National CCW

[jimlongley]

Does anyone think this bill has the slightest chance of becoming law?

Yes.

[jimlongley]

I dunno. The full clause you quote reads thusly: "subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried". That's the problem; the grounds of a State is by no means a specific type of location. The laws an out-of-state CCW would be "subject to" would be more like TPC 46.03-035 and those sections' counterparts in other States. My read of this law is that "no-issue" policy would be unenforceable; this law doesn't care if you give CCW permits to your own residents, you have to give Full Faith And Credit the the permit of another state. If "no-issue", "no-carry" is the scope and depth of your gun law, congratulations, you have no gun law with respect to out-of-state holders because you would be in violation of Federal law.

That's my read, anyway. YMMV and IANAL.

While I agree with you to some extent, I think the fact that IL does not allow carry anywhere has to come into consideration. They are not just "no issue" they are "no carry" anywhere - there is no place in the entire State of IL that it is legal to carry, even on a gun range, so going by the text of the proposed law, even with full faith and credit (which probably would not apply because there is no permit system to grant the full faith and credit), you still would not be able to carry in IL.

IANAL either.

[thejtrain]

Ok, now that I've actually read the two bills noted above (HR 5782 & S 980*), it's my sincere hope that the House bill goes forward with all haste (Rep. Rodriguez, TX-23, can expect a fax/email/snail mail on the subject later today), but that the Vitter amendment to S 980 passes and that causes the Democratic nancy-boys in the Senate to kill the bill in general, allowing the pro-Vitter amendment majority to pass the House bill in conference.

I feel that way for two reasons:
1) The process: I hate - HATE - seeing amendments attached to completely unrelated bills (example: the online gambling ban was attached as an amendment to the bill regulating management of the Port Authority - yikes!), and saying the Vitter amendment (the merit of which itself is unquestioned) has ANYTHING to do with the rest of S 980 is a stretch worthy of Mr. Fantastic himself.
2) The content of S 980: it only takes one word to make me instantly wary of the bill - unions. It only takes two more to make me want to kill it with every fiber of my being - public ... employee unions. <shudder> Nightmares of my years in the People's Republic of Kalifornia - teacher's unions taking dues by force and funneling it straight into Democratic coffers; law enforcement unions intimidating members in Sheriff's races. <double shudder> Can't the states that already saddle their citizens with this nonsense just go about their business without institutionalizing this at the federal level? The roll call vote in the House on 980 was telling: the Democrats went for it to the tune of 216-3; Republicans were more split on it, going 98 yeas to 94 nays. The ones it seems we've been able to count on lately (Paul, Flake, Franks, Hensarling, Linder) all voted Nay.

JT

* Note: the S 980 that's mentioned in the article is actually the Senate version of HR 980 which was sent to the Senate after passing the House. I also found a S 980 originating in the Senate, a bill about online pharmacies introduced by <shudder again> Dianne Feinstein.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Does anyone think this bill has the slightest chance of becoming law?

Yes.

What makes you think that?

Does this bill have any backing at the House leadership level, where there is a chance it could actually be brought up for a vote?

Does it have the support of the Senate leadership where there is a chance it could actually be brought up for a vote?

Does it have 60 or more co-sponsors in the Senate, which would make it immune to an attempt at a fillibuster? If not, does it have at least 51 or more?

If any of these conditions apply, I would agree that the bill has a chance.

But if they don't, I would classify it an just another bill filed by a back bencher whose main purposes are: 1) To establish the back bencher's bona fides with the constituency that the bill would be expected to appeal to, and 2) To put the issue on the radar screen in hope of the day, far off in the future, when it might develop enough support to move forward.

This cycle, we would do better to focus our efforts on electing as many conservatives as possible to the down ballot slots, both state and federal. And for President, we need to make sure we don't do anything that helps elect a hard Leftist like Obama to the White House, because of the devestating effect on the makeup of the federal courts that would surely result from his election.

(Which I have established through actual research as opposed to mere assertions.)

And FWIW, everyone can save their brilliant rejoinders like, "Oh, you mean a hard Leftist like - McCain?" I've already heard that one. And I can hear it a million more times without it making the slightest difference either to me or to the real world.

[thejtrain]

IANAL either, but I think there is some lack of clarity there. We (myself included of course, given my comment on Page 1) should also do well to remember that we've got the text of the House bill, that makes no mention of whether or not the state being visited issues permits or not, but only generally refers to all of that state's gun law regarding specific types of places, etc. etc. - but we don't have the text of Vitter's amendment (and it's not posted on Thomas yet either, apparently it doesn't until it gets considered in-session), though he does specifically say that only states who already issue permits in some form or another would be bound by his amendment to honor other states' permits (that's obviously what I was referring to in my previous post about IL, WI, AK, & VT, not realizing at the time that Vitter's language was different from the House bill's).

The House bill hasn't gone anywhere yet, so there's still time to amend-and-clarify (and pray to avoid the gut-and-amend or amend-and-obfuscate that are more common).

JT

[aardwolf]

I remember when (supposedly) pro gun people said we'd never have concealed carry in Texas.

I'm glad we didn't listen to the nay sayers.

[jimlongley]

Does anyone think this bill has the slightest chance of becoming law?

Yes.

What makes you think that?

Bills with less chance of passing have passed before, so it has the "slightest" chance of passing, and slightest is more than no chance at all, which, I am sure is what you really meant to declare in your infinite legislative wisdom. I seem to recall, in the not so distant past, a bill was declared, rather publicly, to be "dead on arrival" only to pass - it could happen again.

Does this bill have any backing at the House leadership level, where there is a chance it could actually be brought up for a vote?

Don't know, don't care.

[Does it have the support of the Senate leadership where there is a chance it could actually be brought up for a vote?

As above.

Does it have 60 or more co-sponsors in the Senate, which would make it immune to an attempt at a fillibuster? If not, does it have at least 51 or more?

Same

If any of these conditions apply, I would agree that the bill has a chance.

But you didn't ask if it had a chance, you asked if it has the slightest chance.

But if they don't, I would classify it . . .

and, of course, YOU are the final arbiter in all these things.

It has a small but finite chance of passing, not much of one, but still a chance, which qualifies as "the slightest chance" despite your pronouncements otherwise.

[thejtrain]

Does this bill have any backing at the House leadership level, where there is a chance it could actually be brought up for a vote?

Does it have the support of the Senate leadership where there is a chance it could actually be brought up for a vote?

Does it have 60 or more co-sponsors in the Senate, which would make it immune to an attempt at a fillibuster? If not, does it have at least 51 or more?

If any of these conditions apply, I would agree that the bill has a chance.

But if they don't, I would classify it an just another bill filed by a back bencher whose main purposes are: 1) To establish the back bencher's bona fides with the constituency that the bill would be expected to appeal to, and 2) To put the issue on the radar screen in hope of the day, far off in the future, when it might develop enough support to move forward.

That seems a little harsh for the House bill that's only four weeks old. It's got 38 cosponsors, 3 of which are from may-issue states of CA & NJ. It can't have any cosponsors in the Senate since it hasn't been passed by the House yet and sent over for conference. If & when it does get to the Senate, I think it's a reasonable possibility that it will have a filibuster-proof majority, based on the vast majority of Senators that are sent from right-to-carry states (80 to 20 - mentioned in my earlier post).

Regarding the Vitter amendment to the Senate version of an already-passed House bill - the same thinking applies to the passage of the amendment, so assuming the amendment could pass it would just remain to be seen if the amended bill would be agreed to by the House, where the majority of the contingent sent by right-to-carry states is still present but not as lopsided (293-142). Of course, as noted earlier, this is somewhat assuming that the congresscritters sent by a state are reasonably similar, politics-wise, to the state legislatures that passed their right-to-carry legislation. Maybe I can find a breakdown of how many Dem vs. Rep 'critters each state has, which might give us a more precise idea - though it won't be absolutely accurate, given the recent propensity for Dems to say how pro-gun they are in order to get elected (say, in the South, like the fella who just took over the seat in MS I think that was held by the GOP for 40 years).

So just based on that very cursory look at who would be voting on it, I think you're being a mite pessimistic about its chances.

JT

[frankie_the_yankee]

Just because a state has right to carry is no cause to think its senators or reps would support this bill.

If the leadership isn't behind a bill, it never comes up for a vote.

38 co sponsors in the House is a drop in the bucket.

Nothing of substance gets done in an election year. That's why I say to work on the down ballot races and pray that the Republicans have aneough brains to nationalize the election by coming out with some kind of a new version of the "Contract With America" that was so successful in 1994.

[thejtrain]

Just because a state has right to carry is no cause to think its senators or reps would support this bill.

Very true - correlation & causation and all that. I'm just saying a vote of this kind (if it gets brought up, not to argue your point on that score) can reasonably be expected to fall outside of a full-party-line vote, and it's interesting to me what that might look like and how it might be influenced.

Some instructive examples come from the NRA's page on the latest Right-To-Carry actions:

In 2006, Nebraska’s RTC law was signed by Gov. Dave Heineman (R); Kansas’ Senate and House overrode Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ (D) veto of an RTC bill by votes of 30-10 and 91-33, respectively; and the Ohio Senate and House overrode then-Gov. Bob Taft’s (R) veto of a bill that improves the state’s 2004 RTC law, by votes of 21-12 and 71-21, respectively.

Other recent RTC initiatives: In January 2006, Wisconsin’s Senate voted 23-10 to override Gov. Jim Doyle’s (D) veto of RTC; the Assembly fell two votes short, voting 64-34. In January 2004, Ohio then-Gov. Bob Taft (R) signed RTC into law and New Mexico’s Supreme Court upheld a 2003 RTC law. Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri adopted RTC in 2003, the latter by overriding Gov. Bob Holden’s (D) veto.

So in the span of four years (2003-2006 inclusive) we see gubernatorial vetoes being overridden by large majorities in pro-right-to-carry legislation, successful in three tries, the fourth try falling exactly 2 votes short of succeeding. To me, that speaks to the willingness of elected officials who are elected to district offices (more beholden/responsive/responsible to their constituents) to buck the will of the statewide-elected officials. That bodes well for a vote on an issue like this, where we only need to swing 19 Dem votes (out of 236 Dem members) our way to pass it. Of course, what happened in the House in 2006 hurt us in this respect, but the extent of that hurt is impossible to tell.

It doesn't really speak very well for how Senators might vote on it though, I admit. Thankfully, the margin there is even tighter, and we only need to swing a couple of votes for a majority (and one could probably very easily name a couple of pro-gun Dem Senators like MT's Baucus), but unfortunately quite a few more if we need to withstand a filibuster.

I'm in complete agreement about the down-ticket races (my own House Rep. is a Democrat, took over from a Republican in 2006, so I'd like to reverse that), but I just don't feel as strongly as you do about ignoring any legislative efforts that might have a chance or that we might use as levers for those races.

JT

[KBCraig]

must not mention the 17th Amendment or my head will explode
must not mention the 17th Amendment or my head will explode
must not mention the 17th Amendment or my head will explode
must not mention the 17th Amendment or my head will explode

Go ahead and mention it. It was yet another ruinous step away from a constitutional republic, towards a mobocracy.

[tarkus]

It would be easier to amend LEOSA to include CHL.

[Mr.Scott]

Does anyone think this bill has the slightest chance of becoming law?

Yes.

Yes, because they are using the anti- tactic. Giving it a name like the PATRIOT Act. How can you vote against the SAFE act. It's about being SAFE with guns.