Remind me again why this man is even in the senate, let alone leading the Democrats?
The latest measure, offered by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), has far greater reach. Offered Monday as an amendment to the defense authorization bill, it would allow people to carry concealed firearms across state lines, provided they ‘have a valid permit or if, under their state of residence . . . are entitled to do so.’
The amendment is opposed by 400 mayors, including New York’s Michael R. Bloomberg (I) and Boston’s Thomas M. Menino (D), who outlined their objections in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). They noted that at least 31 states prohibit alcohol abusers from obtaining concealed-carry permits; at least 35 states bar people convicted of certain misdemeanors from becoming gun owners; and at least 31 states require people to complete gun-safety programs before securing a weapons permit.
But Reid voted for both pro-gun measures earlier this year and is viewed as a likely ‘yes’ on Thune’s amendment, although he has not declared a position. A vote on the amendment could come Wednesday, said Jim Manley, Reid’s spokesman.
It is time to seriously reconsider the senate leadership of Harry Reid. Because not only is he amazingly inept – being regularly out gunned by the GOP minority – he gives cover to the GOP by voting with them on many of these idiotic issues.
Also, the GOP love of state’s rights suddenly disappears when its a gun issue.
Glass Joe Reid…best Republican the Democratic party has ever had!
Sen. Reid is in a tight race and has to move to the right. It’s actually quite simple to understand unless you’re a sheltered, myopic, East Coast Liberal.
Also, the GOP love of state’s rights suddenly disappears when its a gun issue.
Maybe you need to read the 10th Amendment again.
Guns are mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, so the 10th doesn’t apply. Abortion and gay marriage are nowhere in the document, which is why the 10th applies to them.
Also, the GOP love of state’s rights suddenly disappears when its a gun issue.
Except this isn’t a states rights issue. What’s funny is seeing that dolt Charles Schumer bleating about “states rights.”
It is amazing how the 10th amendment suddenly has meaning when they want the 2nd to be ignored. I actually am encouraged by this amendment and support Thune. I feel the least safe in the states and cities that have the tightest bans on concealed carry. Especially since most of them have the highest crime rates.
I travel to many metropolitan areas for my job and would appreciate the ability to carry in those areas. Especially like recently when in NYC for a weekend and being out late for the shows and sites with my fiance. It is easy to get on the wrong subway train or have to walk extra blocks in an unintended area because you don’t know the area. More often working until midnight in office buildings to meet deadlines and having to walk several blocks in areas I would normally avoid because of safety issues.
I firmly believe a firearm is not the only answer and should be used as a last resort. As the saying goes though, I would rather have it and NEVER need it, than need it and not have it. Studies have shown as well that just the display of a firearm can deter most criminal activities. This is a good starting point: http://www2.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/guns.html
All Thune is asking in this amendment is that the states that issue a concealed carry permit be recognized similar to a driver’s license. The permit holder would still have to follow the applicable city or state laws that exist there.
Awesome, the Gun Rights For Wife Beaters Act of 2009.
Harry does this all the time and gets “far left” treatment by Fox
Yes August, because we all know that wife beating criminals really respect the rule of law and I am CERTAIN that if it is legal for them to carry in their home state, they wouldn’t DARE carry to another state that didn’t honor the permit obtained in their home state.
I am CERTAIN that if it is legal for them to carry in their home state, they wouldn’t DARE carry to another state that didn’t honor the permit obtained in their home state.
….What?
I’m certain that a lot of people still molest children even though that’s illegal. Are you saying you think laws against child molestation should be repealed because what’s the point? What the hell are you arguing here- that a law shouldn’t be a law because criminals break laws? Guh?
What I am arguing is that your declaration that this is the “Gun Rights For Wife Beaters Act of 2009″ is stupid. That’s what I am arguing.
Does that simplify it enough for you?
No, because your argument was a single statement supporting giving easier firearm access to people convicted of domestic abuse. Since you haven’t said that you don’t support that, I’m not really sure what else defending removing those laws was all about. I suppose the simplest thing to do would be to actually just SAY whether or not you support easing legal blocks on convicted spousal abusers from carrying guns around.
Some states have far more relaxed standards for driver’s licenses than Maryland. Yet, anyone with a DL can drive in Maryland. Where’s your outrage?
Advocate for better standards; don’t get caught up in an antiquated stigma against guns.
Some states have far more relaxed standards for driver’s licenses than Maryland. Yet, anyone with a DL can drive in Maryland. Where’s your outrage?
A car isn’t designed to kill people.
Amendment 2:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
It’s true that the right wing activists on the Supreme Court have deliberately misread the 2nd Amendment to appease gun fanatics like “Jay” (who deliberately obscures the Constitution with a gun).
But the Amendment’s clear language is about a “well regulated Militia” as part of a “free State”, which defines the Amendment as specifically being a STATE RIGHT to REGULATE a MILITIA which means that the Federal Government can’t prohibit WELL REGULATED STATE MILITIA’S from allowing that State’s people to “keep and bear Arms”.
That doesn’t prohibit the State from regulating it’s militia or it’s State’s people from having their “Arms” be regulated, in fact it explicitly states that the State does have the right to regulate such a militia and it’s Arms, just not the Federal Government.
The right wing activist Supreme Court Justices have deliberately misinterpreted the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment as part of a pattern of deliberately misinterpreting the Constitution and the Amendments to push a right wing activist interpretation of clearly worded Laws.
The activist Supreme Court is making Law from the Bench.
The bone being thrown to militant gun fanatics like “Jay” is part of keeping the extremist right wing base appeased while the corporatist Supreme Court Justices actively sell out our country to the highest bidders.
The Robert’s Court has already marked itself as a right wing activist court bent on keeping corporations, big money, and the powerful happy while throwing the extremist’s bones like granting gun nuts the right to stroke their guns even while some States are riddled with gun crime and gun terrorism.
Right wing gun extremists have been selling gun’s to more than just crazy mass murderers but also Mexican drug crime rings that are now operating in OUR country and even selling guns to terrorists.
And all so gun fanatics like “Jay”, who has a selective interpretation of the Constitution, can stroke the guns in his basement and feel safe from the gun toting mass murderers, drug criminals, and terrorists.
Cue gun fanatic “Jay’s” explanation that 2+2=5
in 5, 4, 3…
You see August, but that is not what the bill does which is why your statement is bullshit. What it does say is that if I am legally allowed to carry a concealed firearm in Florida, I should be allowed to continue to do so if I happen to visit New Jersey for a few days. It does not give “easier firearm access to people convicted of domestic abuse.”
Hey, could anyone point me to another part of the Bill of Rights where “the people” is used to describe a right that is NOT an individual right? Somewhere else where “the right of the people” means “the states get to regulate the exercise of this right?”
For bonus points, where did “domestic abusers” come from in this discussion?
J.
From the article: “at least 31 states prohibit alcohol abusers from obtaining concealed-carry permits; at least 35 states bar people convicted of certain misdemeanors from becoming gun owners; and at least 31 states require people to complete gun-safety programs before securing a weapons permit.”
As I understand it, some states bar convicted domestic abusers from certain gun rights (anybody know about this?).
The connection than is that if a convicted domestic abuser moved to a state that didn’t have that restriction the new law would allow that convicted domestic abuser to then freely drive to the state with a weapon that otherwise prohibits or restricts that convicted domestic abuser from carrying that weapon.
Thus: The Gun Rights For Wife Beaters Act of 2009.
Isn’t it amazing (amazing in the deadly, selling guns to terrorists, drug criminals, and nuts kind of way) that gun fanatics deliberately omit the first part of 2nd Amendment?
““A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.””
Apparently the words “well regulated” were inconvenient so are selectively ignored.
Glass Joe Reid…best Republican the Democratic party has ever had!
Oh nonsense. That was Bill Clinton.
Fixed it for you Mr. Willis.
Yet they kill 40,000 and injure almost 3,000,000 people a year, and anyone 15 or above who can pass a simple written test and identify letters on a eye chart will be allowed to drive one. Even convicted felons like wife beaters will be allowed to drive a car. Hell, the crime for operating a vehicle without a license or even on a suspended license is merely a fine.
And looking through my copy of the Constitution I don’t see one mention of having people having a right to own or operate a vehicle anywhere.
What state in the USA allows someone convicted of domestic violence to legally purchase or own a firearm?
Cars are “well regulated” and the ‘right’ to drive a car is well regulated.
There are age restrictions, disability restrictions (blind people aren’t allowed to drive), and legal restrictions (drunk drivers can have their license restricted and/or revoked).
And in some states if you are caught driving without a license you might spend some time in jail (post Oklahoma bombing ruling by some states) and your auto is impounded (which if you’ve got a long way to walk from where it was impounded can be significantly more than “merely a fine”).
And last I recall, guns kill some 30,000 people a year and guns injure some 70,000 a year (anyone have those stats bookmarked from a credible source?).
Again, the words “well regulated” are selectively ignored by the right wingers.
The Constitution’s 2nd Amendment:
““A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.””
As are firearms. There is even an entire Federal agency devoted to regulating firearms.
Need to be 18 to buy a long gun and 21 to buy a hand gun.
However owning a firearm is a Constitutional right so physical disability doesn’t disqualify you from owning a firearm, just as being disabled doesn’t prevent you from worshiping the diety of your choice or protect you from unreasonable search and siezure.
Convicted felons cannot legally possess a firearm. The crime for being a felon in possession is a felony. There are also misdemeanors which will prevent you from legally purchasing a firearm.
One, “right wingers” are not ignoring the “well-regulated” bit. Firearms are extremely regulated. I guess you could argue whether they’re “well regulated”. But even if they were ignoring that, is that better, worse, or as bad as those who disagree with “right wingers” ignoring the “shall not be infringed.”?
Some states have far more relaxed standards for driver’s licenses than Maryland. Yet, anyone with a DL can drive in Maryland.
And anyone driving 85 in a 45 zone gets a ticket because that’s what the local driving law says, you nitwit.
Did you even stop to think about this before you picked, of all things, driving laws as your analogy? You know, the thing that is always varied from locality to locality depending on the conditions thereof? Speed limits. Check the Google, you’ll learn something.
Hell, the crime for operating a vehicle without a license or even on a suspended license is merely a fine.
Despite your protestations, a car is STILL not designed specifically to kill something or someone.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I see I need to give a little grammar lesson to “Newsy.”
There are two possible interpretations. The one you seem incapable of grasping is that the first, dependent clause is exhortatory, citing one justification for the independent clause that makes up the latter half of the Amendment. This is buttressed by the context; nowhere else in the Bill of Rights is a right granted specifically to “the people” one that is subject to state regulation or interpretation as a “collective” right versus an individual right.
It’s probably the most poorly crafted part of the Constitution.
J.
Also, the GOP love of state’s rights suddenly disappears when its a gun civil rights issue.
The difference being that the only reason one opposes civil rights is the sadistic desire to make people’s lives harder just so that they can get an undeserved sense of self-worth.
Yet they they’re far more dangerous than a firearm, kill thousands more people, and injure millions more, but subject to such lax regulation and licensing in their use.
Yet Mr. Willis wants Harry Reid fired because he may support a law which will require states to respect the Constitutional rights of Americans from other states the same way the states treat drivers licenses?
Treat Americans equally? “No We Can’t!” says OW.com!
Yet they they’re far more dangerous than a firearm
When used incorrectly. A gun, when used correctly, kills stuff.
I have used many firearms many times and never killed a thing. Was I not doing it correctly?
Right winger “Jay Tea” referring to the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution: “It’s probably the most poorly crafted part of the Constitution.”
Which is probably one of the few things we agree on.
Using linguistic gymnastics to arrive at dubious legal conclusions at best and clearly specious conclusions to those accustomed to reading clear language (without the filter of theoretical grammatical red herrings) is something the right claims to be against, unless it helps push their agenda, of course.
Right Winger’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People.
The clear language of the 2nd Amendment says that States can regulate the Arms of a well regulated militia while the Federal government cannot.
My only concession would be that “Arms” would only be anything pre-1776 (pre-1788 if you want to be a stickler).
Otherwise, join a well regulated State militia and work within individual State’s laws to secure your “Arms”.
Why do right wingers hate State’s rights?
Did News Reference just say he’s used to reading clear language? Have you never visited that website you link to all the time?
Hehehe, “SFC B” I sincerely get a kick out of you.
And when you’re being thoughtful, while I usually fiercely disagree with you, your comments are often a welcome relief from the general right wing discourse here.
Please take over the Republican Party from the extremists, the country would be significantly better for it.
Newsy, your knowledge of history is extremely poor. I could care less what you interpret as “clear language.” There is nothing and I mean NOTHING in any documentation, writings, speeches or anything else the founders wrote that would suggest your warped interpretation is what the founding fathers had in mind for the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms.
Jay Tea is correct. Nowhere else in the constitution is the term “the people” meant in the collective except the left thinks that is the case for the second amendment.
Now getting back to the original claims made by certain people here, the people suddenly concerned about “states rights” have all it wrong, because the federal government is well within their power to pass federal legislation that supersedes state law on the matter of reciprocity. This legislation merely allows somebody who is legally allowed to carry a firearm in one state, be free to travel to or through another state without committing a crime the moment he/she crosses the border. It does not in some magical way legally allow some dude to travel to where his wife lives and kick the shit out of her so please people, get rid of the stupid in you.
It also does not mean that if I pack up and move from Florida to New Jersey that my right to carry follows me to New Jersey. No, once I move to NJ, I am subject to their gun laws, idiotic as they are.