National reciprocity for handgun carry
There’s a bill to propose just that. Sebastian has a look at it. Anti-gunners and editorial boards (but I repeat myself) are already soiling themselves. Sensibly Progressive:
I did not imagine the day when we could get such a bill out for a full vote in either house, particularly with the current make-up of Congress, was already here. Even if it doesn’t pass, we seem to be doing very well at the moment — which could change at any moment, of course.
Schumer is threatening a filibuster.
July 20th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
I do have to give Schumer credit for one thing. At least he has the balls to threaten a filibuster. I wish some Republican senators had the nerve to do that occasionally. Hell, I had started to think they’d made some rule prohibiting them at this point.
July 20th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Not the biggest fan of the Republicans right now, but have you missed the spate of articles bemoaning that the Dems can’t do anything even though they have 60 members of the Senate and tha thte filibuster should be made harder to invoke?
Oh, and I can smell the stinky diapers over the Jersey aroma from my KB. Tee and likewise Hee
July 20th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Not sure if we should federalize this yet…I know the current system (states in individual agreements with other states) is sort of crazy-quilt, but it does work, kind of. Incorporate the 2nd Amendment against states & localities via the 14th Amendment first, then fight the local battles necessary for concealed carry and/or open carry…I imagine it will be a long time before DC ever gets anything resembling legal concealed carry, let alone open carry.
What concerns me is that if the Feds can trample state’s rights to *force* reciprocity on everyone, they can just as easily ban concealed carry nationwide, too.
July 20th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
The law, as-written, merely expands who is allowed to carry outside of their home state. The feds already force states to allow off-duty and retired law-enforcement to carry concealed. There doesn’t seem to have been a big to-do over that; and any legal challenge against this would necessarily impact that as well; putting some “only-ones” on the side of the citizenry…
July 20th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
I do have to give Schumer credit for one thing. At least he has the balls to threaten a filibuster. I wish some Republican senators had the nerve to do that occasionally. Hell, I had started to think they’d made some rule prohibiting them at this point.
The Dems have the votes for cloture. It’s rather pointless to threaten someone with a gun if you don’t actually have one.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:11 am
When I was talking about Republicans being pansies about filibusters, I wasn’t just referring to the time after the November election. As far as I can tell, Republican politicians, at least on the federal level, have turned into cowards or morons. They’re so afraid to look all mean and evil that few of them seem to be willing to take a stand on anything.
As for filibusters, I’d say I understand that they can’t do it because of the size of the Democratic majority, but that would be a lie. I clearly don’t understand how things work in Congress, because I didn’t think the size of your party affected the ability of a politician to filibuster. I thought it just made it damn near impossible to do it successfully unless you had some people to back you up.
I blame public schooling for my lack of understanding in that area. Hell, most of what I do know about our government was learned long after I graduated.
July 21st, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Short form – filibuster can be shut down by 60 senators voting “Sit down, John!” This is a cloture vote (aka a vote to end debate).
Currently, a filibuster is “virtual” in that the filibustering senator(s) solemnly swear that if whatever they are filibustering comes up for debate, that senator (and his buddies, if any; individually the filibuster and collectivly the filibusters – look up the etymology, it’s amusing) will take over the podium and read from the vladivostok telephone directory. The rest of the sante then says that’s an astounding waste of time; so if we don’t have the votes for cloture, we’ll take the filibuster(s) at their word and go find something else to do. This is in the interests of both sides, as the filibusters don’t lose their voices, and the majority party doesn’t have to stay up in relays to prevent the minority from adjourning. This is, on balance, probably a good thing. I’m all for the senate, an explicitly anti-majoritarian institution, having anti-majoritarian rules.
Doesn’t stop Schumer from being a tool, but that’s between him and his consitituents. You don’t like him, contribute to his opponent the next time he’s up for election.