Concealed Gun Law Rejected In Close Senate Vote

[diesel driver]

Bill would have allowed concealed weapons to be carried across state lines; vote fails to overcome filibuster threshold.

The Associated Press by Jim Abrams

The Senate on Wednesday rejected letting people carry hidden guns in 48 states if they have a concealed weapon permit in any one of them, a rare victory for gun control advocates in a Democratic-controlled Congress that has been friendly to the gun lobby.

Opponents said it would force states with tough concealed weapon permit restrictions to let gun carriers from states that give permits to convicted criminals, minors, and people with no firearms training.

Never mind the fact that several internet searches have yet to find even 1 state that does this, but since when did something as trivial as the truth stop a Dimrat moron from lying....

"It's extremely dangerous policy," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, 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.

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.

Twenty Democrats, mainly from western or rural states, joined all but two Republicans in voting for the measure, which was promoted by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups. They included Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and both Democratic senators from Colorado, Arkansas, Montana, North Dakota and Virginia.  There were also notable defections. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., who voted to strip the District of Columbia of its gun control laws last February, opposed the concealed weapon measure. Specter was a Republican at the time of the previous vote..

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONCEALED_WEAPONS?SITE=CAACS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[NHSparky]

**** Feinstein.  Her and her, "If I had 51 votes" bullshit.

Here, Dianne, what's wrong with this picture?



Oh, but wait--it's okay for YOU to have a CCW permit, right?

Talk about misrepresenting the issue.

[thundley4]

**** Feinstein.  Her and her, "If I had 51 votes" bullshit.

Here, Dianne, what's wrong with this picture?

1. She isn't aiming at the Dimrats in congress, or
2. She isn't pointing it at her own head?

[Chris_]

Also since when can you get a permit from these so called 'Weak" permit states without actually living in that state?

[NHSparky]

Also since when can you get a permit from these so called 'Weak" permit states without actually living in that state?

Bordering one (MA), and having lived in one (CA), I can say with relative confidence, about the same time they have the Stanley Cup Finals in Hell.  And that applies even if you live there.

[Chris_]

Is it just me or does she look as old as the weapon she is holding

[diesel driver]

Is it just me or does she look as old as the weapon she is holding

It ain't you....

[Chris_]

Ok 

[mamacags]

If I am a criminal for carrying in every state I visit, so be it.  I am not going somewhere to become a victim.

[thundley4]

If I am a criminal for carrying in every state I visit, so be it.  I am not going somewhere to become a victim.

But I'm sure that all the criminal with CC permits will now leave their guns at home while traveling. 

[Ree]

NAYs ---39
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Well that says alot...

[rich_t]

It figures that Voinovich voted nay.

[Chris_]

It figures that Voinovich voted nay.

Isn't he the King of the RINOs, now that Spectre has gone over to the dark side?

[Airwolf]

So much for our RKBA.

[rich_t]

So much for our RKBA.

It still exists, regardless of law.

[Chris_]

It still exists, regardless of law.

And you would still be in the right to protect it, and use it in the protection of you and yours.  Something about God's will overriding the legislators, and all that.

[rich_t]

And you would still be in the right to protect it, and use it in the protection of you and yours.  Something about God's will overriding the legislators, and all that.

I don't need, nor will I ever ask permission to defend myself or others.

We, each of us as individuals, have not only the right, but the responsibility to "interpret" the law.

It wasn't that many years ago when the courts used to tell juries about jury nullification.  If you think a law is unjust, then don't convict a defendant under that law.  This is a precedent that goes back a VERY long time.

Now days, the court tries to convince the jury that they have to rule on the law as written regardless of whether the law is "right" or "just".

**** that.

I am a firm believer in jury nullification. 

I understand my duty and respsonibility as a soveriegn citizen.  Far too many don't.

I will never and I do mean never, vote to convict somebody under our current hate crime laws, as one example.

[Chris_]

I don't need, nor will I ever ask permission to defend myself or others.

We, each of us as individuals, have not only the right, but the responsibility to "interpret" the law.

It wasn't that many years ago when the courts used to tell juries about jury nullification.  If you think a law is unjust, then don't convict a defendant under that law.  This is a precedent that goes back a VERY long time.

Now days, the court tries to convince the jury that they have to rule on the law as written regardless of whether the law is "right" or "just".

**** that.

I am a firm believer in jury nullification. 

I understand my duty and respsonibility as a soveriegn citizen.  Far too many don't.

I will never and I do mean never, vote to convict somebody under our current hate crime laws, as one example.

Evidently you haven't drunk enough of the "hopey-changey" Kool-aide.  Lord Ø's minions will see to it that the nurse comes around with a tall, cool glass for you shortly.

 

[Gratiot]

I am a firm believer in jury nullification. 

I understand my duty and respsonibility as a soveriegn citizen.  Far too many don't.

I will never and I do mean never, vote to convict somebody under our current hate crime laws, as one example.

Jury Nullification is a grand idea, that's been vehemently oppressed in our nation for some time.   

It is not only his right but also his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.

First Chief Justice of the US John Jay wrote: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy". State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1, 4 (1794),[28]

It was over time that judicial and legal opinion slowly changed to consider jury nullification only a power and not a right of juries, as judges and prosecutors wanted stricter enforcement of laws that juries nullified. This shift stemmed from the 18th century conflict between two factions of English jurists, the first led by Lord Camden, which was originally prevalent in what became the United States, and the second led by Lord Mansfield. The position of the latter was called "Mansfieldism" by Jefferson[29] and the shift has been called "Mansfieldization".[30]

In recent years, judges seem to be less likely to favor jury nullification. While unable to take away the power of nullification, they have done much to prevent its use. The first landmark decisions since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution confirmed several rights of the defense in a criminal case: a requirement on the bench not make a decision on motions until all legal arguments had been made by both sides; the right to be free of making those arguments before the jury had been seated; and the right to make those legal arguments to the jury.[31][32]

The first major decision that departed from this line was Games v. Stiles ex dem Dunn, 39 U.S. 322 (1840),[33] which held that the bench could override the verdict of the jury on a point of law. The 1895 decision in Sparf v. U.S. written by Justice John Marshall Harlan held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. It was a 5-4 decision. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present legal argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.[34]

Recent court rulings have contributed to the prevention of jury nullification. A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the right of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.[35] In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify.[36] In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction that "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification."[37] In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b).[38] The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification.  Wikipedia

[rich_t]

Evidently you haven't drunk enough of the "hopey-changey" Kool-aide.  Lord Ø's minions will see to it that the nurse comes around with a tall, cool glass for you shortly.

 

I am a soveriegn citizen.  As such, I don't drink the currernt PC kool-aide.

Nor do I plan to anytime soon.

 

[Airwolf]

It still exists, regardless of law.

Yeah it does but they are doing their damnedest to erase it.

[Eupher]

Update on the National Concealed Gun Carry Reciprocity Bill -

It was passed by the House this past November. The Senate is ready to unveil its bipartisan committee version, sans Sen. Webb of Virginia, who, according to this report, was playing "Four Corner Offense" with it, being an obstructionist, and otherwise showing his true colors as a Dem.

This link shows the update as of November (the House bill isn't perfect by any means, and there are contentious parts of the bill that are indicated):

USA Carry

And here's a podcast interview conducted by Guns & Patriot's editor Neil McCabe:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49762

[Bondai]

**** Feinstein.  Her and her, "If I had 51 votes" bullshit.

Here, Dianne, what's wrong with this picture?



Oh, but wait--it's okay for YOU to have a CCW permit, right?

Talk about misrepresenting the issue.

Get your finger off that trigger you commie bitch.

[vesta111]

Get your finger off that trigger you commie bitch.

Saw that finger, OUCH.

Nice guy I worked with had a CC from Maine, he carried into NH.

Now this man was being harassed by some coworker that was busting out the lights on his truck.  Coworker was very upset and told other coworkers that he CC and would do some damage to the person that was vandalising him and wife at work.

The woman he told came to me and told me she was going to the supervisor to warn him.   She did so and the supervisor just told him no weapons allowed on company property. 

This was before people went Postal or became unhinged at work.   This man was just talking to releave his stress and I thought nothing would become of it.

Nothing did come of it, as far as I know, simpler more easy times back then.   Supervisor did not call the police or fire the man, no one threatened him or backed him in a corner.   Today he is a well liked man of influence and family man.

Looking back, had this happend today, ZERO lack of tolerance ,and fear, rightly so, his spoken words and the fact he crossed a state line with a CC weapon would put him in jail for 5 years.

We have a choice, never leave our State with self protection, be expected to know all the laws of the next State or all 50 states.   Cannot be done.

Big Bitch is the "Ignorance of the law is no excuse. "       How the hell are we to know all the State and town laws in America we travel through.

Moms town has a sign that says there is a fire arm ordense on just one road leading into town, what the Hell does that mean??  If I drive into town in any of the of 20 roads with no sign and have a shot gun in the trunk, unloaded and taken apart, is this a state felony???

Piss me off, every day I leave my home I may be breaking the law and I unaware of a new or even old law going back to the 1800  used against me.

I am not even aware of my all the new laws passed in my state much less any other state I may wish to go to. 

I carry a Stun Gun, big deal, if I go to visit family in bordering states do I get locked up in the hoosegow for 30 days ??------Most likely I will if I have to fend off attackers trying to steal my purse or jewelery on the street.

Then I have to pay medical bills for the robbers as I used a forbidden weapon on them.

NY 1960's a bunch of boys jumped a 14 year old girl and she defended herself with a switch blade knife.   All the boys let go as she was in controll of an illegal weapon. Attempted gang rape excused as she was herself breaking the law with her defence.

CRAP, CRAP, and more CRAP.     BTW in some towns in the south if you visit for a company meeting and are a woman, to carry any kind of item considered a sex toy will get you 24 months in city jail.  Less time for a gun or drugs.


   

[FreeBorn]

Bordering one (MA), and having lived in one (CA), I can say with relative confidence, about the same time they have the Stanley Cup Finals in Hell.  And that applies even if you live there.

Actually Sparky, that already happened. 

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_URO6cwLbM[/youtube]