Harry Reid Approves Floor Vote on CCW Reciprocity

[TPaine7]

Reid says the bill deserves a hearing and reflects his commitment to supporting gun rights ....

...

“This has nothing to do with electoral politics,” said Reid spokesman Jim Manley, who emphasized that the amendment has the support of many other Democrats besides Reid.

Two previous NRA-backed measures, one loosening D.C. handgun restrictions and another allowing guns in national parks, passed by comfortable 60-plus vote margins in the Senate earlier this year.

“Harry Reid has always supported gun rights and intends to do so in the future,” Manley added.

Still, Reid’s decision prompted a mini-uprising among two top lieutenants — Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) — who are considering a filibuster to kill the measure before it comes to a vote, as expected on Wednesday.

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25193.html

This is great news. It could actually happen. The pressure will start to build on the holdout states. And with the 14th Amendment implications of pending cases, they should see the writing on the wall--concealed carry or open carry, their choice. Concealed carry will not cause folks with extreme prejudice and ignorance to wet their briefs or panties, so it's the obvious solution.

After nationwide CCW reciprocity and carry in National Parks, there was only one other major item on my wish list--strict scrutiny. That could conceivable happen soon, too.

I can't believe things are (potentially) moving this fast!

[jeepnstein]

1. Reid needs to...

throw some of the Republicans a bone. This is a really good issue for that purpose. It probably won't have that great of an impact on crime one way or the other but it takes one of the Republican's issues away from them. Imagine the argument...

Q: "When did the national reciprocity for CCW take effect?"
A: "When the Democrats owned the House, Senate and Presidency."

Let the talk radio folks sit on that one and spin for a while.

[spin]

9. I would love to point that out to my Republican freinds...

when I go shooting at the range. I could raze then for a change.

[virginia mountainman]

2. Great News...

I will contact MY congress critter, and senators shortly.

[aikoaiko]

3. Me too. I sure John Barrow will support this.

Its right up his alley especially since he represents a district that borders South Carolina and SC won't reciprocate with GA or allow non-resident permits who go through the SC permit process.

:)

[DonP]

4. When will the self appointed "Dem Police" start screaming?

Doesn't he know that gun control of every type is a long held Dem principle? (I still can't find that damn sarcasm tag!)

I'm sure some of our fellow posters, that keep correcting us and accusing all Dem Gun Owners here of just being GOP shills and freeper trolls, will let him know how wrong he is any minute.

Or maybe one of our Australian, UK or Canadian "friends" will correct Mr. Reid. After all they always know what's best and right for the US.

I have to get an e-mail off to Durbin now and FWIW Burris too.

[jody]

19. I thing our "friends" are #1.

[iverglas]

5. strict scrutiny rofl rofl rrrrrrrofl

Yes, because the choice to possess a firearm should receive the same protection as being born brown.

:rofl:

Actually, let me wipe the tears of laughter. That's really just sad.

[TPaine7]

6. The right to have the means to defend loved ones, life and limb

is precious to some people.

There are others--troglodytes who live very deep in the caves--who think self-defense is not a right. There are even some of them who think a woman about to be raped has no right to use potentially deadly force to stop the threat. These misogynistic cretins know that a man threatened with a hypodermic needle that he and his assailant know has a very good statistical chance to be laced with one or more STDs--AIDS, HPV, herpes, hepatitis, gonorrhea, syphilis, etc.--would be fully justified in using potentially deadly force to stop his assailant. He would be acquitted in any civilized court--and maybe in Canada, too.

But rape, a crime that usually victimizes women (at least outside prisons) is different. What can that be based on, outside of gender? It's stupid. Primitive. Barbaric. Inhuman.

But it's not funny. Not funny at all.

I'll let the troglodytes laugh it up.

[iverglas]

7. good for you

I'll just shake my head at the thought of what could drive a person to such obsessive weirdness / weird obsessiveness ...

I do hope it wasn't me. I'm sure it wasn't, of course, because it doesn't look like a recent problem.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. I'm going to montana this fall to visit relatives.

Be nice to know my permit is good across all three states, and I can just carry as per normal.

[iverglas]

14. well, as long as you stay on that side of the border

I'll let them worry about it.

That border's pretty undefended out there (and from a peek at google maps on satellite view zoomed in, I see somebody regularly drives their tractor right over it), so you're on your honour.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. I'll be within walking distance of it

but I am aware of it's proximity, and will be careful to remain on this side. Some of the roads in the area actually loop back and forth across the border. I'll just stay away from those.

[TPaine7]

15. It just makes sense for constitutional (and human) rights to transcend state borders N/T

[AtheistCrusader]

17. It should receive at least the same level of protection

as your right to express your opinion about it.

(Being that Canada has similar free-speech provisions to our 1st Amendment. Similar, but not QUITE the same.)

[iverglas]

21. familiar with strict scrutiny at all?

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Three-Tiered Approach to Equal Protection Analysis

1. STRICT SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest.):

A. Suspect Classifications:
1. Race
2. National Origin
3. Religion (either under EP or Establishment Clause analysis)
4. Alienage (unless the classification falls within a recognized "political community" exception, in which case only rational basis scrutiny will be applied).

B. Classifications Burdening Fundamental Rights
1. Denial or Dilution of the Vote
2. Interstate Migration
3. Access to the Courts
4. Other Rights Recognized as Fundamental

I don't even know how to begin to bring "the right to haul a firearm around everywhere" within one of those ...


html fixed

[AtheistCrusader]

22. B-4

(You sank my battleship)

[iverglas]

23. as predicted

And when there is some recognition somewhere of the "right" to tote gunz around as "fundamental", I expect you'll talk. ;)

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. +1 K&R

[spin]

10. K&R (n/t)

[eqfan592]

11. I just emailed Sen. Feingold on this issue. Here's keeping our fingers crossed. (nt)

[spin]

12. What position do you hope he'll take? ...

Feingold has a mixed record on gun rights and gun control issues, voting in favor of certain gun control legislation, while also voting to expand certain gun rights. On February 24, 2004, he voted against S.1805, a bill that would have extended the Federal ban on semi-automatic firearms.<54> In 2002, he voted for allowing airline pilots to carry firearms in cockpits.<55> He has spoken in support of the interpretation that the Second Amendment pertains to an individual right to own firearms, and in opposition to proposals for handgun bans and mandatory firearms registration. Recently Feingold took this position when he sided with the conservative majority of the Senate and signed the Congressional amicus in District of Columbia v. Heller.

On the other hand, he has consistently voted in favor of bills to require background checks for firearms purchases at gun shows, and to require that handguns be sold with trigger locks.

In March 2004, he explained his position in a speech on the Senate floor:
“ I have never accepted the proposition that the gun debate is a black and white issue, a matter of 'you're with us, or you're against us.' Instead, I have followed what I believe is a moderate course, faithful to the Constitution and to the realities of modern society. I believe that the Second Amendment was not an afterthought, that it has meaning today and must be respected. I support the right to bear arms for lawful purposes — for hunting and sport and for self-protection. Millions of Americans own firearms legally and we should not take action that tells them that they are second-class citizens or that their constitutional rights are under attack. At the same time, there are actions we can and should take to protect public safety that do not infringe on constitutional rights.<56>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold#Gun_issues

I actually like the views of this guy.

[eqfan592]

20. I hope he votes for the measure personally. Should have mentioned that earlier :)

And yes, I like his views as well. I've been a huge Sen. Feingold fan for a long time now. He holds regular meetings with the public in every county in the state. I've been to one, and found him to be an amazing statesman. The fact that he was (I believe) the only Sen. willing to stand up against the Patriot Act told me a lot about him as well.

[jody]

18. This is too good to be true. n/t

[proteus_lives]

24. Yes!

:thumbsup:

[jeepnstein]

25. Did anyone else...

Get a chance to check out Mayor Bloomberg's rant on the news this morning? Oh the humanity of it all! The Senate is passing a law to enable gun traffickers, gangstas, 88'rs and all sorts of common riff raff to carry guns all over New York City. How can the NYPD possibly do it's job, protecting each and every citizen, if there are so many guns? It'll be like the Wild West or something far worse, according the the Honorable Mayor. Then he started regurgitating the Brady talking points about the handful of CCW permits given to people who probably shouldn't have received them in the first place.

If New York doesn't want CCW all they have to do is write statewide legislation to eliminate it completely. Problem solved. Oh, but then that would step on the toes of the few who are granted such a license in New York City.

[Statistical]

26. That would touch the third rail of gun control.

The people supporting gun control don't want all guns banned just your guns.

Celebrities, politicians, and the insanely rich all have security details armed with guns. They don't want those guns to go away.

They just want the masses to be disarmed.
Self defense isn't a right it is a service with a price tag.

If states like CA or NY had to make a choice between shall issue or no issue they would be between a rock and a hard place.

Funny thing is all the gun banners on DU would be confused when NY or CA refuses to take the simple and easy step of banning all conceal carry. They will blame the NRA, and right wing legislatures while not seeing the blindingly obvious truth that unlike the "purists" on DU who want all guns banned the people in power most certainly don't.