• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

National Defense Authorization Act

Ben H

Well-known member
Contact your Senators now, they are supposed to be voting on this in a couple hours.

U.S. Senate To Vote On National Right-To-Carry
Reciprocity Amendment Early This Week


Contact Your U.S. Senators TODAY And Urge Them To Support Your Right To Self-Defense by voting YES on the Thune-Vitter Amendment!



July 21, 2009

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 this week 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 between now and Wednesday.

Now is the time for Congress to recognize that the right to self-defense does not end at state lines. Under the Thune-Vitter amendment, an individual who has met the requirements for a carry permit, or who is otherwise allowed by his home state's state law to carry a firearm, would be authorized to carry a firearm for protection in any other state that issues such permits, subject to the laws of the state in which the firearm is carried.

Contrary to "states' rights" claims from opponents who usually favor sweeping federal gun control, the amendment is a legitimate exercise of Congress's constitutional power to protect the fundamental rights of citizens (including the right to keep and bear arms and the right of personal mobility). States would still have the authority to regulate the time, place and manner in which handguns are carried.

Expanding Right-to-Carry will enhance public safety, and certainly poses no threat to the public. Criminals are deterred from attempting crimes when they know or suspect that their prospective victims are armed. A study for the Department of Justice found that 40 percent of felons had not committed crimes because they feared the prospective victims were armed. The Thune-Vitter amendment recognizes that competent, responsible, law-abiding Americans still deserve our trust and confidence when they cross state lines. Passing interstate Right-to-Carry legislation will help further reduce crime by deterring criminals, and -- most important of all -- will protect the right of honest Americans to protect themselves if deterrence fails.

The Thune-Vitter Amendment represents a giant step forward in the protection of the basic right to self-defense. Its passage will recognize that the rights of law-abiding Right-to-Carry permit holders should be respected, even when they travel outside their home state.

Gun control groups, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" are running ads trying to scare your lawmakers and the American people into opposing this crucial Right-to-Carry reform. It is critical that your U.S. Senators hear from you immediately.

Please be sure to contact both of your U.S. Senators today, and urge them to cosponsor and support the Thune-Vitter interstate right to carry recipocity amendment. E-mail and call them immediately!
 

Ben H

Well-known member
July 23, 2009
Measure to Expand Gun Rights Falls Short in Senate
By BERNIE BECKER and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON -- The Senate on Wednesday turned aside the latest attempt by gun advocates to expand the rights of gun owners, narrowly voting down a provision that would have allowed gun owners with valid permits from one state to carry concealed weapons in other states as well.

A group comprising mostly Republicans, along with some influential Democrats, had tried to attach the gun amendment to the annual defense authorization bill, a must-pass piece of legislation. But the provision got only 58 votes, two short of the 6o votes needed for passage under Senate rules.

Two Republicans, Senators Richard Lugar of Indiana and George Voinovich of Ohio, joined with 37 Democrats to reject the amendment, which was bitterly opposed by a number of big-city mayors, including Michael R. Bloomberg of New York. “Lives have been saved with the defeat of this amendment. The passage of this amendment would have done more to threaten the safety of New Yorkers than anything since the repeal of the assault weapons ban,” Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a leading opponent of the amendment, said in a statement.

The provision was pushed by Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, but was co-sponsored by several Democrats from states where gun rights are broadly supported, like Montana, where Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester both favored it. The Senate’s majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada — who is up for re-election in 2010 — also supported the amendment.

Going into Wednesday’s vote, gun rights supporters seemed to have the momentum in the Senate, with a group of Democrats looking to block the amendment but acknowledging the vote would be close. Under a parliamentary agreement, proponents needed 60 votes for passage.

This was the latest attempt by gun advocates to push new firearms rights through Congress, where they hold increasing sway.

In May, Congress approved a measure that allowed gun-owners with proper permits to carry their loaded and concealed weapons into national parks. And Mr. Thune, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and other pro-gun lawmakers had said they intended to bring many provisions expanding gun rights to the Senate floor over the rest of this year.

The amendment would have let a gun owner carrying a valid permit from a state that allows concealed weapons to take guns into other states that allow concealed weapons, without a separate permit, as long as any local gun control restrictions were obeyed.

After the vote, Mr. Thune signaled his disappointment: "Today, overheated rhetoric and fear mongering overcame common sense,” he said.. “My amendment would allow responsible firearms owners to protect themselves while obeying the firearms laws of the states they visit. The individual right to self-defense should not end at the state line.”

The gun provision prompted impassioned debate on the Senate floor on both sides before the vote.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, and generally a supporter of gun rights, said she opposed Mr. Thune’s amendment because it infringed on states and cities. “The Thune amendment would invite chaos in our cities,” she said. Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, as well as Mr. Schumer, also took the floor with speeches railing against the amendment.

Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, countered that the provision would not undermine state and local laws. And he quoted a letter from a constituent who said she felt safer carrying her concealed weapon when she goes out at night with her family.

“Specific state laws must be followed by the visiting individual,” Mr. Vitter said.

Mr. Vitter dismissed assertions that the provision would aid criminals. “At the end of the day, this is really again a fundamental debate in terms of what is the problem in terms of violent crime,” he said. “Is the problem law abiding citizens who follow the law and take all the time and all the trouble need to get conceal and carry permits?”

Or, he asked, is the problem criminals who will violate all laws to obtain weapons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/us/politics/23guns.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print
 

Ben H

Well-known member
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ifDlmKhIYDmqeurI-exPrsieN2KwD99JNACO0

Roll Call: How senators voted on concealed weapons
By The Associated Press (AP) – 1 hour ago

The 58-39 roll call by which the Senate on Wednesday rejected a measure allowing a person with a concealed weapon permit in one state to also hide his firearm when visiting another state.

On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote in favor of an amendment establishing concealed carry permit reciprocity in the 48 states that allow the carrying of concealed weapons.

Sixty votes were needed to approve the measure.

Voting "yes" were 20 Democrats and 38 Republicans.

Voting "no" were 35 Democrats, 2 Republicans and 2 independents.

There are no vacancies in the 100-member Senate.

Alabama

Sessions (R) Yes; Shelby (R) Yes.

Alaska

Begich (D) Yes; Murkowski (R) Yes.

Arizona

Kyl (R) Yes; McCain (R) Yes.

Arkansas

Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) Yes.

California

Boxer (D) No; Feinstein (D) No.

Colorado

Bennet (D) Yes; Udall (D) Yes.

Connecticut

Dodd (D) No; Lieberman (I) No.

Delaware

Carper (D) No; Kaufman (D) No.

Florida

Martinez (R) Yes; Nelson (D) No.

Georgia

Chambliss (R) Yes; Isakson (R) Yes.

Hawaii

Akaka (D) No; Inouye (D) No.

Idaho

Crapo (R) Yes; Risch (R) Yes.

Illinois

Burris (D) No; Durbin (D) No.

Indiana

Bayh (D) Yes; Lugar (R) No.

Iowa

Grassley (R) Yes; Harkin (D) No.

Kansas

Brownback (R) Yes; Roberts (R) Yes.

Kentucky

Bunning (R) Yes; McConnell (R) Yes.

Louisiana

Landrieu (D) Yes; Vitter (R) Yes.

Maine

Collins (R) Yes; Snowe (R) Yes.

Maryland

Cardin (D) No; Mikulski (D) Not Voting.

Massachusetts

Kennedy (D) Not Voting; Kerry (D) No.

Michigan

Levin (D) No; Stabenow (D) No.

Minnesota

Franken (D) No; Klobuchar (D) No.

Mississippi

Cochran (R) Yes; Wicker (R) Yes.

Missouri

Bond (R) Yes; McCaskill (D) No.

Montana

Baucus (D) Yes; Tester (D) Yes.

Nebraska

Johanns (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.

Nevada

Ensign (R) Yes; Reid (D) Yes.

New Hampshire

Gregg (R) Yes; Shaheen (D) No.

New Jersey

Lautenberg (D) No; Menendez (D) No.

New Mexico

Bingaman (D) No; Udall (D) Yes.

New York

Gillibrand (D) No; Schumer (D) No.

North Carolina

Burr (R) Yes; Hagan (D) Yes.

North Dakota

Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) Yes.

Ohio

Brown (D) No; Voinovich (R) No.

Oklahoma

Coburn (R) Yes; Inhofe (R) Yes.

Oregon

Merkley (D) No; Wyden (D) No.

Pennsylvania

Casey (D) Yes; Specter (D) No.

Rhode Island

Reed (D) No; Whitehouse (D) No.

South Carolina

DeMint (R) Yes; Graham (R) Yes.

South Dakota

Johnson (D) Yes; Thune (R) Yes.

Tennessee

Alexander (R) Yes; Corker (R) Yes.

Texas

Cornyn (R) Yes; Hutchison (R) Yes.

Utah

Bennett (R) Yes; Hatch (R) Yes.

Vermont

Leahy (D) No; Sanders (I) No.

Virginia

Warner (D) Yes; Webb (D) Yes.

Washington

Cantwell (D) No; Murray (D) No.

West Virginia

Byrd (D) Not Voting; Rockefeller (D) No.

Wisconsin

Feingold (D) Yes; Kohl (D) No.

Wyoming

Barrasso (R) Yes; Enzi (R) Yes.
 

Steve

Well-known member
The Thune-Vitter Amendment represents a giant step forward in the protection of the basic right to self-defense.

Indiana

Bayh (D) Yes; Lugar (R) No.

Ohio

Brown (D) No; Voinovich (R) No.


now there is a couple senators that might need a few calls and e-mails..

http://lugar.senate.gov/contact/contactform.cfm

http://voinovich.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
 

Ben H

Well-known member
I'm about this close [] to calling for heads on fence posts! The problem here is that this bill shouldn't even have been needed, it's redundant. The second amendment already affirms your right to protect yourself, it should be as simple as that. The right to bear arms is a right given to every person by their creator, it's not a privilege given by a government, it's protected by government, at leasts it's supposed to be. Gun regulations are unconstitutional PERIOD.

If states want to make regulations, then EVERYONE should have to follow them. That means NO full auto sub machine guns for SWAT teams. If we can't have them, they can't have them. If I can't carry my gun concealed across state lines without that states permit, then neither should a federal agent.
 

alice

Well-known member
Ben H said:
I'm about this close [] to calling for heads on fence posts! The problem here is that this bill shouldn't even have been needed, it's redundant. The second amendment already affirms your right to protect yourself, it should be as simple as that. The right to bear arms is a right given to every person by their creator, it's not a privilege given by a government, it's protected by government, at leasts it's supposed to be. Gun regulations are unconstitutional PERIOD.

If states want to make regulations, then EVERYONE should have to follow them. That means NO full auto sub machine guns for SWAT teams. If we can't have them, they can't have them. If I can't carry my gun concealed across state lines without that states permit, then neither should a federal agent.

Oh my! You are advocating anarchy!

Alice
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Interesting situation- if you believe in "states rights" that is what this vote did- affirm local and states rights....

I wonder if the SCOTUS will take the vote under consideration when they ultimately decide whether states/local governments can legislate gun laws more/less restrictive than federal law.. :???:
 

MsSage

Well-known member
alice said:
Ben H said:
I'm about this close [] to calling for heads on fence posts! The problem here is that this bill shouldn't even have been needed, it's redundant. The second amendment already affirms your right to protect yourself, it should be as simple as that. The right to bear arms is a right given to every person by their creator, it's not a privilege given by a government, it's protected by government, at leasts it's supposed to be. Gun regulations are unconstitutional PERIOD.

If states want to make regulations, then EVERYONE should have to follow them. That means NO full auto sub machine guns for SWAT teams. If we can't have them, they can't have them. If I can't carry my gun concealed across state lines without that states permit, then neither should a federal agent.

Oh my! You are advocating anarchy!

Alice
Do you know what anarchy is? What Ben is calling for is the feds to quit overstepping their bounds.
He is NOT calling for there to be NO LAWS NO GOVERNMENT
He is saying the elected officials who are there to SERVE the public have forgotten what the people want.
You need to read the Declaration of Indepedence and see how an over bloated government is to be handled.
Oh just look at my siggy :wink:

OT This did NOTsupport states rights it just put the feds above the states :roll:
 

alice

Well-known member
MsSage said:
alice said:
Ben H said:
I'm about this close [] to calling for heads on fence posts! The problem here is that this bill shouldn't even have been needed, it's redundant. The second amendment already affirms your right to protect yourself, it should be as simple as that. The right to bear arms is a right given to every person by their creator, it's not a privilege given by a government, it's protected by government, at leasts it's supposed to be. Gun regulations are unconstitutional PERIOD.

If states want to make regulations, then EVERYONE should have to follow them. That means NO full auto sub machine guns for SWAT teams. If we can't have them, they can't have them. If I can't carry my gun concealed across state lines without that states permit, then neither should a federal agent.

Oh my! You are advocating anarchy!

Alice
Do you know what anarchy is? What Ben is calling for is the feds to quit overstepping their bounds.
He is NOT calling for there to be NO LAWS NO GOVERNMENT
He is saying the elected officials who are there to SERVE the public have forgotten what the people want.
You need to read the Declaration of Indepedence and see how an over bloated government is to be handled.
Oh just look at my siggy :wink:

OT This did NOTsupport states rights it just put the feds above the states :roll:

Yes, I know very well what it is...and when someone is whining because they can't have the same fire power that the police have, then anarchy is the next step.

Alice
 

Steve

Well-known member
alice said:
MsSage said:
alice said:
Oh my! You are advocating anarchy!

Alice
Do you know what anarchy is? What Ben is calling for is the feds to quit overstepping their bounds.
He is NOT calling for there to be NO LAWS NO GOVERNMENT
He is saying the elected officials who are there to SERVE the public have forgotten what the people want.
You need to read the Declaration of Indepedence and see how an over bloated government is to be handled.
Oh just look at my siggy :wink:

OT This did NOTsupport states rights it just put the feds above the states :roll:

Yes, I know very well what it is...and when someone is whining because they can't have the same fire power that the police have, then anarchy is the next step.

Alice

you might want to visit Briton were the police have less firepower then the crooks.. and see how well that works..

advocating that law abiding citizens give up rights so the police can have authority over US is only good for as long as the citizens can restrain that authority..
 

alice

Well-known member
Steve said:
alice said:
MsSage said:
Do you know what anarchy is? What Ben is calling for is the feds to quit overstepping their bounds.
He is NOT calling for there to be NO LAWS NO GOVERNMENT
He is saying the elected officials who are there to SERVE the public have forgotten what the people want.
You need to read the Declaration of Indepedence and see how an over bloated government is to be handled.
Oh just look at my siggy :wink:

OT This did NOTsupport states rights it just put the feds above the states :roll:

Yes, I know very well what it is...and when someone is whining because they can't have the same fire power that the police have, then anarchy is the next step.

Alice

you might want to visit Briton were the police have less firepower then the crooks.. and see how well that works..

advocating that law abiding citizens give up rights so the police can have authority over US is only good for as long as the citizens can restrain that authority..

I've visited Great Britain, twice...never felt threatened or afraid...ever.

Alice
 

Steve

Well-known member
alice said:
Steve said:
alice said:
Yes, I know very well what it is...and when someone is whining because they can't have the same fire power that the police have, then anarchy is the next step.

Alice

you might want to visit Briton were the police have less firepower then the crooks.. and see how well that works..

advocating that law abiding citizens give up rights so the police can have authority over US is only good for as long as the citizens can restrain that authority..

I've visited Great Britain, twice...never felt threatened or afraid...ever.

Alice

that's nice.. glad to see you can travel with out seeing the problems of a country.. and even as I never felt threatened in the years I lived there either.. I did see the effect of the powerless police on the criminals,..and the high crime rates... I also see how my elderly father in-law can't go out at night and does feel threatened.. and I would prefer we uphold our rights.. so we don't have to worry about being threatened.. or a police state..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MsSage said:
alice said:
Ben H said:
I'm about this close [] to calling for heads on fence posts! The problem here is that this bill shouldn't even have been needed, it's redundant. The second amendment already affirms your right to protect yourself, it should be as simple as that. The right to bear arms is a right given to every person by their creator, it's not a privilege given by a government, it's protected by government, at leasts it's supposed to be. Gun regulations are unconstitutional PERIOD.

If states want to make regulations, then EVERYONE should have to follow them. That means NO full auto sub machine guns for SWAT teams. If we can't have them, they can't have them. If I can't carry my gun concealed across state lines without that states permit, then neither should a federal agent.

Oh my! You are advocating anarchy!

Alice


OT This did NOTsupport states rights it just put the feds above the states :roll:

How do you figure that? If this passed it would say ALL the states would have to follow federal law that allowed recognition of the other states concealed permits....
It would take away that states rights not to recognize the other states law....

Many of these states have recognized each others concealed carry permits for years- but others "chose" not to recognize some or any....
And interesting that this came out of SD- because altho I don't know how they are now- a few years ago they were one of the states that did not recognize those from other states- so in turn theirs were not recognized in those states...
 

Steve

Well-known member
MsSage said:
I am waiting on your facts to how you came to that conclusion

oh it's easy.. British police have no guns yet gun and knife crimes are increasing... and threatening more ordinary citizens..

Armed police

The poll of adults in England, Scotland and Wales is part of a report, Gun and Knife Crime in Great Britain, released on Tuesday.

It also found:

* 88% of people want an increase in the penalty for possessing an illegal firearm

* 72% want to see more armed police patrols

* 82% believe the government has not done enough to tackle violent crime

The fear of gun and knife crime was greatest in London,

"The British traditionally prefer having unarmed bobbies, but they have become so frightened of gun crime the overwhelming majority now wants more armed police patrols."
source BBC

I know the comment wasn't meant for me, but I answered since I figured that since you won't get any real facts from a liberal.. it was a shame to waste your comment..
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
MsSage said:
pray tell where do you come to that conclusion? Based on what facts?

She used that same reasoning power that has a woman feeling litteraly raped by words on a computer.

Like I said before, people that think like her are messed up! They reason about stuff off the wall.

Just like OT thinking America Rapes and Pillages for the sake of oil!
 

MsSage

Well-known member
Steve said:
MsSage said:
I am waiting on your facts to how you came to that conclusion

oh it's easy.. British police have no guns yet gun and knife crimes are increasing... and threatening more ordinary citizens..

Armed police

The poll of adults in England, Scotland and Wales is part of a report, Gun and Knife Crime in Great Britain, released on Tuesday.

It also found:

* 88% of people want an increase in the penalty for possessing an illegal firearm

* 72% want to see more armed police patrols

* 82% believe the government has not done enough to tackle violent crime

The fear of gun and knife crime was greatest in London,

"The British traditionally prefer having unarmed bobbies, but they have become so frightened of gun crime the overwhelming majority now wants more armed police patrols."
source BBC

I know the comment wasn't meant for me, but I answered since I figured that since you won't get any real facts from a liberal.. it was a shame to waste your comment..
Sorry Steve I was talking to alice I had asked her the question and she has been ignoring it....I can HOPE she will answer :wink:
OT in the DI states rights come before Fed powers.
You really do want one powerful Federal government. What and where would the checks and balances be if that was to happen or will big fed be fair and just?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MsSage said:
Steve said:
MsSage said:
I am waiting on your facts to how you came to that conclusion

oh it's easy.. British police have no guns yet gun and knife crimes are increasing... and threatening more ordinary citizens..

Armed police

The poll of adults in England, Scotland and Wales is part of a report, Gun and Knife Crime in Great Britain, released on Tuesday.

It also found:

* 88% of people want an increase in the penalty for possessing an illegal firearm

* 72% want to see more armed police patrols

* 82% believe the government has not done enough to tackle violent crime

The fear of gun and knife crime was greatest in London,

"The British traditionally prefer having unarmed bobbies, but they have become so frightened of gun crime the overwhelming majority now wants more armed police patrols."
source BBC

I know the comment wasn't meant for me, but I answered since I figured that since you won't get any real facts from a liberal.. it was a shame to waste your comment..
Sorry Steve I was talking to alice I had asked her the question and she has been ignoring it....I can HOPE she will answer :wink:
OT in the DI states rights come before Fed powers.
You really do want one powerful Federal government. What and where would the checks and balances be if that was to happen or will big fed be fair and just?

It just flies over your head doesn't it... :???: :roll: :roll: :p

Then with your thinking- the states like Montana and others that passed states sovereignty laws- and Montana's new law allowing gun products/ammo to be made there- should be overturned by the federal law....

Sage- if this amendment had passed- it would be a federal law overturning the states right to choose who has a concealed weapons permit...

Thats taking away states rights- and giving them to the federal government....As was brought up numerous times in the arguments that were rebroadcast tonight- the states that already want to honor other states concealed permits already have reciprocable agreements...They did that on their own- not because some Federal law told them they had to.....
 
Top