Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Thune Bill Killed by Republicans

  1. #1
    Regular Member hotrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Union, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    Looking at the voting record for the Thune Bill for conceal carry across state lines that have a current conceal carry in place was thwarted by two republicans. Sen. Voinivich from Ohio and Sen. Lugar from Indiana. I know this is for open carry, but I think it is important for us to know who is who when election time comes again!! 60 votes gets us a long way in a national carry law. I know getting this signed into law was a stretch, but having that many democrats signing on would show how important it is for lots of Americans.
    Speed is fine
    Accuracy is final

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917

    Post imported post

    I think I'm a minority here because I do not support this bill. Rather than restate my beliefs, I'll refer to a different thread in the Politics section:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/28857.html

    I'm a firm believer in state sovereignty. What disgusts me are the liberals who cite this reason as their reason for opposing this bill. I've never known a liberal to embrace that idea before.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    There were many more than two "no" votes. Calling it a failure of only two persons is false.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  4. #4
    Regular Member hotrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Union, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    There were many more than two "no" votes. Calling it a failure of only two persons is false.
    Well you are correct. But, we knew the majority of the liberal side of the democratic party would vote as the did, NO. I did not expect the people that hold that government is to intrusive in our life now to vote the same. We had many so called "blue dog" democrats voting for the bill. To bad we had 2 "red chicken" republicans voting as they did! Definition of "red chicken republicans". Repubicans that vote in ways that I get red in the face from anger!
    Speed is fine
    Accuracy is final

  5. #5
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    hotrod wrote:
    Looking at the voting record for the Thune Bill for conceal carry across state lines that have a current conceal carry in place was thwarted by two republicans. Sen. Voinivich from Ohio and Sen. Lugar from Indiana.
    While we may never know their true reasoning for voting in opposition, I say GOOD FOR THEM!!! :celebrate

    They just may be the only two Republicans that realize that this is a slippery slope to traverse.

    Then again, they just might be anti-gun. Either way, it was a good outcome. :celebrate
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  6. #6
    Regular Member hotrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Union, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    hotrod wrote:
    Looking at the voting record for the Thune Bill for conceal carry across state lines that have a current conceal carry in place was thwarted by two republicans. Sen. Voinivich from Ohio and Sen. Lugar from Indiana.
    While we may never know their true reasoning for voting in opposition, I say GOOD FOR THEM!!! :celebrate

    They just may be the only two Republicans that realize that this is a slippery slope to traverse.

    Then again, they just might be anti-gun. Either way, it was a good outcome. :celebrate
    Please explain as how this can be a slippery slope. If you are talking about state rights I would agree, but, we now have the LEOSA and no one raised a problem about that. Why shouldLEO be given something that I can't have under equal rights provision of the Constitution? Is there life more valuable than mine?
    Speed is fine
    Accuracy is final

  7. #7
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    hotrod wrote:
    We had many so called "blue dog" democrats voting for the bill.
    This is one (of a few) important points in the vote on the amendment. 20 Dems voted for it. :shock:

    That's significant, considering the results of the 2006 and 2008 election cycles. The 2A/gun owner national community's strength is expressed in those 20 votes. I wouldn't doubt if each one of those guys got a call from the White House. Yet they vote Yes.

    I am stunned by those gun-owners (here and elsewhere) who needlessly opposed the amendment. Such simplistic nay-sayers lack a sense of strategy and don't undertand the process of institutionalization...

  8. #8
    Regular Member hotrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Union, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    hotrod wrote:
    We had many so called "blue dog" democrats voting for the bill.
    This is one (of a few) important points in the vote on the amendment. 20 Dems voted for it. :shock:

    That's significant, considering the results of the 2006 and 2008 election cycles.And The 2A/gun owner national community's strength is expressed in those 20 votes. I wouldn't doubt if each one of those guys got a call from the White House. Yet they vote Yes.

    I am stunned by those gun-owners (here and elsewhere) who needlessly opposed the amendment. Such simplistic nay-sayers lack a sense of strategy and don't undertand the process of institutionalization...
    That is the very point I looked at. It tells me we still have friends in Congress who believe in my right and your right to protect ourselves. And they didn't let left politics cloud there judgement. They knew they would have to answer to constituents.
    Speed is fine
    Accuracy is final

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917

    Post imported post

    @Hank, I will gladly sacrifice my 2A "strategy" and my alleged ignorance of "institutionalization", to uphold my core belief in states' rights.

    Sure, a very good part of me would have liked to see the legislation passed; it would have been quite convenient for me. Another part of me can't stand that I sided with liberals (though for very different reasons). Still, I can't ignore my fundamental beliefs in state sovereignty just because it would happen to benefit me.

  10. #10
    Regular Member hotrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Union, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    langzaiguy wrote:
    @Hank, I will gladly sacrifice my 2A "strategy" and my alleged ignorance of "institutionalization", to uphold my core belief in states' rights.

    Sure, a very good part of me would have liked to see the legislation passed; it would have been quite convenient for me. Another part of me can't stand that I sided with liberals (though for very different reasons). Still, I can't ignore my fundamental beliefs in state sovereignty just because it would happen to benefit me.
    Then according to that statement you shouldn't be able to drive from state to state unless the state has reciprocity with your state. That wouldn't work. I have to follow each states law when driving through, just as I would with carry of a weapon into each state. The sovereignty of the state is in regulating how I carry while there, not whether I can carry.
    Speed is fine
    Accuracy is final

  11. #11
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    hotrod wrote:
    Please explain as how this can be a slippery slope. If you are talking about state rights I would agree, but, we now have the LEOSA and no one raised a problem about that. Why shouldLEO be given something that I can't have under equal rights provision of the Constitution? Is there life more valuable than mine?
    LEOSA is a piece of sh!t legislation also. I am completely in favor of anyone carrying in all 50 states.

    HOWEVER, the federal government currently does not meddle in the concealed carry process. Why do you want to open that door for them?

    How quickly would this bill be amended to be anti-gun? Requiring permits to be issued at the federal level? And then none at all?

    We need LESS laws, not more. New York does not want me to carry there, so I stay my ass out of New York. Too easy.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    langzaiguy wrote:
    @Hank, I will gladly sacrifice my 2A "strategy" and my alleged ignorance of "institutionalization", to uphold my core belief in states' rights.
    You are prepared for the "slippery slope" then.

    Do "States Rights" trump our individual Rights?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917

    Post imported post

    @Hotrod: I am fine with allowing states to determine reciprocity with drivers' licenses. If one state was stubborn and recognized very few other states' licenses then it would have severe economic consequences (and ultimately wouldn't pass). Let the free market decide. Let the free people within those states decide.

    As far as, "The sovereignty of the state is in regulating how I carry while there, not whether I can carry," I agree PRECISELY. I do believe that you should have the right to open carry in EVERY state (even without a license). Carrying a gun is a God given right protected by the 2A. A state and its position on conceal carrying is within its authority to regulate. Conceal carrying does not have a longstanding tradition, and in the days of the founding fathers, was considered kinda shady.

    @wrightme: As I responded to Hotrod, I believe every state should allow OC as it's a God given right protected by the 2A. I fully recognize it as an individual right. States should have the freedom to legislate just about anything they want as long as the majority of their constituency approves.

    As to the "slippery slope", I believe just the opposite. While my right to carry is of the utmost importance to me, I believe that state sovereignty is of the utmost importance to society. If I were to adjust my beliefs to contradict what I perceive as more important, than that would be the slippery slope to fear.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    I believe strongly in States' Rights, too. But the Fed is there to make sure the States don't crap on the Constitution. The States do not have the "Right" to Ban Religion or Porn. The States do NOT have the right to Ban guns, or the bearing of them, either. To have the Fed say "You WILL respect the Constitution" is not a breach of States' Rights, it is removal of false entitlement. No State has the 'Right" to breach the enumerated... Blah blah blah.

    You can re-read the 9th and 10th amendments until you turn blue in the face. It won't erase the 2nd or relocate it.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917

    Post imported post

    The Fed isn't hear to see that the states don't crap on the Constitution--they're the ones taking the crap. The Bill of Rights exists to protect the states and their citizens from the big bad Federal gov.

    I believe that though states cannot ban religion, they should feel free to choose & support a particular religion or denomination. While the state cannot ban free speech, they should feel free to ban/regulate porn. While the state cannot (should not) ban guns, they should feel free to regulate them. This is the original intent of the founders.

    The Fed shouldn't be the ones saying "You will obey the Constitution"--the states should be telling the Fed that. But we haven't been, and they've been treading on states' rights for well over a hundred years.

    Certainly the 9th & 10th amendments to do not negate or relocate the 2nd amendment. We must understand the original intent of the Bill of Rights and that is to uphold the people of the States! It should be up to majority of the people of the states to determine the extent (or limitations) of their rights. If they wish to have a narrow & limited perspective of personal liberty, than so be it--I won't live in that particular state.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    langzaiguy wrote:
    The Fed isn't hear to see that the states don't crap on the Constitution--they're the ones taking the crap.
    This is the reality of the situation, yes. Every branch of government has forgotten it's place.

    But you are wrong, part of the Fed's purpose for existing IS to be a watchdog. I hate to see people hiding behind "Stat's Rights" to help the States seize powers away from the people, and help the Fed ignore it's role.

    Sure, neither States nor the Fed have done much but use the Constitution at 200 year old toilet paper, but to forget how this whole mess is supposed to work, and even deny it in the one time it might do things they way it was meant to, that seems quite foolish.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Erlanger;Boone county side, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post

    The most worrysome aspect of a Federal Interstate Carry law, would be that you then get a Federal Interstate Carry Restriction ability built in.

    It's still best if each state handles things like carrying a firearm. That way if you really hate your states policy, you can move to a new state. Take your guns and money and taxes with you.



    People don't really threaten to "move to a new state" just because they don't like some legislative aspect of their state. But a single move could make all the difference if you have big quality of life and safety concerns.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    Butterbone wrote:
    The most worrysome aspect of a Federal Interstate Carry law, would be that you then get a Federal Interstate Carry Restriction ability built in.

    It's still best if each state handles things like carrying a firearm. That way if you really hate your states policy, you can move to a new state. Take your guns and money and taxes with you.

    People don't really threaten to "move to a new state" just because they don't like some legislative aspect of their state. But a single move could make all the difference if you have big quality of life and safety concerns.
    Which is why I can't wait to GTFO of FL... This place is horrible.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917

    Post imported post

    ixtow: On what grounds is the Fed to be the watch dog? That would seem to imply that the Fed is in the more dominant position. Both the state and the fed are guilty of curbing our liberties (I would say more the latter). I would argue that the state has power to rule and regulate according to their own constitution.

    Granted, if I don't like one piece of legislation, I'm not going to up and move away. But if a state has a history and reputation for severely curtailing liberties, I am going to up and move.

    According to the social contract theory, we do purposefully give up some rights in order to be governed. There are limits to our freedoms--I can con conceal carry nuclear weapons, commit libel, etc.

    The point is, this is a democracy where the people ultimately rule via representation. I don't want people in DC, NY, CA, IL to tell me how to live in KY. I live in KY so I shall be governed by the Commonwealth. Whatever the majority of people want in KY, it should be law--providing its harmony with the KY Constitution.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    langzaiguy wrote:
    ixtow: On what grounds is the Fed to be the watch dog? That would seem to imply that the Fed is in the more dominant position. Both the state and the fed are guilty of curbing our liberties (I would say more the latter). I would argue that the state has power to rule and regulate according to their own constitution.

    Granted, if I don't like one piece of legislation, I'm not going to up and move away. But if a state has a history and reputation for severely curtailing liberties, I am going to up and move.

    According to the social contract theory, we do purposefully give up some rights in order to be governed. There are limits to our freedoms--I can con conceal carry nuclear weapons, commit libel, etc.

    The point is, this is a democracy where the people ultimately rule via representation. I don't want people in DC, NY, CA, IL to tell me how to live in KY. I live in KY so I shall be governed by the Commonwealth. Whatever the majority of people want in KY, it should be law--providing its harmony with the KY Constitution.
    No, it is not a Democracy.

    All government is SUPPOSED to defend the Bill of rights, and the entire Constitution.

    The Fed is highest on the totem pole, it has the authority to yank the chain of those subordinates that get out of line. Just as the State can do to the County, and the County can do to the City, etc.

    I am in agreement with you that it isn't working as it is supposed to. I'm simply stating that, this would seem the first time in a long time that the Fed is soft-of half-way doing what it is supposed to, and we are getting all bent out of shape over it?


    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917

    Post imported post

    Our Federal & State governments aren't democracies? I wouldn't teach that in any of my history or government classes. Back in 1787 we had 13 sovereign states that come together and yes, through a type of social contract, they give up certain jurisdiction to the Federal Government. A few powers are assigned to the Federal Government, but most powers, under that catch-all 10th amendment, are left to the states.

    We must remember that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the states and their constituents from Federal involvement and Federal power grabs.

    Unfortunately, under today's view of federalism, the Fed does seem more powerful than it actually should be. In interpreting the Constitution, it's important to keep in mind the founders' original intent.

    I don't mean to get bent out of shape. I suppose it's because I'm a history & government teacher that I'm so picky about the concepts of federalism and sovereignty.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    langzaiguy wrote:
    Our Federal & State governments aren't democracies? I wouldn't teach that in any of my history or government classes. Back in 1787 we had 13 sovereign states that come together and yes, through a type of social contract, they give up certain jurisdiction to the Federal Government. A few powers are assigned to the Federal Government, but most powers, under that catch-all 10th amendment, are left to the states.

    We must remember that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the states and their constituents from Federal involvement and Federal power grabs.

    Unfortunately, under today's view of federalism, the Fed does seem more powerful than it actually should be. In interpreting the Constitution, it's important to keep in mind the founders' original intent.

    I don't mean to get bent out of shape. I suppose it's because I'm a history & government teacher that I'm so picky about the concepts of federalism and sovereignty.
    The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic, with a Democratic Electoral Process. This assures that certain rights are inalienable, and cannot be steamrolled by mob rule.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •