Senate rejects pro-gun measure on concealed weapon

[RamboLiberal]

WASHINGTON — Gun control proponents scored a rare victory as the Senate rejected the carrying of concealed weapons across state lines.

The 58-39 vote Wednesday defeated a measure giving people with concealed weapons permits the right to carry their firearms into other states that have similar gun laws. Sixty votes were needed to approve the provision, an amendment to a defense spending bill.

It is an unusual setback for the gun rights side, which has been able to muster majorities of Republicans and pro-gun Democrats to move its agenda through both the Bush and Obama administrations. Opponents say the concealed weapon proposal would force states with tough gun laws to accept gun-carrying visitors from states with weaker laws.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gCqmfBFtxCgKGn5vzrfe-MHs9ZyAD99JJRR00

[imdjh]

1. That sucks, because it means that your 2nd Amendment rights come and go as you drive I95.

[jeepnstein]

2. Byrd was out with his illness, wasn't he?

That would have made it 59-39. One could safely assume Kennedy's vote would have made it 59-40. Who didn't bother to vote at all?

[ellenfl]

6. i read yesterday that byrd is back. eom

[Statistical]

21. It was Mikulski (D-MD)

Byrd Not Voting D WV
Kennedy Not Voting D MA
Mikulski Not Voting D MD

It they were forced to vote I would guess Byrd = Yea, Kennedy & Mikuiski = Nay.

So 59-41.

[krispos42]

3. Must have been a filibuster

Once again, a truculent minority is opposing progress.

[benEzra]

4. I'm ambivalent about this one.

Had it passed, it might have been short-term gain, long-term loss, as a few of the more anti-gun states might have used it as an excuse to discontinue their CHL policies (e.g., Massachusetts and California come to mind), and (much more importantly) if reciprocity were Federalized, it would have inevitably led to a push to Federalize licensure standards too. We might well have won those battles in the end, but I think there are better ways.

State-to-state reciprocity works very well, and I think that in the current environment, the best approach would be to work on adding more states to the reciprocity pool at the state-legislature level. Just my opinion.

[spin]

5. I hold the same view. (n/t)

[krispos42]

13. I would have taken a certain amount of schadenfreude...

...in watching the continuing failure of disarmament to affect crime rates. It's like watching somebody proclaiming that a brick wall was not in fact there, and they were going to walk through it.

Of course many of the states have effectively no CCW permits issued so it probably wouldn't affect anything noticably.

:shrug:

[Statistical]

16. State to state system doesn't work very well.

Information is routinely wrong or not shared.

VA & NC had reciprocity but the agreement was dated. Nobody noticed until 6 months after it expired. For 6 months citizens from both states were violating the law. Had any of them been arrested they would be a felon and lose their 2nd amendment.

Later VA & NC resigned the reciprocity but NC dislike VA military exemption and the AG in NC stated it was not in compliant with VA law. NC notified VA that the reciprocity agreement was not longer in effect.

VA never updated the VA State Police website.
Someone relying on that could have gone to NC and been arrested once again.

That is just 2 states. When you expand it to 50 states with potentially agreements with 49 others that almost 2500 potential agreements. Mistakes happen and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Why not leave driver's licenses to the states also?

[benEzra]

19. Entirely true. That's why I'm ambivalent.

National reciprocity would be a good thing overall, and beneficial. My concerns were more tactical than idealogical, and it is possible that it could be a net loss for CCW rights at the end of the day.

Had it passed, I would have been similarly ambivalent, just with the polarities reversed, I think. Glad that I wouldn't have to worry about state-to-state squabbles or purchasing a Massachusetts LTC every year, but concerned about what the prohibitionists' countermove would be.

[Statistical]

23. I agree it would be a risk

The bill was simple and clean (only 2 paragraphs).

It wasn't open to interpretation so it would require a new bill to make substantial changes.
If the antis had the votes to require massive restrictions to CCW they would with or without this bill.

I do concede it is a risk but IMHO a risk worth taking.
IIRC every RKBA supported it for the same reason.

[SteveM]

22. I agree...

It is puzzling that the states have not come to some kind of full faith and credit agreement to allow de facto reciprocity. I really would rather not have the Feds operating in the realm of licensing, esp. if it becomes day-to-day.

[Caliman73]

26. I think that as well

I could see how the federal government might be seen as overstepping which would prompt state legislatures to review their firearms and CHL policies.

[aikoaiko]

7. Oh well. I was looking forward to CCW in South Carolina. but I can live without.

South Carolina has stricter rules for CCW than Georgia, and I can understand why they wouldn't want someone without the same prerequisites carrying in their state, but they won't even issue non-residence permits for those who are willing to pay and complete the training for their permit.

This amendment would have solved that issue for me.

Maybe next time.

[RamboLiberal]

12. A lot of people from my state of PA get Florida or Utah Non-resident

permits so they can carry in Ohio. There are instructors in PA certified to give the class to qualify for it. I've been thinking of doing it since I do go in to Ohio going to handgun matches. We just got reprocity with WV last year. I'm hoping that Ohio may sometime make an agreement. One thing holding it back may be that PA doesn't require a class to get permit (I'd have no problem if we did since I see some unsafe gun handling from newbies at some of the local matches).

According to this Florida permits are recognized in South Carolina.

http://www.nraila.org/recmap/recguide.pdf

[spin]

34. You can also check the Florida government reciprocity page...

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.html

It gives a little more detail on exceptions and rules. Also the NRA link states that the Florida permit is good for 5 years. Licenses currently being issued are good for 7 years.

How long will my license be valid?

As of Wednesday, June 11, 2008, Concealed Weapon or Firearm Licenses issued under the authority of Section 790.06, Florida Statutes, are valid for a period of 7 years. Concealed weapon licenses issued prior to this date are still valid for 5 years. Please visit the following page for more information about the increase in the valid term of the concealed weapon license.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/contacts/faq.html#Q9

[aikoaiko]

35. SC adds the caveat that they only honor permits from residence of the issuing state.

In other words, for example, I can get a UT permit as a resident of GA, but SC does not honor UT permits issued to nonresidents of UT.

tricky bastards.

[iverglas]

8. another victory for rational, decent people everywhere! woo hoo!

It's always gratifying to see the neighbours do the right thing, and the wise thing.

[N7255Q]

14. How do you feel about states refusing to recognize same-sex marriages from

other states where it's been done legally? Or is that 'different'?

[iverglas]

27. and once again ...

... the right to marry - a right that the US Supreme Court has recognized as fundamental - being compared to the "right" to wander around in public festooned in firearms.

The refusal by any state in the US to permit same-sex couples to marry is itself plainly contrary to your Constitution.

Unless you get some sort of authoritative judicial declaration that any rules enacted in any state governing the toting of guns is unconstitutional, I'm afraid you ain't got much of a leg to stand on here.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1 (emphases mine)

LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

An attempt to analogize gun-carrying and marrying is simply an affront to anyone who does care about human rights.

[Statistical]

29. So if SCOTUS in the McDonald v Chicago case says the same thing...

in black and white The right to keep & bear arms is one of the "basic civil rights of man" you will accept it as settled law?

The reason I ask is the question is almost certainly to come up. One of the previous precedents puts the test for incorporation of fundamental rights. Fundamental rights should be incorporated.

So in order to win in McDonald case the plaintiff will (based on my understanding) prove the RKBA is a fundamental right.

[iverglas]

45. I wouldn't accept it as anything

So if SCOTUS in the McDonald v Chicago case says the same thing...
in black and white The right to keep & bear arms is one of the "basic civil rights of man" you will accept it as settled law?

other than another bizarre aberration from what progress has achieved in the modern world such as is not uncommon south of our border.

I do keep hoping that you people will learn the lingo you are attempting to speak.

A civil right is one thing.

The things commonly referred to as "human" or "fundamental" rights are another.

It was once a "civil right" of certain citizens of the USofA to own human beings: a right conferred on them by virtue of their status. Just as it is, today, a "civil right" to vote, to own property, and suchlike.

I may not vote in the US. I expect I would also be unable to obtain a permit to carry a firearm in the US, or to carry one where a permit is not required, if I were not at least a legal permanent resident of the US.

Conversely, I could not legally be deprived of life or liberty without due process in the US, no matter if I were a citizen of Canada, or a citizen of Mars, or stateless.

So obviously, the "right" to tote a firearm around in public is not a human or fundamental right. Those rights are regarded, by human consensus, as inherent in human beings by virtue of their status as human beings, not in citizens of a particular polity by virtue of their status as citizens.

So obviously, any declaration that the "right" to tote a firearm around in public was a fundamental right would be

(a) gibberish, because no court in the US is going to declare that non-residents of the US have the "right" to tote firearms around in public in the US, and

(b) gibberish, becuase the idea that there is inherent in the status of human being a right to tote a firearm around is, well, gibberish. If you have no way of exercising a right, it is not a right. How would cave people have exercised that right?

You down there can make it a civil right to tote a firearm around if you like. That's all it will ever be. And that choice will be of no consequence or concern to the human species and human society as a whole, and will be merely a little dead end road in a backward corner of human history.

You do realize this, right? What founders and framers and governments and courts in the US say really doesn't affect anything other than the people subject to their pronouncements?

Good then.

Oh, and hey, do keep prattling about the "rights of man". It's so charmingly antiquish. Makes you sound positively French.

[TPaine7]

49. *Trumpet Flourish* All hail the Empress of Bull !!!!

You do realize this, right? What founders and framers and governments and courts in the US say really doesn't affect anything other than the people subject to their pronouncements?

This from a woman who constantly quotes irrelevant, backwards Canadian law in response to OPs on US policy!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[iverglas]

50. I was right

Playing dodgeball in the schoolyard.

Can't find anybody to play today?

[TPaine7]

51. Age is off limits, but only for you, right?

And you still constantly quotes irrelevant, backwards Canadian law in response to OPs on US policy.

Ignoring it won't make it go away.

[TPaine7]

42. So there is a "right to marry"...

a clear right, that can be expressed in plain English, not "abstract" or "incohate" at all?

There is no "right to self-defense", however?

iverglas (1000+ posts)
Tue Jul-21-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. fiddle with the question as much as you like


The fact remains that it is, as Sotomayor said, MEANINGLESS.

There is, and she would without a doubt say there is if she hasn't already, since she correctly characterized "self-defence" in exactly this way, a RIGHT TO RAISE SELF-DEFENCE IN ANSWER TO A CRIMINAL CHARGE.

She GAVE her opinion. As a matter of law, there is a right to raise self-defence in answer to a criminal charge.

That is a meaningful statement. Do you maybe disagree with it?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x238740#240590

Fascinating.

Why no BS about "the right to raise equal protection of the laws as an objection to being denied a marriage license"?

I was wrong when I called this hypertechnical BS. It's less legitimate than that. The obfuscation and evasion has nothing to do with silly lawyer jargon--it has to do with clearly articulating rights the sophist approves and avoiding any articulation whatsoever of rights the sophist disapproves (or rights the sophist finds it tactically disadvantageous to clearly express at the time).

I know that abortion and gay marriage are special, approved rights--the truly "progressive" ones. But I doubt that even you, iverglas, actually oppose the right to life. It just has unpleasant logical corollaries--the right to self-defense and the right to the means to effective self-defense. And so, while you are clearly capable of typing out "the right to marry", "the right to self-defense" presents all kinds of technical, legal--and typographical--issues.

All hail the Empress of Bull!

Now, sophistries aside, people clearly have both the right to marry and the right to self-defense. And as you approvingly quote the Supreme Court to establish, the right to marry is fundamental:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"

If only the right to life and the right to defend one's life were so fundamental and had such an ancient history. Oh wait, back when people had no real right to marry--they had the "right" to be forced into a legal union with whoever their parents picked out--there was clearly a right to defend oneself. That right is exceedingly ancient. Hmmm.

Marriage is important, but does it really compare to the right to the means to preserve life itself? Let's see:

You are faced with two scenarios, both of which will certainly come true--

1) You will want to marry a certain person and they will also want to marry you. You will be able to live with, commit to, make love to, grow old with, and share finances with that person, but legal marriage will be impossible.

2) You will be faced with a serious threat to your life and your only realistic chance to avert tragedy will be a gun--which you will not have.

Forewarned of these scenarios, you are given a free pass--it will alleviate one of these situations. Either it will be possible for you to marry your soul mate (as opposed to simply living in a committed relationship with her or him) or you will have the means to save your life.

Which would you choose? (Hint: Dead folks don't enjoy their marriages.)

Here's another hint. The right to free association and its corollary--the right to marry--are fundamental. The (mystical, illusory, abstract and inchoate) right to life and its corollary--the right to the means of effective self-defense--are also fundamental. And you (not you, iverglas, the rest of the people who read this) are correct--self-defense is more fundamental than marriage.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will soon officially agree with its boss--the American people.

[iverglas]

47. didn't read that at all, did you?

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

There is no "right to protest outside an abortion clinic" or "right to have an abortion" in your Constitution, any more than there is a right to marry. The right, or freedom, to do all of those things is a component -- an exercise -- of the rights and freedoms that are expressly stated in that document. Duh.

One could say that the "right to use violence in self-defence" is a component -- an exercise -- of the right to life.

In fact, I HAVE SAID that multiple times in this very forum, before you sprang from Zeus's forehead, I assume.

Here. Try this one. (What were you doing in 2003? Playing dodgeball in the schoolyard?)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=8135&mesg_id=8290

iverglas
Sat Sep-06-03 08:15 PM

... However the rules are expressed (yours and mine differ only slightly in emphasis, in the big picture), there will be situations in which the exercise of individual rights and freedoms may be interfered with by the state.

The exercise of the right to life itself can be interfered with, as long as "due process" (in your case) or the more inclusive "principles of fundamental justice" (in my case) is observed.

You consider a right of "self-defence" to be ... okay, part of the problem is that I don't really understand what people who talk about a "right of self-defence" consider it to be. I don't consider it to be in any way an independent right.

We have the right to life, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process. This is a right that governs the relationship between us and society, the state, as do all other fundamental rights. They govern what the state may do to us, and what the state may permit us to do to other people. A state that did not have anti-homicide laws, for instance, could be said to violate its members' right to life by permitting them to be killed. What would be the point of the state if it did that? In so far as its purpose is to permit rights to be exercised and protect individuals in the exercise of their rights, which I'd say it is a purpose of a state to do, such a state would cease to have any purpose.

So if we were prohibited from using potentially deadly force against others when we reasonably believed that they were trying to inflict serious injury or death on us, the state would be violating our right to life by essentially permitting the killing of us: requiring us to lie back and die, or however it was phrased here.

On the other hand, if the state did not require that we have that reasonable belief that our life or limb was in danger, *and* did not require that we take any other means reasonably available to us to prevent that from happening -- like running out the back door -- and simply permitted us to choose which option we preferred even if that was killing a person who could not reasonably be believed to be presenting such a threat, or even if there was another option reasonably available to us to avert the threat, then the state would be violating the right to life of *that* person, by permitting the killing of *him/her*.

All by way of saying: the "right" of self-defence is simply a description of one way of exercising the right to life, by "living". It is as subject to reasonable limitation as any other way in which people exercise any other right.

The fact remains that the only time the issue is relevant is when someone has allegedly used violence in self-defence and must then be permitted to raise self-defence in answer to a criminal charge.

Because, as I've probably said umpty dozen times now, to refuse to permit that would be to violate the guarantee that a person may not be deprived of life or liberty without due process.


And once again, it is all too obvious that anyone trying to make a political issue out of "the right of self-defence" -- when THERE IS NO ISSUE, because no state in the US has ever tried to deny anyone the opportunity to raise self-defence in answer to a charge of using violence against another person -- has an agenda.

And what that agenda is, is also all too obvious.

It's obvious right there in the video of Sotomayor being questioned by a right-wing, grandstanding cretin who couldn't even make his question make sense.

[TPaine7]

53. I'm laughing at you, iverglas, not at the Supreme Court

You are the one saying there is a "right to marry" in plain English. You can also say that there is a "right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

"Right to marry" is perfectly acceptable to you--iverglas. "Right to self-defense" is not:

"Self-defence is not a right. It is an excuse..." (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x238740#238753)

And once again, it is all too obvious that anyone trying to make a political issue out of "the right of self-defence" -- when THERE IS NO ISSUE, because no state in the US has ever tried to deny anyone the opportunity to raise self-defence in answer to a charge of using violence against another person -- has an agenda.

I call bullshit. I don't believe that "no state in the US has ever tried to deny anyone the opportunity to raise self-defence in answer to a charge of using violence against another person." O don't even believe that you believe that if you think about it. Southern States explicitly did it--and it wouldn't shock me if they did it fairly recently. And there are certainly states and the District that make it as hard as they possibly can for people to defend themselves. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x170607)

Furthermore, there are conservative people in high places who think self-defense can be outlawed:

Suppose a state were to decide that people cornered in their homes must surrender rather than fight back — in other words, that burglars should be deterred by the criminal law rather than self help. That decision would imply that no one is entitled to keep a handgun at home for self-defense, because self-defense would itself be a crime, and Heller concluded that the second amendment protects only the interests of law-abiding citizens. See United States v. Jackson, 555 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2009) (no constitutional right to have guns ready to hand when distributing illegal drugs).

Our hypothetical is not as far-fetched as it sounds....

Source: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/O01FGDTE.pdf

It is not far fetched, in the opinion of highly respected conservative judge Posner.

In fact, I HAVE SAID that multiple times in this very forum, before you sprang from Zeus's forehead, I assume.

Yawn. I'm exactly as impressed by your length of time here as I have ever been. Remember my deep respect, Revered Teacher of Bull Style Kung-Fu? (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=printer_friendly&forum=118&topic_id=176226&mesg_id=176720)

Here. Try this one. (What were you doing in 2003? Playing dodgeball in the schoolyard?)

Why yes, Ancient One, that's where I was. How did the Revered Teacher know?

[zanne]

32. I celebrate with you. This might be the turning point...

The senate recognized that the NRA has gone too far. We're supposed to be ruled, under law, by the People, not the NRA. They over reached. I'll keep on working for sensible gun laws. I'm very encouraged by this turn of events.

[rrneck]

38. I think your optimism

is misplaced. People owned guns and cars before the vote, and they own them after the vote. The growth of CCW legislation across the country indicates that enough of the electorate wants to own guns and transport them from place to place. I don't expect to see that trend changing course any time soon.

[sharesunited]

9. It would be like being forced to recognized gay marriage from another state.

I'm sure DOMA must have crossed a few minds here.

[TheWraith]

25. It certainly passed mine.

Right now there's very few forms of legal documents that aren't valid state to state. The two major ones are carry licenses and marriages. If carry licenses were required to be recognized, it would leave marriage right out there as a neon sign that something here is running afould of the full faith and credit clause.

[zipplewrath]

33. You might as well know

Just because you're married in one state, doesn't mean you are married in another. Your marriage must be legal in each state, according to each states laws, in order for them to recognize it. It's legal to marry younger in some states than others. The familial distance between two folks varies by state. In Ye Olden Days, when "interracial" marriage wasn't recognized everywhere, they didn't have to recognize them in states in which they were not legal.

So back to comparigsons with gun rights which are only really recognized in this country as anything close to a "fundamental right" as oppose to marriage which is recognized around much of the western world.

[TheWraith]

37. Nobody's talking about marrying kids, or rewriting the requirements.

Though thank you for rubbing up against the GOP's favorite analogy of comparing homosexuality to pederasty.

[zipplewrath]

44. Actually

The point is that marriage laws vary alot by state right now, and the various states don't recognize each others marriages as it is. So CCL aren't going to be any different.

[iverglas]

28. actually, it really wouldn't

See my post above on that subject.

[TPaine7]

10. Our senators need to hear from us again, folks! n/t

[RamboLiberal]

11. Dems who voted for

Nineteen other Democrats crossed over to support the amendment: Max Baucus of Montana, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Jon Tester of Montana, Tom Udall of New Mexico, Mark Udall of Colorado and Mark Warner and Jim Webb of Virginia.

Two Republicans crossed over to vote against the amendment: Richard Lugar of Indiana and George Voinovich of Ohio

Missing the vote were Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who is undergoing ankle surgery, Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who only returned to the Senate on Tuesday after a long hospitalization, and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who is battling brain cancer.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/concealed-weapons-amendment-shot-down-2009-07-22.html

Weird for me that my senators Dem Casey voted for and turncoat from Repuke to Dem Specter voted Nay.

[eqfan592]

15. Well, my favorite Sen from my home state of Wisconsin...

...did the right thing at least and voted for this. But my not so favorite senator from my home state of Wisconsin did not it would seem (Sen. Kohl). He'll be hearing from me again. What's interesting is that he is viewed as the more "conservative" of the two.

[Statistical]

30. The crazy thing is WI has no dog in this fight.

WI prohibits all forms of carry IIRC (one of only two states).

So even if the bill passed nothing would change in WI.
Maybe he was afraid that if it passed any future carry law in WI would allow residents to carry in 48 other states and that would increase activism to get "shall issue" passed in WI?

[eqfan592]

43. I was wondering the same thing.

Right now, any sort of CCW is a dead issue in Wisconsin. My hope was that the passage of this bill would bring it to the forefront a bit more. Maybe it still will, but I doubt it. The Gov. has clearly stated he will veto any such bills, as he did before, and there's not enough votes to override him, or at least their weren't in the past.

The crappy thing is that I agree with our Gov over-all, and I really have no other better options voting wise than him, so it's a bit of a catch 22 in some ways.

[Statistical]

18. Maybe Specter thinks being a real Dem = anti-RBKA.

[benEzra]

20. Specter was anti-RKBA as a repub, too. (n/t)

[Statistical]

24. Ah well there you go. anti-RKBA is not a party thing.

[RamboLiberal]

17. Roll Call

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00237

[aikoaiko]

39. It looks like Gillibrand (D-NY) is being turned to the antigun ways of NY

sad. it was her pro-gun stance that got her in the House and made her a reasonable candidate for Senate, in part.

[zanne]

31. My condolences .

NOT.

[aikoaiko]

36. Its ok, we had throw you a bone or else you and your ilk would have become despondent

:toast:

[zanne]

40. Gee...things just aren't going your way, are they aikoaiko?

:nopity:

[aikoaiko]

41. you know how it goes, if you can't win 'em all...

... its best to win most of them.

Even though you have been gloating and using hyperbole (gone down in flames) you know and I know the majority of Senators approved this bill and were just 2 votes away from losing again. It probably makes you wonder what will happen the next time this comes around.

[Tim01]

46. I'm not sure it would have been a good idea.

It certainly would give some states the idea that the fed govt is telling them what to do. And it also would be one step closer to a federal CCW license, which would mean we could LOOSE the right to carry in all states in one fell swoop. Might be better to just leave it up to the states and keep the feds out of it all together.

[X_Digger]

48. This may be the impetus..

.. to get states to make their CCW/CHL licensure more uniform and expand their reciprocity, outside of the 'may issue'/'who you know/blow' states.

[GKirk]

52. Can this be re-introduced

as a stand alone bill? What would happen then?

[Glory89fan]

54. Good for them!

The last thing we need in this country is more gun-wielding maniacs.

[iverglas]

55. is anybody else enjoying this as much as I am?!