Boop His Nose But Be Careful!!
Smiling Tiger Loves When You Donate Monthly
Sponsoring FReepers will contribute $10
For each New Monthly Donor!
Get more bang for your buck
Sign up today
Posted on 07/19/2011 7:19:18 AM PDT by 2nd amendment mama
A leading supporter of gun rights in the Senate in an exclusive July 14 interview with Guns & Patriots that touched on many firearms issues made assurances that he will introduce a national concealed carry bill within weeks.
A new national concealed carry bill will be introduced within a matter of weeks, said Sen. John R. Thune, R-S.D., whose 2009 bill received 58 votes in the Senate, failing short of the 60-vote threshold required by Democratic parliamentary maneuvering.
A national concealed carry law would not only create a baseline right to carry a concealed firearm for all states, including Illinois, which is the only state without any procedure for concealed carry permits. The law would also create a framework for states to offer reciprocal recognition of concealed carry permits from other states.
Thune said he is now working with other senators, including Sen. David B. Vitter, R- La., who was a co-sponsor of the 2009 bill, and key Democrats, who have signaled their possible support.
The trick is that once the Democrats were confident his previous bill did not have 60 votes, they then allowed senators who needed a pro-gun vote for appearances voted for it, knowing it would not pass, he said.
One sticking point is how to handle the case of Vermont, he said. Vermont has no permit for concealed carry because it believes in the principle that it is not needed. This freedom is ideal, but what happens with someone from Vermont crosses into another state.
The senator said his bill will have a provision for Vermont, so that the national baseline does not hurt Vermonters, but taking away their current freedoms.
The current top gun-topic on Capitol Hill is the program by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to allow guns to pass through normal checks at both purchase points and at the Mexican border. Called Project Gun Runner, the program resulted in the shipment of hundreds of firearms to Mexican criminals that have been linked to dozens of robberies, kidnappings and murders—including the murder of two federal agents.
“I found out about Gun Runner the same way everyone else did,” Thune said.
“As some of the reporting came out, and some people began to talk about it, and it percolated to the surface we found out a lot of things about this project that people didn’t know about,” he said.
The South Dakotan, who is married with two daughters, said the key thing now is to get to the bottom of the matter, which is what is going on with the combined investigation led by Rep. Darrell E. Issa, R-Calif., and Sen. Charles E. “Chuck” Grassley,
“I commend Congressman Issa and Senator Grassley for pursuing an investigation to figure out how high up at the Justice Department this went—and for listening to the ATF whistle-blowers and to try to and try to determent the scope of this failed project,” he said.
Despite hearings and weeks of questions, the senator said he is still trying to get the basic answers, such as the names of the officials involved.
“If in fact we do find out that there were people who know about this and that there was complicity, an effort to try and keep people from finding out it, there ought to be some heads that roll over there,” he said.
“This clearly was a botched mission that was designed well, you know, I am not really clear what it was designed to do,” he said. “It was not effective and as a consequence, and some people have been killed.”
Thune said he was heartened by the cooperation by Acting Director Kenneth E. Melson. “I hope that that continues, and I hope that if there are any people who were working in any degree to keep this from making it out into the public domain that will be exposed as well and that they will be held accountable.”
“You look at the consequences of this and what’s going on south of the border, and the risk it puts our own law enforcement agents,” he said.
“It’s absolutely wrong and it needs to be exposed,” he said.
Another area of frustration for Thune, is the administration's haphazard rule-making , he said. One example is the effort by the government of South Korean to sell excess M-1 Garand rifles to Americans.
The administration approved the sale, and then withdrew permission without explanation, he said.
Thune said is very upset with the BATFE’s new rule requiring federally licensed gun sellers in states that border Mexico to report any multiple sales of rifles to the same individual within a five-business-day period.
“I have been active in this issue since January—and actively objecting that they proceed with this rule,” he said. In February, Thune and other senators signed a letter to the BATFE protesting that the rule itself was a violation of federal that that specifically allows for the reporting of handgun and revolvers purchases and not long rifles.
“This is a fundamental violation of the certified gun dealer’s rights,” he said.
Furthermore, in light of the Gun Runner debacle, there is some question if the BATFE has the ability to keep track of these weapons and individuals, even if they receive the report, he said.
“This goes above and beyond anything Congress is in favor of, and this final rule is really an overreach,” he said. “We hope to get some response back, but so far, they seem intent on moving forward.”
The senator, who is a married with two daughters, said he will continue to inveigh against the rule and its enforcement. “We need to get to the bottom of this.
You and I agree 110% on this issue.
National Constitutional Carry...no license/permission from any official agency required. No name records to be kept by private businesses that teach weapons safety or handling.
The Bill of Rights prohibition is fine and does not need a federal law to augment it. State by State we have got this worked down to a managable level (Illinois the exception) but if the Feds get in it, it will be corrupted later.
...shall not be infringed.
You can't possibly be serious with that statement! Manageable state by state? Try getting a permit in MA, NY City or NJ. Oh yeah and CA is such a pro-gun state. Do I really need a sarcasm tag? Do some research and you'll find that it's not "manageable" at all! Manageable would mean NO PERMIT REQUIRED.
Forgot to ask...who is this "we" that you talk about? What gun-rights organization do you work for? Are you a politician making laws?
Well, consider that many states have restrictions on the infringement (read “regulate”) or abridgement.
As an example:
New Mexico Constitution, Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
Yet the courts have ‘rules’ prohibiting firearms in their buildings which they warn will prosecute violators... my question: under what law would they be prosecuted considering “NO LAW SHALL ABRIDGE THE RIGHT OF THE CITIZEN TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS FOR SECURITY AND DEFENSE”?
North Dakota Constitution, Art 1, Section 1.
All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.
and
Section 20. To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.
And yet ND has concealed carry laws/licensing.
South Dakota Constitution, Article 6, § 24. Right to bear arms.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.
And yet firearms are denied (read ‘illegal’ to bear) in courthouses, city buildings, and state buildings.
So, it takes little effort at all (especially in this area) to show that the government is acting illegally, and least we forget most of the States have something like this in their Constitution:
“All political power is vested in and derived from the people: all government of right originates with the people, is founded upon their will and is instituted solely for their good.”
Which is a direct reference to the Declaration of Independence:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
I'm VERY well aware of that and that's why I'm not for any permit/license to carry.....those are definitely infringements! I don't know where you got the idea that I support anything but Constitutional Carry like VT has.
I know this is very frustrating to those in Blue states but think about the sea-change nationalily that has been achieved. We have some form of carry in 49 of 50 states after 15 years of hard work and improvements every year in a number of states.
Are we going to give up our successful state by state advancement to let the Feds put their nose under the tent flap and start working its way inside? Are we going to give up the barracade that presents itself to the leftist grabbers by not having to fight this away state by state with more conservative state legislators and, instead, leave the avenue open to killing our rights on the national level bit by bit as they have done with EPA and all the other Fed programs.
No, I feel for you but, IMHO, the best way is at the state level and not to open this pandora’s box of Federal control of this issue.
Ah, you misunderstood; my point was on that the States often have such prohibitions that [should] make it even harder to justify their “prohibited places” and often any licensing.
IOW, I was trying to point out that it is NOT just a Federal-level Constitutional issue, but one that involves the States’s own Constitutions themselves.
It is very likely that people of a State could bring a suit against that State for violating the 14th Amendment which forbids State abridgment of due process, since the States’s own Constitutions prohibit them from enacting such licensing and yet the States have passed such statutes. IMO, Instead of attacking only on the basis of the 2nd Amendment we should also be on the lookout for other avenues of approach; our enemy is none other the most lawless branch in America: the Judiciary.
>>While the 2ndA is a prohibition against such regulation (see prior post), insofar as the infringement occurs it may be regulated for uniformity.
>
>As the tired old analogy that free speech doesn’t give one the right to shout ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater means that free speech can be regulated,
And what an absolutely wrongheaded idea; Congress is not allowed to “abridg[e] the freedom of speech.”
But this ties directly into the idea of ‘incorporation,’ the First Amendment is quite specific in its prohibition: it is CONGRESS which is bound thereby, to assert that the First Amendment binds State Legislatures is to assert that the text of the Amendment can be changed as it is applied to the States... and that is to assert that the Judiciary can indeed amend the Constitution, which by no means is allowed. Therefore, recognize that it is the judiciary which is in rebellion against the proper authorities and they may yet be called to account.
>for better or worse (worse IMHO) the Supreme Court ruled in Heller v DC that the 2nd Amendment is not an ‘absolute’ right and can also be regulated.
This is true, for the moment at least, which is why we need to attack on other fronts, specifically: State Constitutions.
The State Constitutions often phrase the Right to Keep and Bear Arms [very] differently than the 2nd Amendment which, in turn, means that [logically] the Judiciary cannot simply cite the Supreme Court’s declaration concerning the 2nd with some simple text-transformations. (That is to say, it becomes much harder for them.)
Examples:
New Mexico Constitution, Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
SIGNIFICANCE:
The first portion of the list prohibits ANY law from abridging the Citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for security and defense; this means that the court CANNOT legitimately prosecute someone for, say, bringing a firearm into a courthouse. {Should a juror, a freeman who has not even been accused of a crime, be forced to disarm? Why? Note also that conceivably he has the power of life and death in his hands by virtue of being a juror and therefore arguments impugning his responsibility in life and death situations is to impinge his competence as a juror.}
SIGNIFICANCE:
The phrase “shall not be denied” is very strong, and that it relates to the bearing of arms it invalidates ALL state, county, and city prohibitions against carrying weapons.
and Section 20
To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.
SIGNIFICANCE:
Section 20 quite bluntly denies EVERYTHING which is contained in Article 1 from the general power of government. This means that the government literally has NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY in the matters therein; Section 1 shows that keeping and bearing arms is, indeed, thusly excepted from government infringement/regulation/rule.
SIGNIFICANCE:
This specifically says that the people have the right to bear arms (as the Heler case was decided), but it ALSO connects to that the defense of themselves. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to attack firearm restrictions on the basis of not being able to adequately defend yourself. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled (multiple times) that the police have no affirmitive obligation to an individual private Citizen’s safety, and therefore government-provided security (ie courthouses) CANNOT be said to be a guarantee of any particular citizen’s security.
I guess you need a lesson in reading comprehension......I am NOT for this legislation so you don’t have to “feel for me”. I’m NOT for opening any pandora’s box of legislation at the federal level! Oh and BTW, I don’t live in a blue state.
Please accept my apology if my expression of emphathy came across as insincere — it was generated by the reference to those states where very little genuine ability to qualify under their very restrictive carry legislation.
I trust the Federal government’s entry into any new area of legislation not at all. Recent gains on many state fronts has me encouraged that we are building a wall of carry legislation that is a solid knot that cannot be undone by the temporary swings of national moods.
Listen to your Mother - 2dn Amendment Mama ahs it perfectly!
“...true conservative politicians would work toward National Constitutional Carry...no license/permission required.”
The above is the ‘Gold Standard’ for 2nd Amendment supporters.
I just now saw your reply. Sorry for the delay. In Virginia, and NC, Citizen to Citizen purchases do not require an FFL. If the transfer was between citizens in different states, that would require an FFL transfer. Sorry if you live in one of those states that requires one!
I think that’s what all the hoopla about the “Gun show loophole” is. Citizen to Citizen transfers of personal property.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.