Gun grabbers worried about amendments to gun control bill
The Washington Post reports that the gun grabbers are particularly worried that their gun bill might get diluted by amendments – amendments that would strength gun rights for law abiding citizens. Amendments like a national reciprocity clause which would make a Concealed Carry license good nationwide – like your driver’s license where you pass a test and meet the requirements in your home county and you can drive anywhere in the country.
“Congress should recognize that the right to self-defense does not end at state lines,” NRA lobbyist Chris W. Cox said in a statement issued last month, when the proposal was introduced in the Senate.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) described the measure this week as “the most pernicious” proposal under consideration.
“Somebody could come from Wyoming to the big cities of New York or New Haven or Bridgeport and carry a concealed weapon, which is so against our way of life, and the needs here in New York,” Schumer said.
The reciprocity proposal was last put to a vote by the Senate in 2009 and received 58 votes — just two short of the necessary 60.
Now, when I drive to see my mom in upstate New York, I drive through West Virginia with my weapon at hand, then before I cross into Maryland, I have to lock up the gun and the bullets in separate containers, then drive 12 miles to Pennsylvania, take the gun and bullets out of the boxes, and then go through the process again before I get to New York. How much sense does that make? Especially, when you consider in which of those four states I might be most likely to need a gun to defend myself.
Schumer is being over-dramatic about the “New York way of life”. If I’m legally allowed to carry my gun in 32 States (because of WV reciprocity agreements), why would I suddenly decide to interrupt the New York way of life and commit a gun crime in New York? I’m quite sure that criminals don’t care about reciprocity agreements, so New York State still has people carrying concealed weapons, they just don’t have official licensing and training.
My Senator, Joe Manchin, introduced a national reciprocity bill in the Senate last year – the sole reason I voted for him in November. I’m holding him to that if a national reciprocity amendment gets a vote this week, and I’ve let him know that.
Category: Politics
I’ve heard that Schumer has a NY unrestricted pistol permit. Not that I’m surprised by his hypocrisy, just thought I’d point out that he does actually understand the “needs here in NY” and just doesn’t care if anybody else’s needs are met.
@1: What else do you expect from one of the elites? Can’t have the little people running around armed. Ok for me, but not for thee.
Our 2nd Amendment rights are non-negotiable and we shouldn’t have to be discussing amendments to an unconstitutional bill.
The 16 Republicans who voted against the filibuster need to be primaried.
Pernicious? Oh. Do not get me started on pernicious in regards to Chuckie Schumer.
This is the same kind of thing that went on with the CDL licensing. Out West, two states would not recognize that federal mandate, California and Nevada. Then out of the wild blue, both states were right onboard with it. Do believe this reciprocity deal has come before the Senate before too and they drug their feet as well.
[…] Ain’t Hell has a bunch of great posts up today but I like this one by Jonn on “Gun grabbers worried about amendments to gun control […]
Jonn mentioned that he’s quite sure that criminals don’t care about reciprocity agreements. While that is true, they have their own version of reciprocity, except it’s fuggin’ ILLEGAL!
so if Feinstein attaches her amendment, amendments are OK. If someone attaches a national reciprocity bill, amendments are pernicious. All we need now are the sheep bleating “four legs good, two legs bad” during amendment proposal time and it’ll be perfect.
I agree with Common Sense’s #3 post.
The Supreme Court has declined to examine the argument.
http://feeds.nbcnews.com/c/35002/f/653378/s/2abd7cb1/l/0Lfirstread0Bnbcnews0N0C0Inews0C20A130C0A40C150C177613680Esupreme0Ecourt0Epasses0Eon0Egun0Erights0Ecase0Dlite/story01.htm
Once again SCOTUS chickens out.
NHSparky: the SCOTUS typically doesn’t get involved unless and until two different Circuit Courts of Appeal have come up with conflicting rulings. If a case hasn’t been through all the “wickets”, the SCOTUS routinely also doesn’t consider it.
If this particular case from NY (and I don’t its background) hadn’t been through all the “wickets” or caused a Appeals Court level conflict, it would be normal practice for the SCOTUS to either remand the case or refuse to consider it.