NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: Cathy1911 on July 22, 2009, 12:32:49 PM
-
How the most relevant-to-us senators voted:
Nebraska: Johanns (R-NE), Yea - Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea - Harkin (D-IA), Nay
The full voting results can be found here (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00237).
-
Thanks for that info. I probably wouldn't have spent the time to research it myself.
-
If I counted correctly...
Out of the 39 "Nay" votes, only 2 were Republicans. Who would have guessed? ;D
The big surprise is that out of the 58 "YEA" votes, 20 were Democrat.
I didn't think this amendment had a chance, but it got pretty close.
Fly
-
So, 20 Dems were allowed to throw their conservative voters a bone in a vote they knew would not pass.
-
Those politicians are pretty sneaky, I agree. But are they that competent in their organizational skills that they would be able orchestrate a tally within TWO votes of passing? I don't think so. Two votes could have easily swung in the wrong direction for them with a deal made under the table.
Fly
-
Listen, the Dems have 60 votes right now.
They can force just about any Dem that needs money for a re-election campaign (all of them) to vote according to the party leaders wishes. Harry Reid is a relatively pro gun politician, and is in trouble in Nevada. He will allow a certain level of blue dog Dems to please the folks back home, as they mostly won their seats in a conservative campaign.
If you don't believe that political issues are manipulated in this manner , you are in for a big surprise.
If they were not sure of the votes, it would have been pulled from consideration. Ben Nelson and Harry Reid can pretend to be conservative for a day, But ,the party gets a gun control win, and the Brady campaign can raise some more money...
It just too bad that Republicans and Real Conservatives won't hang together like that
-
I agree that the parties have a huge influence over the Congress. However, I don't believe that they can trust the politicians to do exactly as they pledge behind closed doors any more than we can trust them to do what they pledge in public. Allegiances are always shifting with politicians. Sometimes it is to gain the support of their party, other times it is to please those who may line their campaign pockets, sometimes it is to gain the support of another congressperson on a bill/amendment they authored, and OCCASIONALLY it is to properly represent their constituents.
With such a dynamic environment, I don't think it would be anywhere near an acceptable comfort level to orchestrate this win within two votes.
Fly
-
I tend to agree with Dan - 2 votes is as good as 20; all they have to do is make sure they have the 2 vote margin - they do it all of the time.
-
Word is Thune may try again because the vote was so close. Like I said, its too bad the Republicans can't or won't make their people hold the line
<--------extremely right wing independent conservative whacko
-
Why would he try again if it is so controlled by the Dems? I guess he could just be trying to look good to his constituents, but maybe he thinks he can schmooze a few more senators in his direction.
Fly
-
Wonder what Ben N would do if he was the actual swing vote......
-
Honestly, although I like the idea of reciprocity across all 50 states, I'm not sure how I feel about this amendment. I get a little uneasy about the federal gubmint dictating this. If they have the authority to force states to accept other state's permits, it could easily go the other way and they could prevent reciprocity. I guess I'm just leery of the feds telling states what to do.
-
Bkoenig - I was thinking along the same lines. I appreciate the fact that the states should have control over more things than they do today. I support the efforts of states like Montana and Texas regarding state rights, so to have the Fed's force reciprocity tends to cause me some internal conflict. It could go the other way and we would probably be fighting to keep the fed's out of our business.
-
I can compare the sneaky bastards to divorce lawyers, all the decisions are made behind closed doors. They get together, plan it all out as friends, then come out and put on a hell of a show in court, knowing the outcome is predetermined. Some may sit there with a sore ass, but they know something they want in the future will be played the same way in their favor.
Luckily we don't have near as much corruption in the Unicameral. To pretend it doesn't exist is assinine.
Now if you want to talk corruption in Nebraska, look to nearly every city government for a prime example.
-
Reciprocity across the states seems on the surface to be a good idea, and I know I would appreciate having the same rights in other states that I do here. On the other hand, I've already gone on record saying I thought both the knowledge and proficiency aspects of our "test" were somewhat lacking. I don't particulary like the idea that someone who only knows enough of the law to "get by" and may have never handled a handgun prior to the test might still find the target enough times to get a permit. For one thing, they are probably a danger to themselves and other innocent people more than to a criminal. Secondly, they have a good chance of giving the rest of us permit holders (those who know what they're doing and have experience with guns) a bad name by doing something stupid, or careless. Some states have even more lax requirements for a permit than we do. Conceivably, some states could say all you have to do is plunk down $10 and you get a license. Do we really want these people running around here in Nebraska (people with no brains, no expertise, and who knows what for a criminal history)? I'm thinking that if we're going to have the feds rule on this one, then they should also set the minimum standards. This still doesn't address the fact that, even with a permit, each state has its own variations on the rules pertaining to the permit.
I'm reasonably happy with the law we have now in Nebraska. I don't travel out of state much. When I do I usually fly which already precludes me from carrying (at least until I get where I'm going, if I felt like going through the hassels of bringing guns along in checked baggage). I'm not too sure I want the feds changing anything because it is liable to get more expensive and restrictive if we allow that.
I wouldn't argue too much against reciprocity, but I don't know if it is really a good idea. At the least, it would need a lot of tweeking to make it feasible.
-
In an ideal world ;D, I would prefer NOT to need to get a permit from the government to do something that is guaranteed to me by the constitution. Whether someone else can see that I am exercising my constitutional right to bear arms, is none of my concern.
-
armed and humurous...Can you point to any statistic, or facts other than anecdotal, that indicate states that do not require knowledge and proficiency tests before issuing permits have more stupid, careless, accidental or embarrassing firearms deaths or injuries than the states that do not?
Isn't your argument the same one that all the small towns in Nebraska were using to keep LB430 from passing?
-
To answer your first question, Dan, no. I don't have any statistics to show that other states with more lax CHP requirements have more stupid, careless, accidental, or embarrassing firearms deaths or injuries. And, as I said, I'm not saying that reciprocity wouldn't be good for those who choose to carry, or the rest of society for that matter. I'm just trying to make a point that there will be some issues to work out, and in working out those issues, we could come up with something worse than what we have now. I'm not sure what you mean about my argument being the same as that used by the small towns that were trying to keep 430 from passing. They didn't want higher standards to apply to people carrying concealed in their towns; they didn't want anyone carrying in their towns, period. Think of it this way (and I'm not sure if this is a good example): When I go out to the Izaak Walton League rifle/pistol range, I know that everyone there (unless they are not authorized) has had some training on the rules for the range and that they have demonstrated to some extent to a qualified range officer that they know what they are doing. Now, I compare this to our CHP classes/tests in that it is pretty lax and certainly isn't going to guarantee that no one is going to get shot by accident while on the range. In fact, I still see a number of people who don't use particularly good practices when it comes to the safe handling of their firearms. On the other hand, I've been to pubic sight ins and to public shooting ranges where there is absolutely nothing requiring those who come there to shoot to have any kind of training whatsoever. I generally don't shoot there when other people are around because I don't trust them to know enough not to point that loaded gun at me or to stop shooting when someone is down range putting up a target. No, I can't say that I've ever known anyone to get shot at the trap shooting sites at Branched Oak or Pawnee. But, if I have the choice, I'll go to the club where it is much more likely that anyone else shooting there has at least heard of gun safety.
Finally, when it comes to the second amendment, or simply the right to defend oneself with whatever means one has, I realize that even a blind, illiterate, with DTs and no thumbs has as much right to defend themselves as I do. (No offense meant to the visually impaired, the uneducated, alcoholics, or amputees.) Though I might want to stay a safe distance away from them if they were armed, I don't know that I have an ethical argument to deny them that right.
-
Oh, and FarmerRick, I agree. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need a permit to possess or carry firearms in any manner we see fit. Actually, I think it would work in the real world, too. We already have laws against anything "bad" that one might do with a gun. What's the point of stopping someone from simply owning or carrying one if they're doing no one any harm? But, I'm probably preaching to the choir...anyway, it'll never happen.
-
My point is that there is published evidence that training requirements neither reduce crime nor firearm accident rates. There are many more firearms owners than there are CCW's, and open carry has no training requirement in the majority of locations. So, how is heaping all this responsibility on a small group, typically 1-2% of the population, somehow making us look better.
I think the flaw in your way of thinking is that you need the approval of the opposition to win.
I think we should just defeat them.
-
My point is that there is published evidence that training requirements neither reduce crime nor firearm accident rates. There are many more firearms owners than there are CCW's, and open carry has no training requirement in the majority of locations. So, how is heaping all this responsibility on a small group, typically 1-2% of the population, somehow making us look better.
I think the flaw in your way of thinking is that you need the approval of the opposition to win.
I think we should just defeat them.
Amen.
Be proactive on our rights rather than reactive. That is the only way to get anything done.
-
I see your point, and I don't disagree with it. Although, there is one difference between training those who carry concealed and not training those who carry in the open: I have a choice to avoid those carrying in the open because I see them coming toward me with a gun. If someone is carrying concealed and has one in the chamber and the safey off, I don't know that when he bends over to tie his shoes, his unrestrained wheel gun is going to fall out and blow my head off when it lands on the hammer. Also, I try to avoid using or paying too much attention to a lot of statistics. Unless someone is reasonably intelligent, and understands logic and statistics and all that goes along with them, it is just too easy to make people believe something that simply isn't true. It's pretty hard to deduce cause and effect relationships on a large scale with the kinds of statistics that are generally available to the public. And, a good deal of research is often supported by those with vested interests in the results.
I'm not saying "we" (gun owners or second amendment proponents) can't win without convincing the anti-gunners we're right. I don't honestly know how it would come out if you could just take a nation wide vote right now on some of the issues we face concerning gun control. I'm sure some areas would come out pro-gun, but I'm reasonably sure there are areas that wouldn't. My point is, even if we don't outnumber them, if we can convince them that excercising our second amendment rights won't do them any harm, we won't have to worry about it.
Yes, we've made some headway in the last few years, with most states allowing concealed carry, and the Supreme Court decision on the Heller v DC case. Still, that was a 5-4 vote on a court that is likely to change one or more seats quite soon and a Democratic president choosing the replacements. It also seems that cities or states with more dense populations tend to have stricter gun control. So, even though we may be in the majority here in Nebraska, we've got the Californians and New Yorkers to more than cancel us out when it comes to anything on a national level.
Give me a break, Dan. I've been off work and bored to death for weeks now. My rambling here just gives me something to do. I think we're on the same side.
-
My point is that there is published evidence that training requirements neither reduce crime nor firearm accident rates. There are many more firearms owners than there are CCW's, and open carry has no training requirement in the majority of locations. So, how is heaping all this responsibility on a small group, typically 1-2% of the population, somehow making us look better.
I think the flaw in your way of thinking is that you need the approval of the opposition to win.
I think we should just defeat them.
AGREE 100%