warpedskydiver 0 #1 July 26, 2009 No Surprise: Anti-Gun Groups Wage Desperation Attack On Right-To-Carry Before Senate Reciprocity Vote Friday, July 24, 2009 Let's just say it didn't exactly catch anyone at NRA off-guard, when earlier this week Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center (VPC) raised superficial, misleading arguments in an effort to derail the Thune-Vitter Right-to-Carry permit reciprocity amendment. When Brady was called National Council to Control Handguns, it called for "a ban on the manufacture, sale, and importation of all handguns and handgun ammunition." VPC, an off-shoot of the so-called National Coalition to Ban Handguns, openly advocates banning the private possession of handguns. And, naturally, both groups have always opposed people carrying concealed handguns for self-defense, Brady going so far as to say that self-defense is not a constitutionally-guaranteed right. In attacking the amendment, both groups listed a small number of instances in which permit holders committed various crimes over the years, implying that such crimes would be the national norm if the amendment became law—basically the same old "the sky will fall" prediction heard every time a state adopts a Right-to-Carry law. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) complemented the allegation, by making the outrageous claim—and we are not making this up—that if the amendment became law, 16-year-old firearm traffickers would get permits in Vermont (an odd claim since Vermont has no licensing system), and then go to other states carrying large numbers of handguns in backpacks, to be illegally sold to criminals. Brady and VPC hoped their panic-stricken predictions would frighten senators into overwhelmingly rejecting the amendment. But we were able to show that even if you take the group's lists at face value, they show that permit-holders are much more law-abiding than the rest of the public. Based upon VPC's list, permit holders are 15 times less likely to commit murder, plain and simple. Try as it might, VPC could come up with only a very small number of criminal homicides committed by permit holders, in situations in which a permit was required to possess a concealed handgun. Of course, VPC did not mention instances in which murders did not occur, because people were able to defend themselves. Brady's claim is a little more difficult to sort out, only because their list included situations in which no crime was committed, including false reports of illegal carrying, and accidents (some not even resulting in an injury); crimes not involving the misuse of a firearm, such as having a gun in a vehicle operated under the influence, or illegally possessing a firearm or having a firearm in a vehicle in a school zone or other restricted area; crimes not involving a handgun; and crimes that took place in locations where a permit was not required to possess a concealed handgun. Sifting down to violent crimes, with concealed handguns, in locations where a permit was required, permit holders again came out far better than the rest of the public. In the end, Brady's and VPC's efforts had virtually no effect on how the Senate voted. But, like the 10-round (or lower) magazine-capacity limit they support within "assault weapon ban" legislation, and their support for handgun ammunition microstamping and encoding, and "smart" gun requirements, they reminded us that Brady and VPC are handgun-ban groups at their core. Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes. 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683 Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy Quote Does anyone here want to say why they think this bill should not have passed? It is pretty obvious what is going on when Politicians have to resort to bold faced lies and use data that has no factual purpose in this argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #2 July 26, 2009 I've got a lot of mixed feelings about this. I don't think the bill ought to be necessary, to begin with. If a state issues a permit to carry without restriction, the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause means that permit is valid nationwide. I'm concerned about the federal government claiming the power to push the states around by specific act, because I think the feds are already way over-powerful in the state-fed balance. I'd love to see carry permits honored nationwide. I guess as a political compromise, I'd support this, but I can see several other ways of achieving this end (a SCOTUS decision enforcing FFC for CCW permits, for example) that I'd prefer.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #3 July 27, 2009 That would be ideal actually. To remove the restrictions due to the Interstate Commerce clause. To then remove any other restrictions allowed by the Fed or the State in barring persons to CCW if they are not precluded by law for owning a firearm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #4 July 27, 2009 There's a gun lobby, and an anti-gun lobby. It's a gun bill. Ergo, both lobbies lobbied. Move along, folks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #5 July 27, 2009 QuoteThere's a gun lobby, and an anti-gun lobby. It's a gun bill. Ergo, both lobbies lobbied. Move along, folks. Actually, from a lobby-watching perspective, it was pretty interesting stuff. I was pretty shocked that, despite the widely publicized "swing to the left" in the last electoral cycle, 58 Senators voted in favor of this. I'd have thought the number would be a lot lower. Given the vote count on this, I think that the President is going to have a lot of trouble meeting his campaign promise of renewing the old AWB. I'm pretty pleased about that.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #6 July 27, 2009 QuoteI think that the President is going to have a lot of trouble meeting his campaign promise of renewing the old AWB. Ooh, I loved the old AWB! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w8wEuqhf_8&feature=PlayList&p=E940A7BA8322A0E7&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=50 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #7 July 27, 2009 QuoteI've got a lot of mixed feelings about this. I don't think the bill ought to be necessary, to begin with. If a state issues a permit to carry without restriction, the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause means that permit is valid nationwide. It shouldn't be necessary, but obviously, it is. Therefore, I'm seeing this bill as a clarification of Full Faith and Credit, that a license issued by one state to a resident of that state, be it a drivers' license, marriage license, or a CCW/CHL license, should be valid in any other state. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #8 July 27, 2009 Without looking I can be pretty sure that Dickhead Durbin, and Roland Obama Burris were dissenting votes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #9 July 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteI've got a lot of mixed feelings about this. I don't think the bill ought to be necessary, to begin with. If a state issues a permit to carry without restriction, the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause means that permit is valid nationwide. It shouldn't be necessary, but obviously, it is. Therefore, I'm seeing this bill as a clarification of Full Faith and Credit, that a license issued by one state to a resident of that state, be it a drivers' license, marriage license, or a CCW/CHL license, should be valid in any other state. We can only wish... I'd love to see a more public linking of the CCW and marriage license issues. "Yes sir, your permit is valid in 50 states--so is those two guys' marriage certificate."-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #10 July 27, 2009 QuoteI'd love to see a more public linking of the CCW and marriage license issues. "Yes sir, your permit is valid in 50 states--so is those two guys' marriage certificate." I like that idea. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #11 July 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteI've got a lot of mixed feelings about this. I don't think the bill ought to be necessary, to begin with. If a state issues a permit to carry without restriction, the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause means that permit is valid nationwide. It shouldn't be necessary, but obviously, it is. Therefore, I'm seeing this bill as a clarification of Full Faith and Credit, that a license issued by one state to a resident of that state, be it a drivers' license, marriage license, or a CCW/CHL license, should be valid in any other state. . . . as much as a marriage liscense?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #12 July 27, 2009 Quote I'd love to see a more public linking of the CCW and marriage license issues. "Yes sir, your permit is valid in 50 states--so is those two guys' marriage certificate." If it happened, it would be cited for the next century as proof that politics make for strange bedfellows. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
TomAiello 26 #2 July 26, 2009 I've got a lot of mixed feelings about this. I don't think the bill ought to be necessary, to begin with. If a state issues a permit to carry without restriction, the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause means that permit is valid nationwide. I'm concerned about the federal government claiming the power to push the states around by specific act, because I think the feds are already way over-powerful in the state-fed balance. I'd love to see carry permits honored nationwide. I guess as a political compromise, I'd support this, but I can see several other ways of achieving this end (a SCOTUS decision enforcing FFC for CCW permits, for example) that I'd prefer.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #3 July 27, 2009 That would be ideal actually. To remove the restrictions due to the Interstate Commerce clause. To then remove any other restrictions allowed by the Fed or the State in barring persons to CCW if they are not precluded by law for owning a firearm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #4 July 27, 2009 There's a gun lobby, and an anti-gun lobby. It's a gun bill. Ergo, both lobbies lobbied. Move along, folks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #5 July 27, 2009 QuoteThere's a gun lobby, and an anti-gun lobby. It's a gun bill. Ergo, both lobbies lobbied. Move along, folks. Actually, from a lobby-watching perspective, it was pretty interesting stuff. I was pretty shocked that, despite the widely publicized "swing to the left" in the last electoral cycle, 58 Senators voted in favor of this. I'd have thought the number would be a lot lower. Given the vote count on this, I think that the President is going to have a lot of trouble meeting his campaign promise of renewing the old AWB. I'm pretty pleased about that.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #6 July 27, 2009 QuoteI think that the President is going to have a lot of trouble meeting his campaign promise of renewing the old AWB. Ooh, I loved the old AWB! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w8wEuqhf_8&feature=PlayList&p=E940A7BA8322A0E7&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=50 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #7 July 27, 2009 QuoteI've got a lot of mixed feelings about this. I don't think the bill ought to be necessary, to begin with. If a state issues a permit to carry without restriction, the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause means that permit is valid nationwide. It shouldn't be necessary, but obviously, it is. Therefore, I'm seeing this bill as a clarification of Full Faith and Credit, that a license issued by one state to a resident of that state, be it a drivers' license, marriage license, or a CCW/CHL license, should be valid in any other state. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #8 July 27, 2009 Without looking I can be pretty sure that Dickhead Durbin, and Roland Obama Burris were dissenting votes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #9 July 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteI've got a lot of mixed feelings about this. I don't think the bill ought to be necessary, to begin with. If a state issues a permit to carry without restriction, the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause means that permit is valid nationwide. It shouldn't be necessary, but obviously, it is. Therefore, I'm seeing this bill as a clarification of Full Faith and Credit, that a license issued by one state to a resident of that state, be it a drivers' license, marriage license, or a CCW/CHL license, should be valid in any other state. We can only wish... I'd love to see a more public linking of the CCW and marriage license issues. "Yes sir, your permit is valid in 50 states--so is those two guys' marriage certificate."-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #10 July 27, 2009 QuoteI'd love to see a more public linking of the CCW and marriage license issues. "Yes sir, your permit is valid in 50 states--so is those two guys' marriage certificate." I like that idea. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #11 July 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteI've got a lot of mixed feelings about this. I don't think the bill ought to be necessary, to begin with. If a state issues a permit to carry without restriction, the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause means that permit is valid nationwide. It shouldn't be necessary, but obviously, it is. Therefore, I'm seeing this bill as a clarification of Full Faith and Credit, that a license issued by one state to a resident of that state, be it a drivers' license, marriage license, or a CCW/CHL license, should be valid in any other state. . . . as much as a marriage liscense?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #12 July 27, 2009 Quote I'd love to see a more public linking of the CCW and marriage license issues. "Yes sir, your permit is valid in 50 states--so is those two guys' marriage certificate." If it happened, it would be cited for the next century as proof that politics make for strange bedfellows. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
