Friday, July 10, 2009

VPC craps themselves over National Reciprocity

From a VPC E-mail:
We need your help to stop dangerous legislation now pending in the U.S. Senate that would force our communities to permit dangerous individuals from other states to carry loaded, hidden handguns in public. We need you to call your two U.S. Senators right away and tell them to oppose this measure.
The bill in reference is S. 845 which has 22 co-sponsors as of June 20th. Note that Josh refers to CCW holders as 'dangerous individuals' even though he's statistically more likely to commit a crime than a licensed carrier.

He gives two good reasons to support the bill.
o The bill, S. 845, would dramatically increase the number of individuals carrying concealed handguns in public in your state.

o S. 845 would require states to recognize concealed carry permits that are issued by other states.
And conveniently gives a date:
The U.S. Senate is expected to vote on S. 845 as early as Monday, July 13.

Thanks for the heads up Josh. It's appreciated.

H/T to Kaveman for the forward.


Don said...

Hell, I'm just shocked that it's actually coming to a vote in the Senate. I stopped paying much attention to the national reciprocity bills years ago. From the quiet on our side, I don't know how good the chances are, but how would that be for a summer surprise?

Thirdpower said...

It could be that they're making a deal out of this so they can claim a 'victory' when nothing happens w/ it.

Yes, I do think they're that desperate.

Anonymous said...


"Dangerous people"?

That sounds like defamation to me.

Is that actionable I wonder?

Anonymous said...

o S. 845 would require states to recognize concealed carry permits that are issued by other states.

What a novel concept... I mean, it is not like states recognize each other's driver's licenses, or marriage licenses, or... oh wait.

kaveman said...

I'll be calling and leaving a message this weekend for my Congress Critters.

I didn't even know this was coming up for a vote. The media musta missed it too, huh?

It'll send a strong message to our reps when we call and ask them to support it by name.

Don said...

Yeah, I'll get right on calling Dick Durbin and Roland Burris. Wish me luck.

Anonymous said...

There is no evidence so far, other than the VPC e-mail, that it is coming up for a vote.

THOMAS still shows the bill as in committee and hasn't had any action since 4/21. There's nothing on the NRA - ILA site about it and I haven't gotten any notifications from any of the other gun rights organizations.

I sent an enquiry to SebastianSIH to ask his NRA sources if they know anything about it, but as of right now it looks like this is much ado about nothing.

I can't imagine that VPC has inside sources that no one else has. Maybe they're just stirring the pot.

Still wouldn't hurt to get ahold of senators about it...Virginia's aren't even co-sponsoring the bill even though both have expressed support for the concept.

It never hurts to let our reps know where we stand on an issue like this and we don't want to get caught napping, but so far there's no indication (again, other than the e-mail from VPC) that there's anything to this. Did the VPC e-mail solicit donations? Maybe they were just using their age old tactic of fear-mongering to elicit know...the tactic they're always accusing the NRA of using.

Hold the phone...

I just got a reply from SebastianSIH. He thinks it's BS too and pretty much picked the last option: scare mongering to shake loose some donations.

Most likely a false alarm...but, as I said, still can't hurt to let our Senators know where we stand on it.

JD said...

Asked my two to support it. . . even though I am from MA and they won't. . . Still want them to know where I stand on it

Reputo said...

I think you go too far in saying that Josh is more likely than a CCW to commit crime. I mean he does have an 01 FFL correct? Has anyone done a study of FFL holders to see if they are more or less likely to commit crime?

I think that would be something Josh could do in his spare time.

none said...

It would be nice to have but isn't anyone concerned about the slippery slope of Federal law undermining state law?

There is no doubt Obama would veto this bill unless it was tied to something he wanted.

elmo iscariot said...

"...isn't anyone concerned about the slippery slope of Federal law undermining state law?"

Nope. Unlike the gross excesses justified under a criminally broad reading of the Commerce Clause, this is the kind of thing the feds are _specifically_ empowered to decide under teh Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Just like Linoge said, this is what gives the feds the authority to decide that all drivers' licenses get reciprocity (even if your state has stricter licensing requirements than mine), that all marriages must be recognized between states (even if my state doesn't want to recognize your interracial marriage), and enables the "Defense of Marriage" Act, in which Congress authorized states to decline to respect gay marriages performed in other states.

So national reciprocity would be completely legal and Constitutional--far moreso than the majority of federal gun control laws, in fact.