National Concealed/Carry Gun Law in the U.S. Senate Falls Just Two Votes Short

[Benny Hill]

All law abiding citizens should be supporting this law and helping to get it passed in Washington. The bad guys may carry their weapons when and where they want, so why can't the the good guys have the same option?


A strong majority of the Senate, in a 58-39 vote, supported the measure, which would require most states to honor the concealed weapons permits issued by other states. But the tally was two votes short of the 60 votes needed to add the measure as an amendment to a defense bill.

The chief sponsor of the measure, South Dakota Republican John Thune, said it would reduce crime by allowing law-abiding citizens such as truck drivers to protect themselves as they travel from one state to another.

Senate Rejects Concealed Gun Law




For more information on this issue you may go here: NRA-ILA :: URGENT - U.S. Senate To Consider Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Amendment Early This Week

[ranger309]

If this passes I would think CA gun owners could file for a breach of our 2nd and 14th amendment rights, since the federal government passed the NFA of 1934 controlling state laws and also the GCA of 1968. I don't expect it will pass, but what if?

[wild deuce]

I hope someone did their homework properly before the bill was put up for the vote. To lose by only two votes, someone did not vote the way they said they would or someone did not show up to vote. It really sounds to me like this should have been a slam dunk to pass when we had 58 voting for it. I wonder what happened.

[Benny Hill]

Originally Posted by ranger309

If this passes I would think CA gun owners could file for a breach of our 2nd and 14th amendment rights, since the federal government passed the NFA of 1934 controlling state laws and also the GCA of 1968. I don't expect it will pass, but what if?

Quoted text from the story in the posted link that addresses your question.

"It's extremely dangerous policy," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., noting that her state demands fingerprinting, federal background checks, a course of training, and verification by a local sheriff before issuing a permit to carry a concealed gun. (This is the same exact standard that we have in Kentucky to receive a CCDW Permit)

"Concealed weapons are allowed in 48 states. Alaska and Vermont allow any gun owner to carry a concealed gun. Wisconsin and Illinois don't allow them at all."

"Thune's proposal would extend reciprocity to states that have carry laws, with the condition that visitors to another state follow the laws of that state."

Originally Posted by wild deuce

I hope someone did their homework properly before the bill was put up for the vote. To lose by only two votes, someone did not vote the way they said they would or someone did not show up to vote. It really sounds to me like this should have been a slam dunk to pass when we had 58 voting for it. I wonder what happened.

"NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told The Associated Press that, despite the defeat, the vote showed that "we have the wind to our back." He called the vote "one more step down the road to allowing all Americans the full measure of Second Amendment protection."

[ranger309]

Originally Posted by Benny Hill

Quoted text from the story in the posted link that addresses your question.

"It's extremely dangerous policy," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., noting that her state demands fingerprinting, federal background checks, a course of training, and verification by a local sheriff before issuing a permit to carry a concealed gun. (This is the same exact standard that we have in Kentucky to receive a CCDW Permit)

"Concealed weapons are allowed in 48 states. Alaska and Vermont allow any gun owner to carry a concealed gun. Wisconsin and Illinois don't allow them at all."

"Thune's proposal would extend reciprocity to states that have carry laws, with the condition that visitors to another state follow the laws of that state."




"NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told The Associated Press that, despite the defeat, the vote showed that "we have the wind to our back." He called the vote "one more step down the road to allowing all Americans the full measure of Second Amendment protection."

California is not a shall "issue state" and in most counties only cops, wifes and kinfolk of cops and those that suck up to them, pay out big money to the re-election of the Sheriff or Chief of Police, or are very well known to everyone (mayor, city commissioners, ect.) will be able to get a carry permit at all.

For all intents and purposes most non-LEO connected folks in CA that carry are doing so without a permit they would never have recieved from the Sheriff or the Chief of Police in their counties anyhow.

A rough estimate, that most people seem to agree on here is that about 200,000 legal, honest people who have no police record carry a gun concealed, at times, in this state.

Now that's what I call civil disobedience against an insane system using carry permits as a favor to be granted, not a Right that we already have !!

[Benny Hill]

Thanks for the info R309, it's completely different in my state. If you qualify for the CDC permit you may have one. By what you're telling us if this measure were to become law then I could come to your state and carry a weapon legally but you wouldn't have the same opportunity to do so in my state because you wouldn't be able to get one. That is a major issue.