Guns are Good? Concealed Weapons Across State Lines- You’re Kidding, Right?

Apparently not.

There’s an amendment to a Senate defense planning bill that would allow people licensed to carry concealed weapons in one state to carry them into others. The architect of this foolishness is Sen. John Thune, Republican of South Dakota.

The defense bill is scheduled to be voted on Wednesday. Thune argues the amendment would have the effect of reducing crime.

There are 21 co-sponsors, meaning just over one fifth of the Upper House agrees with him.

To people living in urban areas, the meaning of this amendment should be clear. Gun rights advocates are pressing their agenda at the expense of innocent men, woman and children who will die if it passes. Thune and his NRA- financed cronies use the same tired argument that the amendment will not open the door to more handgun violence. They don’t say what’s to stop a person bent on revenge, for example, from crossing state lines, buying a gun where state laws are lax, coming back into their home state, and using it.

Then there’s the question of why this amendment is part of a defense bill in the first place. Yeah, I know Congress does this all the time, that is, insert amendments having little to do with the actual legislation in an effort to either sneak it by or kill the bill. Whatever the reason, cooler heads in the Senate need to defeat this amendment once and for all. Congressional Republicans think they smell blood. They think there are certain issues they can press or beat down, depending on how much damage it will do to President Obama.

Health care reform is one. This guns across state lines amendment is another. Make no  mistake. This plays into the fears that have been expressed  since Obama became president that he would “take everyone’s guns away”. Maybe that explains why the White House hasn’t said too much about it, at least not yet. Senators representing states with tough gun control laws, like Lautenberg of New Jersey and Schumer of New York are speaking out. Lautenberg correctly pointed out that this is on one level a state’s rights issue.

President Obama threatened to veto this same defense bill in its entirety if spending for F-22 fighter jets were included.

The Senate blinked and voted to strip the spending. He needs to do the same thing with this bone to the gun lobby. And the senators who are pushing the amendment ought to explain to police officers in their home states how and why they would sponsor a piece of legislation that puts their lives in jeopardy. Don’t think it does? Ask a cop.

So, in the end, will this amendment to let people carry concealed weapons across state lines pass or fail? You tell me.


24 Comments Add yours

  1. sekanblogger says:

    Whoever has the most lobbying money wins.
    Therfore, it is already decided.
    Follow the money.

    Gov’t for the poor, by the rich.

  2. regmon06 says:

    AS is the case with most Fed laws they are often behind State laws. Most states that issue CHL or CCW permits allow people with a permit in other states to carry in their state. Local laws apply and you are responsible for know and obeying those laws. The Fed bill doesn’t change very much.

  3. njadams1 says:

    Registered gun owners are not the issue when it comes to street crimes. I live in an area where gun crime is running rampant and people are dying daily. Those victims are 99.9% of the time killed by non-registered gun owners. I do carry a gun, legally. I have taken numerous gun courses, have a certified card in my wallet. I am a woman who does extensive travel on my own and I do carry my gun across state lines, legal or not!! I would much rather pay the monetary fine for carrying a concealed weapon into a state that does not have a reciprocal gun law than to lose my life.

    It only takes being held up at a gas station by a person with an ice pick in a town you have never been to before you realize personal protection is a must. Should you or one of your loved ones get that opportunity one day, you will realize how important personal protection is.

    I think the key word to Sen. Thune’s message is “lawfully” carry a concealed weapon, respecting the laws of the non-resident states.

  4. Marty Harris says:

    I don’t really understand why this Law is necessary. We have agreements in place between most States that allows them to recognize each others Handgun Permits. I guess some of the more Socialized Northeastern and Northwestern States would be against anything Gun related as Illinois would be also. Here in the Rural South with budget cuts such as they are and much smaller Sheriff’s Departments it is absolutely necessary to be armed. Response times to some 911 calls can be 20 minutes or longer at times.

  5. Chubby says:

    ***what’s to stop a person bent on revenge, for example, from crossing state lines, buying a gun where state laws are lax, coming back into their home state, and using it.***

    Federal Law states you can’t buy guns out of your home state, so not sure what you’re talking about.

  6. 84rules says:

    “They don’t say what’s to stop a person bent on revenge, for example, from crossing state lines, buying a gun where state laws are lax, coming back into their home state, and using it.”

    Probably the same thing that stops a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun and using it. That is: nothing.

    Gun control laws are not aimed at criminals, they are aimed at law-abiding citizens. After all, who is naive enough to expect that a criminal is going to obey a gun law?

    Self-defence is very important, especially in areas where law enforcement is lax or has been rendered impotent by leftist policies. There is an old saying that goes: “In a game of seconds, the police are always fifteen minutes away.”

    That is why we must preserve our 2nd Amendment freedoms as defined by Heller vs. The District of Columbia.

  7. Hi folks,
    Thanks for all the comments…especially so early in the day. Consider this for a moment. Why would Sen. Thune want to tie this amendment to a bill that funds our fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan ? I get the personal safety thing. What about theirs?

    1. sekanblogger says:

      Mark, I really like the fact that you are here tending your blog. This is what real blogging is about.
      Too many crooks. hacks and SPAMBLOGS out there.
      Now that I know you’re here, I will be back.
      Thanks for providing this forum!

      “I Intend that I am refraining from buying into any media hype surrounding mass events, and that I am only envisioning positive outcomes for the Earth and her people. “

    2. Crystal says:

      I don’t understand your question about the fighting men and women in Iraq? This bill is to continue paying them for fighting. I do not agree with the war nor do I support it, however it is absolutely necessary to spend to fund the war as long as these brave souls are forced to fight this war.

      I too am a gun owner and I have a concealed weapon permit. I am not a criminal, but I sure want to be prepared when one wants to harm me or my family. Again, the laws will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, only out of the hands of law abiding men and women. People should advocate for gun rights because trust me, the police can’t be everywhere all of the time and criminals keep taking and taking. I have never, thought of harming an innocent person with my weapon, that is what a responsible gun owner does.

  8. noxnamexface says:

    i totally agree with everything you say. on top of that this bill curtails individual state rights. if states want to allow cross-state conceal carry let them legislate it. don’t add a federal statute forcing each state (that has conceal-carry) to adopt this.

  9. srsopinions says:

    Well, there’s no question that fickle and deceptive members of the United States Government constantly do things, even the right things, for the wrong reasons. To clear the air, I am completely pro-havinglaxgunlawsnationwide.

    Do I approve of this bill/amendment? Not necessarily. That is because there are other things that come into play, from what I could discern with the amount of thought I put into it (little at the time of writing). These things are a central government imposition on the sovereignty of States (which is already nearly gone) and also the fact that each State needs to get their act together about gun laws without there needing to be some sort of bypass measure that I believe also infringes upon State-to-State relations much like Federal-to-State relations upon which the same principles would apply. You may notice I’m not worrying about innocent lives being put in jeopardy in this equation. That is because I have my stance which explains why that’s not a concern in this situation for me. But I think that is an issue that is beyond that scope of this article.

  10. mlf1070 says:

    Every abled-bodied man and woman ( convicted felons excepted) in America over age 18 should be REQUIRED BY LAW to own at least one hand gun and go the the firing range every year to learn the proper use of guns. No one should be without personal protection at ALL times. Gun control is hitting what you aim at.

  11. reslibertatis says:

    Sorry, but the Supreme Court has already declared in DC v. Heller (2008) that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual right that pre-existed the Constitution. The Ninth Circuit has adopted a selective incorporation doctrine on the 2nd Amendment and it’s pretty much inevitable now that the amendment will be selectively incorporated to be binding on states. The full faith and credit clause will probably require the recognition of concealed carry laws across state lines.

  12. sekanblogger says:

    The gun owners have absolutely NOTHINNG to whine about.
    There’s WAY more regulation in everyday living than gun ownership!

    You MUST be insured to drive.
    Why wouldn’t we have the same for gun owners?

    I know why, the Insurance lobby has not thought of it yet.

  13. Denise4cats says:

    “They don’t say what’s to stop a person bent on revenge, for example, from crossing state lines, buying a gun where state laws are lax, coming back into their home state, and using it.”
    You can’t purchase out of your own state. This statement you made is false.
    I take my children camping, alone. If I could use my carry permit in all states I could camp out of my state. Criminals will get guns no matter what law is in place. The ability to carry in other states helps law abiding Americans like me. It is horrible that this was not passed.

  14. sanda says:

    1. I heard on the radio that the amendment for concealed guns was voted down. Yay.
    2. Yesterday, or day before, I called in to Hugh Hamilton’s show on WBAI, to ask a question of
    his guest, from the ACLU who was speaking about the amendments to this bill,
    which I think includes the increase in categories for the “hate crimes” bill (if my
    memory is correct, but if not, the point still applies.)
    When a bill gets passed, in Senate and House of Reps., they have to “match”.
    To get the bill to match, they go to a committee with members of each legislative
    body and BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, add and subtract from the bill. The ACLU
    guy said “it’s horse trading” and secret.

    3. I don’t recall any recent blog “article” by you get as many comments as this one
    mentioning guns. Men on guns, defending guns, wanting guns, playing with
    guns, having guns — and defending concealed weapons, is weird to me (who
    is not a man and I hate guns). My cousin had a wife and a gun collection. Now
    he has a 2nd wife and his gun collection. (A suicide, found by her little kids after

    1. sekanblogger says:

      The Senate on Wednesday turned aside the latest attempt by
      gun advocates to expand the rights of gun owners, narrowly
      voting down a provision that would have allowed gun owners
      with valid permits from one state to carry concealed weapons
      in other states as well.

    2. hypnotic says:

      if the guns hadnt been there she would have taken pills the gun didnt cause her to comit suicide

      1. sanda says:

        What happened happened. You can’t twist what happened to
        “would have”. She used a gun. Her kids came home to a mess – their
        mom blew her head open.

  15. sekanblogger says:

    If GUN NUTS get a hold of this post you’ll be sorry.
    I’ve had to delete entire posts and ban the nuts.
    Then they continued to write posts about my bed-wetting, pantywaist liberal blog.
    I don’t write about guns now.

  16. hypnotic says:

    like said before your not taking guns out of criminals hands but puting them into criminals hands and keeping law abiding citizens like myself defenseless.. I came home to 2 guys burglerizing my home a couple a weeks ago, both me ran at me with knifes until i drew my firearm it stoped me from being stabed! Then one went toward my mom who had the police on the phone, i drew on him and he backed off. Thank God i didnt have to defend us by using deadly force but if my right to carry my weapon was taken away by nuts like you and my mother would have been stabbed and killed it would have been the fault of all you people agaisnt me a carrying a leagal lisencesed firearm..,…

  17. hypnotic says:

    i dont know what this vote was for, i have a concealed permit and i can leagally carry my concealed weapon in 16 states/

  18. sekanblogger says:

    Happy for you hypno. Enjoy your guns.

  19. Good day! I just wish to give a huge thumbs up for the nice data you have here on this post.
    I shall be coming again to your blog for more soon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s