Skip to comments.Thune-Vitter Self-Defense Amendment, National ccw reciprocity to be considered in U.S. Senate
Posted on 07/22/2009 5:18:33 AM PDT by Total Package
U.S. SENATE TO VOTE ON YOUR GUN RIGHTS WITHIN 4 HOURS CALL AND E-MAIL YOUR SENATORS NOW TO VOTE FOR THUNE-VITTER AMENDMENT
The U.S. Senate will vote at 11:30 a.m. today-- Wednesday, July 22 -- on an amendment to protect your right to self-defense. The anti-gunners are now doing everything that they can to defeat this amendment and the vote by your Senators is likely to determine the outcome. So it is critical for you to call and e-mail your Senators now and urge them to support and vote for the Thune-Vitter Amendment.
The Senate is now considering an amendment by Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) that will provide interstate recognition of Right-to-Carry licenses and permits. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" -- and other anti-gun leaders and organizations -- are running ads and spreading lies to scare your Senators into opposing this important self-defense reciprocity reform.
It is crucial for you to contact your Senators today -- now -- and urge them to support and vote for the Thune-Vitter Self-Defense Amendment.
The National Rifle Association is reporting that an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390) will be introduced in the U.S. Senate today that would provide for interstate recognition of concealed carry permits.
Under the Thune-Vitter amendment, an individual who has met the requirements for a carry permit, or who is otherwise allowed by his home state's state law to carry a firearm, would be authorized to carry a firearm for protection in any other state that issues such permits, subject to the laws of the state in which the firearm is carried.
THere are at least 4 Democrats supporting this one
Baucus and Tester from Montana
and another one who i cannot recall
i think it has a decent shot at winning
As I’ve said before, this amendment will likely pass this hurdle. Anti 2nd Amendment dems allow it to go forward (even Harry Reid says he will vote for it) only to give political cover to the dems for the upcoming elections. It will be killed in committee with the House and no Senator will dare vote against the underlying bill to fid our troops. So, the antis can campaign on their “record” vote of “yeas” while knowing it will have no effect on our right to carry.
Excuse me. The keyboard must be at fault.
Should be "to fund our troops."
But,we’re too dumb to know that, being the sheep that we are....or so they think!
In a Democrat-controlled federal govt, this would not be good.
yep the Harry Reid
apparently he gets NRA endorsement year to year so on at least one issue the man does not totally nauseate me
a broken clock can be right twice a day after all
This would just allow for easier transport an carry in states with ccw. If a state does not allow ccw you would not be able to carry you would default to the federal transportation laws. The fed would not be able to tell states no one could ccw.
The true gun grabbers want more the just no ccw.
Emailed Lugar and Bayh. FWIW.
I am kinda torn on this one. I am a ccw holder here in the peoples democratik republik of michiganstan, but I cannot help but wonder if this is a states right issue....
I do see the states rights side but the way I read the constitution, I should not have to get my CCW from Ohio (go blue). I should be able to carry anywhere any time from state to state with out the governments permission to CCW. If this helps to chip away at that wall that stops that right I see it as good thing.
LOL...you’re right about that!
on the negative side, what the feds give to you, they can and will take away.....and we have seen the constitution be damned attitude of the current crop of libs ( and rino’s )
I agree....if you’re legal enough to be issued a CCW permit,then you should be legal enough to carry in any state.
I do,however,go along with the law (in some states) that someone cannot carry while in a bar...not a good idea. If someone’s going to drink,don’t be packing heat in a bar.Testosterone and alcohol are not a good mix,and the carrier may open themselves up to all kinds of legal grief for shooting someone who may or mat not have deserved it,but was at the time “intoxicated and not in control of his or her mental faculties”. Best to just not carry in a bar,period.
If it does pass, when could we expect it to go in effect? I hate note being able to carry when I go visit the folks in Kalifornee-ah.
Don’t get your hopes up. If this passes in the Senate, Pelosi will kill it in the house. That woman would be right at home in Nazi Germany.
If there’s democRATS supporting this, then I expect that their support would be in trade for something. And I expect that something to be either national socialist healthcare or a variation of the Cap-and-Tax bill.
>I do,however,go along with the law (in some states) that someone cannot carry while in a bar...not a good idea. If someones going to drink,dont be packing heat in a bar.
My only problem with this is that in Idaho, I’m a designated driver for a group of friends on some days, and therefore we voted that I’m the guy that carries a gun on those days. Works out real well for all involved. In Washington I wanted to go to a concert but could not because they don’t let me carry in “any establishment serving alcohol.”
I would be perfectly happy if those laws were amended to allow people to carry but not drink or drink but not carry. I’d even go with a duty to inform barman clause.
But the blanket ban hurts people that go to entertainment functions that happen to also be in bars.
I agree. Guns and booze don't mix. Just like booze and driving. Even back in the old days when I was a youngster (1880’s) the saloons made you hang your holster at the door or turn it in to the barkeep.
On the other hand, a nice restaurant with a bar attached (separate from the dining area) would be totally different.