An NRA-Friendly Addition to Senate's 'Wedge-Issue June'
Flying under the radar with all the immigration hubbub in the Senate last week was a charming piece of legislation by Senator George Allen (R-VA) that would allow people licensed to carry a concealed weapon in one state to enjoy the same privilege anywhere else in the country.
S. 3275, which is cosponsored by 12 Senators -- all Republicans, except for GOP-lite Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- would make it a law that "… nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State" if they are permitted to carry their gun elsewhere. Allen's measure is a companion bill to H.R. 4547, introduced in the House of Representatives in December for the same purpose.
"The bill would simply require States to recognize each other's concealed carry permits and licenses, just as they recognize drivers' licenses," said Allen in introducing his bill last week, proclaiming that his legislation would "… increase the safety of the many law-abiding Americans who have chosen to carry a firearm for protection against criminal attack."
Yeah, that's what we want: States that had the bad judgment to overwhelming vote for George W. Bush again in 2004 sending their heavily-armed, backwoods brethren to New York City, Chicago and San Francisco. Sounds like a real smart idea and, of course, federal legislation would then make it all but impossible for the more enlightened states to keep from being turned into 1870s Deadwood.
And analyzing what might be behind this only confirms the other shoe that you know is going to drop.
With Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) pumping up the Senate calendar for "Wedge-Issue June" -- gay marriage is on tap for next week followed by the flag-burning amendment -- it probably seems like a good time to get the gun-toting types to rally behind a nice divisive firearms bill before the midterm elections.
And, of course, you just know that National Rifle Association (NRA) money is lurking somewhere in the shadows on this story.
Taking a look at all donations made by the NRA of America Political Victory Fund shows that -- surprise! -- four of the top ten Senate recipients of NRA largesse in the last six years are sponsoring this legislation.
Indeed, of the $1.6 million in donations made to Senators or Senate candidates from this particular NRA PAC, almost $400,000, or an astounding 26 percent of the money, went to just nine of the Republicans authoring or cosponsoring the Allen bill. And this, just one facet of NRA contributions, is undoubtedly just the tip of the iceberg.
In a laughable attempt to protect the states that do not readily allow their citizens to walk the streets packing heat, the House bill's language stipulates that the gun holder may not, in such a state "…carry a concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport."
Isn't it nice to know that, with those restrictions in place, one of these folks will have to wait outside the bar to shoot you?
And one sure-fire way to tell that a U.S. Senator isn't particularly proud of putting their name to a piece of legislation is if there's no mention of it in the press-release section of their official web site. The bill's primary sponsor, Senator Allen, doesn’t mention it. And none of the other 12 sponsors of the legislation say one word about their involvement with the bill in their press releases.
Lest you think the concealed-weapon measure is too insignificant for Senators to include in their announcements, it's important to understand that members of Congress use every opportunity to brag about their legislative feats -- unless they truly want them to pass under cover of darkness. While there's no mention of S. 3275 on John Sununu's (R-NH) web site, he's proud to announce "Sununu backs legislation to eliminate ethanol import tariff."
Michael Crapo and Larry Craig, both Republicans from Idaho, won’t mention the gun bill but grandly announce "Crapo Introduces Forest Service Partnership Bill" and "Craig Introduces Specialty Crop Bill."
Bottom line: This legislation is payback to the NRA and it's so obvious, and such bad public policy, that the Senators don’t even bother to announce it to constituents, many of whom might even be NRA members.
With the NRA making the House's H.R. 4547, sponsored by Representatives Cliff Stearns of Florida and Rick Boucher of Virginia, a legislative and "grassroots activism" priority, look for the bill to pass quickly through the House Judiciary Committee and for the same to happen with the Senate's version.
After all, Bill Frist won't want June to end without throwing another log on the old wedge-issue fire.
Printer-friendly version
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Thank you Bill
With the epidemic of methamphetamine in rural and small town America, I want to see if the guy tweeking in line at the grocery is packing heat. I am like you, I think that I have the right to see if Wild Bill is strapped so I can avoid him.
You think a meth user would be afraid to break the law
requiring a permit to carry a gun?
If you haven't noticed, meth use is ILLEGAL. If somebody is tweaking, they don't give the derriere of a Ratus ratus what the law says. Meaning, they probably won't go down to their local sheriff's office and request a background check and mental health records check, and ask that the FBI run their prints, shell out lots of $$$, and wait for months to get PERMISSION to carry a gun legally.
If someone is cooking/using meth, and they want to carry a gun, you think they'd CARE if they had a permit, or if concealed carry was allowed?
Greg,They give guns to scum
Greg,
They give guns to scum bags and I don’t like it.
The bar has been lowered way too far.
Don’t talk to me about theoreticals. I KNOW many people who carry and are close to killing all the time.
Some guns in the right hands and locations make us safer. Change the equation a bit and we are less safe (including when we ourselves carry). Citizens have a right to defend themselves from scum bags even when they carry legally.
The intended topic/flavor of this thread was simply note that we live in a Republic.
Self defense is not just about carrying, but about other people who are carrying.
Jim
And yes with the
And yes with the overproduction of guns they are trivial to obtain.
Get rid of the overload by reducing the shear number of guns by an order of magnitude and the price of a gun on the street goes up. That means little Johnny John John may get past his hormone induced “I’ve been dissed” moment because he can’t buy easily and cheaply on the street.
How about showing some responsibility for your gun?
How about raising the bar overwhelmingly for those who can carry?
How about if you lose your gun and it’s used to kill you go to the death chamber?
Or is this again about the ME generation?
Greg,I have another
Greg,
I have another question:
Do you ever admit to yourself –like I do- that you are a murderer out of selfishness? This is NOT a gun question. There are so many ways that we murder through inaction. I understand the distinction between action causing harm and inaction causing it. We don’t even use the word murder for it and most of the times the difference is near infinite. But still, does this restricted sense of murder (or allowing death that need not be) through inaction, ever give you pause?
-Let’s assume for the moment that all the numbers I have seen are wrong and/or how I am looking at this is all wrong. Let’s further assume that more and more guns –in any sense you agree with- creates more net joy in the world. (More bad guys put away and more good guys saved). I would then WANT everything you want.
I think what might divide Americans is that the opposite may not be true.
-Now let’s assume the opposite. Suppose it was true that the glut of guns willy nilly sold on the street (in my view) and the casual ownership of guns rather than a sacred one (again my view) leads to thousands of needless deaths each year with its attendant life long misery for thousands of families. Can you tell me how you would feel about this? I understand that you still might feel that selfishness (degrees of which are clearly our birthright) would reign. I have no problem with that. But would you also feel that you have taken something?
I don’t think this subject is as important as many others, since quite a few take more lives than guns do. Also, we are not even talking about gun ownership but rather citizens being able to vote on their defense posture based on their strategy. I just wonder to what extent fellow Americans can agree on the basics (even AFTER the science is agreed to or theoretically agreed to –as above).
Thanks,
Jim
You know
This is a small town. I don't know anyone who is cooking meth that I know of, but I know several meth-heads, and drunks that have the concealed deadly weapon permit. I have seen several of them bragging about it. The sad part is it is perfectly legal here for them to carry concealed weapons. Like Bill in this node, I just want to know why you think people should have to carry a concealed weapon. I think if you carry a gun, you should at least let other people know you have it by carrying it in plain site. That way I know to stay away from you and your gun. I still maintain that local and state governments have the right to legislate their own gun laws as the problem requires. If that hassles the NRA or you or anybody else, that is just too bad.
Thoughts...
Bill Harding asks:
"Why do you feel the need to hide your gun? I don't care if you have a gun, I would just like to know who is carrying so that I can avoid the risk of being around them."
(1) Because generally speaking, state law requires that a gun carried on a NC carry license be carried discreetly. Failing to do so is chargeable as a crime. Many states have similar laws.
(2) Because carrying openly is a bad idea from a threat avoidance standpoint. There's a reason why off-duty police carry discreetly and don't wear badges...many of the same considerations apply to the non-LEO.
Hold on a second
Number 2 is insane. Like I am going to threaten the guy who openly carries his 44 revolver? Give me a break.
Grinch...numbers are wack
Might want to read those numbers before ya copy and paste.....the percents are all wrong. You basically proved Charles' point...lol
Okay High School Grad, put
Okay High School Grad, put forth your data.
Sorry Jim, but Republicans
Sorry Jim, but Republicans are not allowed a platform on Democrats.com to put their agendas up for display.
They can contribute politely, up to a point. This is a blog for Democrats to discuss issues amongst ourselves.
Bill, And I was so in the
Bill,
And I was so in the mood for crayon time!
Jim
I know that there are
I know that there are differing opinions on whether to allow Republicans, Libertarians, etc. to spout their nonsensical bile on this blog.
If you will note however, between "Independents," and Republicans, this node has already gone overboard, and become a circular argument which has nothing to do with the topic posed by the originator.
Unfortunately, educating the public and arguing with neocons and nitwits, do not mix well on a political blog.
distortion: maybe you should read the numbers first...
explain how the numbers are 'wacky.' Oh yeah, I don't copy and paste by the way. By the time you compare MAs numbers to KYs numbers...you see the differene.
Charles never made a point.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Louis Pasteur
I don't follow your numbers
I don't follow your numbers grinch. Check em and get back to me.
Jim...the numbers are from the site...
which numbers are you questioning? What is important is the per 100,000 population. and the percentage based upon that data.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Louis Pasteur
I think you made a mistake.
They are not percentages.
With respect to gun deaths that do not include suicide, both States are within a few percent of each other with Kentucky being slightly better.
With respect to all gun deaths Kentucky is worse by 1.3 times.
The interesting thing to me however is how the hell can California be so damned good with everybody living right on top of each other! In places I’m guessing Californians have several orders of magnitude more human interactions than in Kentucky with such a tiny spread out population.
Simply amazing.
Jim...thats the point I was trying to make. I just compared...
Oregon with KY and find that OrYgun is only slightly better than KY. We have the same mix of rural and urban spreads and approx the same population.
Considering, as you did, the population of CA, the score for CA makes CA a fairly safe place to live in comparison to KY. Of course, I don't have any data for ulcers.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Louis Pasteur
Clearly KY wins on that last
Clearly KY wins on that last point as they shoot themselves at twice the rate as evil CA.
Even more enlightening is
Even more enlightening is the information on gun laws. Check out the lowest and highest death rates, and compare their licensing and waiting period laws.
And the NRA tries to tell us that we just need to enforce the laws already "on the books." The States with the highest gun-related deaths (KY in particular) have the weakest laws and regulations. NY is an interesting example of low death rates, and more strict laws.
Bill, Which grade school
Bill,
Which grade school just let out?
Jim
I didn't get the name, but
I didn't get the name, but the parking lot was full of pick 'em up trucks with gun racks.
Or maybe I do. I'm checking
Or maybe I do.
I'm checking now.
I wonder how many
Shotgun weddings they had in MA last year?
LOL Rich...as in Clockwork Orange...
they just stomp 'em to death.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Louis Pasteur
Bill, my very poor close vision...
helped me mistake number per 100K population for percentages. Disregard the per cent marks.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Louis Pasteur
8^) These are obviously Charles' friends...
ummm...since he didnt come back.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Louis Pasteur
We had a gun show here a couple of years ago...
there were NRA members at the door checking all weapons coming into the show to insure that they were unloaded.
About halfway through the show/sale, someone picked up a gun to try it, pulled the trigger and blew a hole in the roof. Yup, an unloaded gun.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Louis Pasteur
I was always taught that
I was always taught that there is no such thing as an unloaded gun. All guns should be considered loaded and lethal. I was also taught never to point a gun at someone unless you intended to kill them.
That is why I believe that these non-official idiots who carry "concealed" guns are nothing more than macho, wannabe bad guys. It must give them an imaginary penis extension.
TOTAL GUN DEATHS PER 100,000
TOTAL GUN DEATHS PER 100,000 PEOPLE
.
Kentucky 13.73
.
New York 6.44
.
.
9 of the top 10 crime gun export states do not
require background checks at gun shows.
Thank the NRA for its codling of thugs.
Conservatives are building the grandest ME generation in ages.
How about being responsible for your gun?
Your loose it, it kills, you die.
Got your gun statistics right here
A review of the CDC sight reveals for 2003 the following in deaths from guns (all causes) per 100,000: (note, this is just a sampling)
Known Blue States:
New York 5.39
Illinois 9.06
Maine 6.28
Vermont 7.75
Minnesota 6.65
New Hampshire 6.91
Known Red States:
Kentucky 13.60
Texas 11.00
Kansas 11.16
Idaho 12.00
Wyoming 17.76
Alabama 17.00
My conclusion: Let the Red states have their guns. At this rate, they will probably just put themselves out of their misery.
Saving the world from stupidity
One Republican at a time
Since November, 2004
Thanks Vince.
Thanks Vince.
Some contrarian thoughts
1) Reasons to hide your gun are numerous. Love em or hate em, their presence riles some folks. Hiding them on your person avoids offputting people who don't like them. Since the gun I carry is no threat to anyone who isn't threatening my life, why upset anyone? Secondly, I don't want the crooks to know I have it--it makes you the first target when the fit hits the shan (think sitting in a dinner that's getting robbed or similar situation). Also, if something bad happens, other citizens are going to turn to you and draw attention to you expecting you to play vigilante. Bad thing. My gun is for protecting me and my family from violent perps, and that's it.
2) Vince, your stats are telling. ME essentially fails to restrict concealed carry in any meaningful way, and VT doesn't restrict it AT ALL. Vermont is a concealed carry fan's dream come true.
Putting all the stats about guns killing people (as you note, those stats include all causes), the reality is that people with CCW permits aren't really the threat. It's the bad guys out there who want to harm you for criminal reasons you have to worry about, and those guys don't tend to line up for CCW permits. TX and FL have both studied their CCW holding populations and found them to be less criminal than the general non-CCW permit holding public.
It's not the CCW permit holders we need to be worrying about folks. I'm all for reasonable efforts to keep bad guys from getting guns; trying to keep me or people like me from having them isn't helpful to that cause.
Care to take the responsible
Care to take the responsible carrying pledge:
You lose your gun, it kills, you die.
That's responsible?
Who kills me when I die? The state? I'm not much for the death penalty.
If your car is stolen and the thief runs over a nun when he's running from the cops...will you turn yourself in to the electric chair?
Guns are rarely lost. Stolen guns make up about ten percent of the guns connected to crimes; want me to avoid getting my gun stolen? Let me keep it with me!
IF you are such a wimp as to
IF you are such a wimp as to get it stolen and it kills you should die.
Work out for Christ’s sake.
Get off your lazy ass and build greater defenses.
If the above is too much for your care free life how about Life in Prison?
I don't think crime victims should die
If my property is stolen, I'm a crime victim. Why should I die?
What does my working out have to do with anything? I can assure you that I do, and if you tried to take my gun it wouldn't go too well for you.
Oh please. If you are too
Oh please.
If you are too weak to protect your gun you need to pay the price. Otherwise I’m gonna cry until somebody lets me carry a lion.
Sounds like a very progressive attitude you've got there
Killing people and all.
Like I said...I can assure you that nobody's getting my gun.
But we better get rid of all female police officers if that's your concern here.
Then take the pledge instead
Then take the pledge instead of acting like an effeminate wimp.
And it is you who contribute to the death and debt this Nation has slid into.
You have also lied from the get go.
What the heck did I lie about?
nt
I have asked you to publish
I have asked you to publish or perish and you continue to speak to a nothing issue.
Gun ownership is fine and so is other member of the Republic defending themselves strategically via Laws.
Now are you a Progressive or not? If so you need to help out on a broad range of issues that are killing people, reducing the USA ability to defend herself, and driving America into historic debt all thanks to the Conservative Big Government movement (though they still stand for a balless "hands off Monopolies" stance with respect to Economics.)
Now help out or move on.
I'm all for all of that
So what's the problem?
I already told you where I stand on a myriad of social and political issues. The last thing the Democrats need to be doing is suggesting that people like me aren't welcome in the big tent. Let the Republicans be the party of exclusion.
You really wanna tell someone who supports stronger environmental protection, gay marriage, is against immigration scare mongering, supports drug treatment instead of drug criminalization, etc....that he's not welcome amongst the Democrats...just because he owns guns? Given that 1/3 of Dems own guns...you'd be making the big tent into a smaller and smaller canopy all the time.
Also, if and only if, you
Also, if and only if, you are incorrect, do you internalize the misery you cause?
Isn’t in interesting that
Isn’t in interesting that all the gun lovers find that the “data” means they are just peachy keen and doing ZERO harm?
IF guns help all over the place THEN I want them all over the place.
IF guns hurt in places THEN do you internalize what you take from our Nation?
Guns do harm
They also save lives. Even conservative estimates of defensive gun use outnumber criminal use.
What does that tell me? It tells me that guns are value neutral objects whose moral value is derived from the user.
I asked you to answer an
I asked you to answer an IMPLICATION statement.
Do so now please and do not repeat an end around.
Thanks
Publish or Perish
We have had an influx of “guns for any idiot on the street” posters.
Making of course, guns in the hands of those who should carry less effective.
They have made no headway with their undisciplined approach to defense.
Now we get you who claims to be a Progressive.
You need to answer all questions/comments put to you and make headway on this blog against Conservative nonsense on other topics or your publication privileges will be revoked. Since you claim a “creative” perspective I do not want to hear attacks on Conservatives I have heard before. I want to hear something new and effective from you.
Thank you and know that we have had too much non resposiveness of late for this to go on any longer.
Jim
Any idiot?
Guns on the street for any idiot? I certainly wouldn't support that. Sorry you've had that influx, I wouldn't enjoy that either. My approach to self defense certainly is disciplined.
Claims to be a progressive? I dunno what else you call someone who supports gay marriage, drug legalization, environmental protection, spending more on education than prisons, etc.
Make headway against conservatives? I support all those things. I make conservatives heads bleed when they read all the things I support.
Why stifle debate on a controversial issue? Is there only one point of view that's allowable? Because pretty clearly this is an issue where progressives tend to agree to disagree pretty regularly.
Answer the Implication above
Answer the Implication above or you are going to lose your Publishing Privileges.
There is no other way to reveal the extent to which you are fine with fucking over others.