asserting its authority over the state's rights by allowing this to occur.
What a shame.
5
Jul 22, 2009 at 01:51 PM Anonymous Says:
“ based on this not passing , what is to stop states from saying as follows , out of state drivers can't drive in a different state. this concept is totally wrong. if a person has permit to carry a concealed weapon in one state it should be good for all states. ”
Fortunately for you, there is no law against the criminally insane driving across state lines since otherwise you would be severely restricted. If NYS wants to limit guns as much as they possibley can under the Second amendment, why should some jerk from Tennesse be allowed to pack in BP or WB.
6
Jul 22, 2009 at 01:48 PM Anonymous Says:
This garbage of needing sixty votes in the Senate (as opposed to a simple majoruty, namely 51), under the threat of a filibuster... really has got to stop. Or at least, if someone makes the filibuster threat, as Senator (we still love Chuck despite this) Schumer seems to have done here, let's take off the polite gloves.
I want to see _real_ filibusters, in the old Jimmy Stewart style. Not this diminished pretend nonsense.
7
Jul 22, 2009 at 01:45 PM Anonymous Says:
The defeat of this measure will assure that criminals dont carry their weapons from on state to another. Genius
8
Jul 22, 2009 at 02:13 PM SimchaB Says:
"It is simply wrong for the federal government to overrule a state's ability to enact reasonable, constitutional gun laws designed to prevent criminals and other violent and dangerous persons from carrying guns in city streets," she said."
What is the brilliant senator insinuating, that other states are issuing gun permits to criminals!?
9
Jul 22, 2009 at 02:59 PM yosse nathan Says:
“ Fortunately for you, there is no law against the criminally insane driving across state lines since otherwise you would be severely restricted. If NYS wants to limit guns as much as they possibley can under the Second amendment, why should some jerk from Tennesse be allowed to pack in BP or WB. ”
saying that someone is insane for posting there opinion on a matter does show your iq leval . a normal person would understand what i was saying as follows . people kill people not guns. guns are just the tool that is being used to do the killing. the same thing would be by a car. it is the drunk driver that does the damage
10
Jul 22, 2009 at 02:35 PM David Says:
Too bad the Senate missed the opportunity to further protect our 2d Amendment rights. Lots of people live close to state borders and even commute between states. No reason that their basic constitutional rights should change during their morning commute.
11
Jul 22, 2009 at 04:49 PM Toras Moshe Emess Says:
“ Fortunately for you, there is no law against the criminally insane driving across state lines since otherwise you would be severely restricted. If NYS wants to limit guns as much as they possibley can under the Second amendment, why should some jerk from Tennesse be allowed to pack in BP or WB. ”
Fortunately, the criminally insane are usually kept safely away in mental hospitals and don't HAVE drivers licenses in the first place. Unfortunately for YOU, the FACT is that this amendment was about people with LICENSES carrying firearms. States that issue such licenses do NOT issue them to criminals or insane people. Here in Florida, for example, if you have EVER been convicted of a felony, misdemeanor domestic violence, or been adjudicated mentally incompetent you can NOT get a license. And, trust me, they don't just take your word for it. They do a full and exhaustive background check that resullts in a 2-3 month wait for you to get licensed.
Criminals who intend to carry guns are going to do so REGARDLESS of what the law says. Remember... they are CRIMINALS. Do you really think they're going to say to themselves "I'm going to rape, rob and murder but, oh boy, I better not cross state lines carrying a concealed weapon! That would be really really bad"???
The FACT is that EVERY study EVER done has shown that increased legal gun ownership (including concealed carry) results in LESS crime, not more. Even the CDC, hardly a "gun rights" advocacy group. Over 20 peer reviewed studies (with none contradicting) have found that legal gun ownership PREVENTS c. 2.5 million crimes a year!! Surely Chuckie Cheese Shumer knows this, yet he opposes gun rights. Dianne Feinstien, who also voted against this and is one of the biggest gun control advocates in the Senate HAS A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT HERSELF!!! (but doesn't think you should be allowed... figure that one out)
If, demonstrably, gun control doesn't make for less crime then their motives must lie elsewhere. I have my thoughts but I'll let others decide for themselves.
As for your comment about "some jerk from Tennesse," what if that "jerk" is a frum yid? Or, better yet, what if it's "some jerk" from Florida... like me?
12
Jul 22, 2009 at 04:26 PM Anonymous Says:
“ saying that someone is insane for posting there opinion on a matter does show your iq leval . a normal person would understand what i was saying as follows . people kill people not guns. guns are just the tool that is being used to do the killing. the same thing would be by a car. it is the drunk driver that does the damage ”
You sound like a broken answering machine for the NRA ("people kill people not guns" etc.). Given that many states have such lax standards that they would probably issue you a gun license, its clear why we don;'t want people like you crossing state lines carrying such a weapon.
13
Jul 22, 2009 at 06:07 PM Toras Moshe Emess Says:
“ You sound like a broken answering machine for the NRA ("people kill people not guns" etc.). Given that many states have such lax standards that they would probably issue you a gun license, its clear why we don;'t want people like you crossing state lines carrying such a weapon. ”
And your comment was the standard polemic of the anti-gun left. Could you please show me precisely which state has specifically what laxed standards on issuing concealed carry permits (as opposed to liberal New York whose only standard appears to be which politicians you're connected with)?
But again, like most anti-gun types, your rhetorical flourish avoids the reality. If, c"v, yosse nathan (or anyone else) wanted to cross state lines to commit mayhem, do you really think this (or any law) would stop them? Does New York's restrictive gun laws stop criminals from committing mayhem on the streets every day? Did Washington DC's total BAN on hand gun ownership prevent the criminals from carrying guns?
See my above post. The evidence is overwhelming and conclusive: guns in the hands of honest citizens REDUCE crime. Restricting their rights INCREASES crime. Either you are unaware of these facts or you refuse to acknowledge the, which means, like with most anti-gun types, you have another agenda.
14
Jul 22, 2009 at 06:56 PM SimchaB Says:
"It is simply wrong for the federal government to overrule a state's ability to enact reasonable, constitutional gun laws designed to prevent criminals and other violent and dangerous persons from carrying guns in city streets," she said."
What is the brilliant senator insinuating, that other states are issuing gun permits to criminals!?
15
Jul 22, 2009 at 07:42 PM Anonymous Says:
“ "It is simply wrong for the federal government to overrule a state's ability to enact reasonable, constitutional gun laws designed to prevent criminals and other violent and dangerous persons from carrying guns in city streets," she said."
What is the brilliant senator insinuating, that other states are issuing gun permits to criminals!? ”
Yes...almost half the states do not have a "gun check" law that assures that mentally disturbed people don't get a license. Between the gun show exemptions and the unrealistic time limits and data base limitations for federal background checks, there are thousands of documented cases of mentally distubed people legally getting guns.
16
Jul 22, 2009 at 08:26 PM Toras Moshe Emess Says:
“ Yes...almost half the states do not have a "gun check" law that assures that mentally disturbed people don't get a license. Between the gun show exemptions and the unrealistic time limits and data base limitations for federal background checks, there are thousands of documented cases of mentally distubed people legally getting guns. ”
Once again, a poster relies on left wing polemic.
Many states don't have a gun check law because it would be REDUNDANT. It already exists as FEDERAL law. Gun dealers are FEDERALLY licensed and ALL OF THEM, regardless of state, must comply with this compulsory backround check, through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or NICS.
Yes, mentally disturbed people are sometimes able to legally acquire guns because the STATES refuse to report their status to the NICS out of privacy concerns, as was the case with the Va Tech shooter. Where the states DO report, the NICS background check succeeds in preventing them from buying a gun.
The "gun show loophole" is a red herring since it only applies to a private seller. If you had ever actually been to a gun show, you would quickly discover that all of the sellers are licensed gun dealers. Private sellers either sell to friends or by advertizing in the paper.
But your entire argument is a red herring. Most states do not require ANY kind of permit to OWN a gun. What is at issue here is CARRYING a firearm concealed on your person. EVERY state that issues such permits requires an EXTENSIVE background check, which can take weeks, sometimes months.
The exception is Vermont, which allows anyone (state resident or not) who is legally allowed to own a firearm to carry concealed without ANY kind of permit or further criminal background check. Curiously, Vermont has the second lowest gun homicide rate in the country.
17
Jul 23, 2009 at 02:23 AM Milhouse Says:
So much for Gillibrand. She can say goodbye to that NRA endorsement next time. NY's gun laws are UNreasonable and UNconstitutional, and if she doesn't understand that then she should never have got the NRA backing in the first place.
18
Jul 23, 2009 at 01:27 AM Anonymous Says:
“ The defeat of this measure will assure that criminals dont carry their weapons from on state to another. Genius ”
Criminals do whatever they want regardless of the law. This measure will assure that law abiding citizens, who have passed a background check in there home state, including a FBI check, will NOT be allowed to carry, so they can be at the mercy of criminals that do carry regardless of any laws......GENIUS"
19
Jul 23, 2009 at 02:11 PM Anonymous Says:
The fact of the matter is NY City which has the toughest conceled weapons laws along with Illinois, has the highest rate or murder and armed robbery in the country. A study in Australia which instituted a strick conceled weapons policy has shown an increase in crimes against persons since the change in the law. It is a proven fact the limitation of honest law abiding citizens to carry weapons does not prevent criminals from aquiring weapons in this country or any other. In those states where citizens are allowed to carry conceled weapons armed robbery and violet crimes rates are lower, because a criminal will think twice before committing a crime. There have been several instances here in South FLorida were honest citizens being held turned the tables on the robber and some cases saved the Florida taxpapers the great expense of a prolonged trial and incarceration..
20
Jul 23, 2009 at 03:55 PM Toras Moshe Emess Says:
“ The fact of the matter is NY City which has the toughest conceled weapons laws along with Illinois, has the highest rate or murder and armed robbery in the country. A study in Australia which instituted a strick conceled weapons policy has shown an increase in crimes against persons since the change in the law. It is a proven fact the limitation of honest law abiding citizens to carry weapons does not prevent criminals from aquiring weapons in this country or any other. In those states where citizens are allowed to carry conceled weapons armed robbery and violet crimes rates are lower, because a criminal will think twice before committing a crime. There have been several instances here in South FLorida were honest citizens being held turned the tables on the robber and some cases saved the Florida taxpapers the great expense of a prolonged trial and incarceration.. ”
Absolutely right. One minor correction: Australia instituted strict gun OWNERSHIP laws that make it almost impossible for a law abiding citizen to even POSSESS a handgun, much less carry one. The result was steady spike in crime against persons. Britain did the same thing a few years ago and crime rates have skyrocketed. The result: Britain now has one of the highest crime rates in the world.
By the way: I am one of those honest citizens you refer to. I have a concealed weapons permit and in defensive use of that firearm, have foiled two potentially violent crimes. I didn't have to fire the weapon either: in one case, I had to draw and aim at the perpetrator; in the other all I had to do was "display" it. That was, as is the case of 95% of defensive gun uses, sufficient to defuse the situation.
This is what I don't get about the anti-gun types: would they have preferred that I had been robbed, beaten, stabbed... whatever... rather than stopping the crime before it happened (like 2.5 million other honest citizens do every year)? Please don't give me the "well, we just want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals" line. It is ALREADY illegal for criminals to own/carry a gun, yet somehow they manage to get them. Trust me, criminals aren't lining up to buy guns at "Bubba's Gun Emporium." They buy them from other criminals. Laws that further restrict gun ownership/carrying only serve to infringe on the right and ability of honest citizens to protect themselves from the animals that run amok on our streets.
And Please don't feed me the line "Well, if we made all handguns illegal everywhere in the country, then criminals wouldn't be able to get them." Really??? That argument is naive and disingenuous. Crack cocaine is illegal everywhere in this country at yet, somehow, you can buy it with relative ease in just about every town and every community coast to coast. Remember prohibition? That worked realy well. Fully automatic weapons are EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to own legally and yet, somehow, criminals manage to get them. Making something illegal doesn't make it go away: it just makes it go underground.