Senate To Vote On Gutting State Requirements For Carrying Guns

Senator John Thune of North Dakota has introduced an amendment (No. 1618) to the Department of Defense appropriations authorization bill (S. 1390) , which could come up for a vote as early as Monday, July 20.

This proposal would override state law by forcing every state (except Illinois and Wisconsin) to accept the carrying of loaded, concealed firearms by non-residents of their state, even if those persons are legally barred from possessing guns in that state.

Under this proposal, states would be forced to recognize all concealed weapons permits -- even if the requirements for out-of-state permit-holders fall well below their own.

Take training requirements, for example. Some states, like Mississippi and Georgia, require no training at all for the carrying of concealed weapons. Texas, by contrast, requires at least 10 hours of range time before the Lone Star State issues a permit. States like Texas would see their standards gutted under Sen. Thune's plan.

Also, states that currently allow relatively few out-of-state visitors to carry concealed weapons within their borders - such as Oregon, Maine and Nebraska - will be negatively impacted by Sen. Thune's amendment.

Under the dangerous provisions of the Thune Amendment, a resident of a state with tight restrictions on concealed weapons who could not qualify for a concealed weapons permit under their own state law, could now receive a non-resident permit from another state with a lower threshold, and police in their state of residence would be forced to honor that permit. [Correction: Our analysis here was based on S. 845, an earlier version of Sen. Thune's proposal. The version currently under debate has addressed this particular issue.]

Why does all this matter? You could be forced by Congress to tolerate dangerous people in your neighborhood armed with concealed weapons and legal permits to carry them -- permits that were issued by other states with weak or non-existent safety requirements.

Gun pushers, in response, often extol the virtues of permit-holders regardless of the requirements they have to (or don't have to) meet, as if they were amateur police officers, claiming that they're all "law-abiding citizens" we can trust to carry their loaded handguns wherever they want -- from college classrooms to airports.

The real world is different. The fact is that too many gun owners with concealed carry permits are not "law-abiding citizens" at all.

* For example, there is Richard Poplawski, the white supremacist armed with an AK-47 who allegedly murdered three Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania police officers this past April on his front porch. Poplawski has been charged with three counts of homicide, aggravated assault, and a weapons violation. He was a concealed carry permit-holder.

* Perhaps you also recall Michael McLendon. He was the "suicide shooter" who went on a rampage through the small towns of Kinson and Samson, Alabama this past March, murdering 10 people before killing himself. He too was a concealed carry permit-holder.

* You likely do not know the name Michael Iheme. A year ago, he was charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of his wife, Anthonia, in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. This past February, he was found guilty of second-degree murder. Anthonia Iheme had an active restraining order against her husband due to an alleged history of domestic abuse. After shooting his wife, Michael Iheme called 911 and said, "I have killed the woman that mess my life up [sic]...." He was a concealed carry permit-holder, as well.

* Then there is James Patrick Wonder. Wonder was charged last August with the first-degree murder of Donald Pettit - a federal agent with U.S. Customs and Border Protection - in Pembroke Pines, Florida. Wonder reportedly shot Pettit in the head in front of Pettit's twelve-year-old daughter. Wonder was also a concealed carry permit-holder.

* And according to reporting released just today, there is the case of Darryl Inman who pleaded guilty to felony charges of pointing a handgun at fellow motorists during a road rage incident in Edmond, Oklahoma. Inman has been ordered to pay his victims $500 to cover counseling costs and lost wages, and is reportedly serving a 10-month deferred sentence with anger management classes. He has also been ordered to forfeit his firearms, as well as his permit to carry a concealed handgun for life.

As a spokesperson for the Edmond Police Department said, "You can have a license to carry a gun. That does not give you a license to threaten people. You can't pull a gun out and wave it at somebody in a threatening way."

In fact, the Oklahoma County District Attorney handled the case personally, in part, because he said, "I felt it was another concealed carry license incident that crossed the line for self-defense."

There are hundreds of other examples like these listed here and here, with new ones being reported every week. Dangerous people have concealed carry permits who shouldn't be allowed near a handgun, much less be given permission to carry one anywhere in the country.

The Brady Campaign has prepared a fact sheet with helpful information that details the problems with Thune's Amendment.

Sen. Thune's amendment would endanger public safety, put law enforcement at risk, and trample states' rights to make their own gun laws. We encourage all who are concerned about this to contact your Senator today to help ensure that a dangerous proposal like this does not become the law of the land.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[Dimensio]

" After shooting his wife, Michael Iheme called 911 and said, "I have killed the woman that mess my life up [sic]...." He was a concealed carry permit-holder, as well."

Mr. Iheme did not possess a concealed deadly weapons permit. Mr. Helmke is lying.

[housewar]

I don't consider myself to be anti-cop, but when a police organization is concerned that my civil liberties might put them at risk, I can't help but think:

1 - This is the language of a police state. My civil liberties do not exist for the convenience of law enforcement. Law enforcement exists to protect my civil liberties.

2 - What about the thousands that are killed and brutalized by the police every year? Are we going to have a discussion about disarming the police in the name of public safety? Do I need to list every instance where a police officer, on or off-duty, brutalized or murdered someone? The city of Chicago just finished convicting Tony Abate for beating a bartender and is still in the process of investigating and prosecuting years of torture at the hands of police.

http://www.october22.org/Stolen_LivesList_2007_update.pdf

I actually think the amendment is terrible because it's a blatant disregard for state's rights. But I'm not going to remain silent while Paul Helmke demonizes millions of law-abiding citizens exercising their consitutional rights by cherry-picking the cases of a handful of psychos.

[DMeadows]

". . . I believe the more people carry guns the more likely it is that otherwise non-fatal arguments, confrontations, will turn fatal."

--jimtom


If you believe something which is not borne out by the facts of the last 20 years of advances in gun rights in the majority of states and more people lawfully carrying guns, what effect does that have on your credibility?

Gun control advocates have emphatically foretold "more blood in the streets" at each step of concealed carry liberalization, gun restrictions repeal, AWB sunset, etc.

If a belief does not equal reality, which is correct? I go with reality.

[djkrlsn]

The BC and VPC have been claiming that shall issue CCW would result in blood in the street and wild west scenarios for years--I would hope they could actually point to where that has happened

[jakemn]

First of all John Thune is from South Dakota not North Dakota. This amendment will simply give carry licenses the same recognition as drivers licenses. Cars kill many more people than guns and driving isn't a constitutional right like carrying a gun is. The constitution says that every state must grant full faith and credit to the acts of others. It also guarantees the right to keep and bare arms. This amendment will protect both.
And to answer jimtom's question, yes I would feel safer if every law abiding citizen with a carry permit could carry a handgun with them wherever they could legally be. Your argument that the presence of a handgun will all of a sudden turn a good person into a murder just because they get ticked off is both insulting and silly. One doesn't need a gun to become violent or kill someone. Knives, cars, base ball bats, and hands and feet among other things can kill people too.

[twogunmojo]

yes jimtom...i would feel safer if everyone who wants to carry a gun and can legally do so did do....there is nothing like participation to strengthen a republic....since i answered your questions now answer mine...would you support the outcome of a national referendum on open carry if it fell along the lines of the heller decision..­.i.e....an­ywhere you car can go...your gun can go...i drive to the doctor...i wear my gun into the doctors office...i drive my car to my granddaughters first day of school....i wear my gun into class...you get the picture now answer the question....

[jimtom]

no, since I believe the more people carry guns the more likely it is that otherwise non-fatal arguments, confrontations, will turn fatal.

[Thirdpower]

That's been the battle cry of the hoplophobes since Florida promoted CCW back in the 80's.
20 years and 3 dozen states later, it still hasn't happened.

Like I said. A 'True Believer'.

[Ohio9]

So basically you think everyone is a potential murderer and the only thing preventing us from killing whenever we get angry is that lack of readily available effective tool to do the job.

Tell me, do you include yourself among this homicidal crazed populance who is always ready to kill at a moment's notice? Or does that just apply to everyone but you?

[molonlabe]

But looking at the data from the 90's (CCW reform) forward, and despite Paul Helmke's claims of blood in the streets and wild west shootouts, that never happened. Plus, you would think that if those types of unfounded scenarios were going to play out, it would have been during the implementation phase of CCW reform, not an extension like nationalized CCW would be.

I think you're erroneously assuming 2 things. 1) that every gun owner would apply and be granted a CCW permit, thus instantaneously "flooding" socieity with millions and millions of 'new' CCW. How many people already having a valid CCW don't exercise it?
2) unfortunately, you're still buying into the premise that more guns = more crime. The statistics simply do not validate that assumption.

[jimtom]

To Thirdpower and Molonlabe: Do either of you have any doubt that the Supreme Court is going to extend their Heller ruling to the rest of the Country just as soon as a case exists that allows them to do so?

I further assume that if Thune's legislation passes, the next shoe will drop and we'll see legislation on the basis of the universality of the 2A and extending the "castle doctrine" beyond the physical castle. Or maybe the Congress will simply "federalize" carry laws.

I then argue that legislation, on the State level first, but probably on the Federal level later, will be introduced that requires businesses to allow customers to exercise their carry rights when they use the businesses' facilities. I noted the exceptions I would expect to such laws. Let me add some more exceptions, facilities where classified USG documents are kept and stored, facilities where liquor is the primary source of income for the establishment, maybe facilities where toxic chemicals and poisonous substances are stored or manufactured. Facilities especially subject to fires.

Do you guys accept my premises? Whether you accept them or not, would you like to see such laws enacted? Would you feel safer, both for yourself and for your loved ones when you are outside of your home, if these laws were in place? So far only 2GM has shown a willingness to answer, are there any others? BenEzra maybe, OdinsEye? Bandofotters? Ohio9?

[Thirdpower]

As it stands right now, incorporation is likely. How much determines on the ruling.

Now you need to read up on 'Castly Doctrine'. Your statement shows you haven't.

There's already legislation in various states with varying requirements for businesses.

Take a look at some of them.

[jimtom]

The man simply will not answer the question. Deflect and distract, over and over.

[legaleagle 45]

Even though you asked the question of Thirdpower and/or molonlabe, I am probably more knowledgeable in this area. It is highly likely that SCOTUS will incorporate the 2nd. The vote should be 9-0 if the majority opinion in Heller is accepted as precedent. The problem is that some of the majority on Heller do not like the incorporation doctorine presently used by SCOTUS (read "Scalia"). If he accepts the incorporation precedent then there would be no problem, further the petitioners are also asserting a different basis for incorporation known as "privileges or immunities". This method was rejected in a very old case from SCOTUS commonly known as "Slaughterhouse". Slaughterhouse has been roundly criticized by academia as being flat out wrong, but it has never been over ruled. I believe Scalia and some others would be happier with overruling Slaughterhouse.... and some major "liberal" groups actually support incorporation via this route as a means to bury Slaughterhouse once and for all. So yes, it is fairly certain that the 2nd will be incorporated, the only real question is whether the decision will be based upon substantive due process grounds or upon " P or I" grounds. You might have a plurality with a split on which method is to be employed... In any event, it should be interesting.

As for the castle doctorine, there is analogous case law which would mitigate against the extension of federal power into this area, so I doubt that is likely.

[jimtom]

I take that you are an attorney?

What about my other predictions regarding the "other shoe." Would like to read your analysis.

[legaleagle 45]

A clarification on the above. Petitioners are in fact asserting a "P or I" argument which would overrule Slaughterhouse, but this does not mean they are not also using standard, substantive due process arguments. They are asserting both arguments to allow SCOTUS and the judges thereon, to choose the specific method by which incorporation of the 2nd occurs.

Hope that helps....

[Thirdpower]

Of course we all realize this is just your attempt to move the topic away from your previous unsupported assertions.

[molonlabe]

Part 1

I won't even claim to be knowledgable enough on the legal side of things as legaleagle45 so I'll let that post stand on its own.

I'd be willing to accept most of your 'exceptions' since most give me either the option NOT to visit the establishment, or I would have enough time/forewarning to make arrangements to store/check/leave my firearm in a secure location. Hell, if nationalized CCW were passed, I'd even agree to proficiency training with a weapon (provided it wasn't funded by the Joyce Foundation and the test wasn' t administered under Paul Helmke and Josh Sugarmann's standards.)

[molonlabe]

Part 2

What I can't accept is driving from PA into NJ, and as soon as I cross the border, becoming an instant felon for doing nothing other than driving with my firearm. What I can't accept is going out for dinner and a movie, and being an instant criminal simply because the restaurant acknowledged my CCW rights and the theater doesn't. What I can't accept is the fact that Robert Dinero is given preferential treatment in NYC simply because he's famous/rich, while those schlepping it back and forth from middle shift at the factory having no ability to protect themselves while walking to the parking deck. What I can't accept is the state of VT acknowledging my Bulgarian Makarov as an acceptable and legal weapon, while Kalifornia sees it as illegal simply because it didn't pass an arbitrary 'drop test.' What I can't accept is being charged as a criminal in NJ because somehow, that 11th round in my magazine is the magical bullet turning my weapon into an "arsenal."

What I can't accept is the fact that Wisconsin and Illinois don't recognize my rights at all.

[jimtom]

So I take you would prefer "federalized" carry laws and a "federalized" list of all legal weapons, which is updated as required. If so, then can I conclude you don't think these decisions should be left to the states?

Now, will any you answer the question(s)? Do you want to live in an America where anyone with a concealed or open carry license can enter most businesses whether the owner wants to admit him/her or not. Would you feel safer personally, and for your family, if there was a Federal law such that these 20 to 40 million legal gun owners could carry their guns with them to most places?

[molonlabe]

Luckily, NYC has strict gun laws preventing anyone but the rich and famous from being able to carry concealed weapons:

(July 21) -- A Bronx man died Sunday while protecting his older brother from an armed robber.
Sydney Michael Baxter was preparing for bed Sunday night when he heard his brother, Eric Baxter, cry for help from the street outside their home, the New York Daily News reported.

Witnesses to the crime said Eric Baxter, 53, had just parked his car in front of the Williamsbridge, N.Y., home he shared with his brother when he was approached by an armed man who demanded money. Eric Baxter began to yell for help and to bang on the door of his home, alerting his brother.

Sydney Baxter went outside and interceded, pushing his brother out of the way of the gunman. The man opened fire and shot the 50-year-old three times in the chest. Sydney Baxter was taken to the hospital where he later died.

[kaveman4]

Hmmm...I'm a bit confused Mr Helmke.

You campaigned against Heller because you said guns had no place in a purely urban setting.

Then you campaigned against National Park carry because you said guns had no place in a purely rural setting.

Now you campaign against reciprocity because you say guns have no place for traveling citizens in our individual states, which is a mixture of urban and rural areas.

It kinda sounds like you just don't like the idea of people owning/car­rying/usin­g guns at all for any reason.

Here's a catchy phrase...

The Brady campaign is against all guns for all people in all places.

[djkrlsn]

except for LEOs and members of the military

[twogunmojo]

as i have said before jimtom i don't mind using the truth as a weapon....i also advocate for the free use and distribution of marijauana...in my opinion you should be able to grow all you want...smoke all you want...and share all you want...but you will not be allowed to profit from it...if the love of money is the root of all evil simply remove the money from the equation...and as far as guns go...i think there should be a national referendum on them....let the people vote...just like in cali......the anti-gunners did not want heller to go to trial because they knew the outcome....what do you think the outcome of voting on open carry would be...would 80 million gun owners vote against their interest...i doubt it....

[molonlabe]

"The amendment forces states to allow concealed carrying even though studies have repeatedly shown that laws allowing the carrying of concealed firearms have not reduced crime and, if anything, have increased violent crime, including murder and robbery. Numerous examples of crimes and dangerous acts committed by concealed carry permit holders are at http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/facts/ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdf."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/action/concealedguns/thune-background.pdf

This from the Brady's "fact sheet." Notice the lack of facts. Notice how Paul makes a claim (increased incidents of murder and robbery), and then backs it with unrelated examples of CCW holders committing crime, while not being able to substantiate his original claim.

Paul, I'd like to see the REAL facts regarding your wild claim that CCW increases violent crime.

Further, I don't really know anyone who supports CCW because it is their intent to singlehandedly "reduce" crime in society. I carry a weapon for personal protection and that of my family. Period.

[Dimensio]

"Paul, I'd like to see the REAL facts regarding your wild claim that CCW increases violent crime."

I do not believe that this is possible, as Mr. Helmke is clearly lying.

[molonlabe]

Oh it's possible. You'd be amazed at what Joyce Foundation money can buy.

[Thirdpower]

"Surely somebody is going to argue, or may have already argued, that their RIGHT to self-protection as expressed by their decision to carry a handgun outside the home cannot be abridged on so flimsy a basis as "property rights."

And I called it. JT is trying to set us up to try and get a claim that the 2A trumps all other rights.

[jimtom]

"JT is trying to set us up to try and get a claim that the 2A trumps all other rights."

Maybe not that the 2A trumps all other rights, but a nationwide concealed or open carry legislative bill will, in my opinion, require the courts to establish the parameters of any individual or state or federal ban on where and under what circumstances limitations on carry rights can be lawfully applied.

No "rights" under the bill of rights are absolute. As noted by others, people cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire, thus limiting the 1A.

I would venture that the NRA, and many contributors to this blog will argue that such a nationwide concealed or open carry bill as is being proposed, or its next even more expansive version, assuming that there will be one, will presumptively allow carry in public places and in private places that are open to the public. Otherwise, as I noted earlier, the various "no guns allowed" policies of businesses make the carry legislation largely moot.

[jimtom]

Thirdpower: "JT is trying to set us up to try and get a claim that the 2A trumps all other rights."

Well, twogunmojo would clearly like the 2A to trump all other county, state, or federal restrictions on concealed or open carry. To quote him, "i think it is wrong for gun owners to be discriminated against..if the 2nd is incorporated into the 14th several states will be hard pressed to deny a legal citizen the right to carry...i have no trouble admitting that i have carried a gun since before i was 18....i carried it illegally into bars and restaurants...even though i now have a permit i continue to carry it into places that prohibit such activity.but i can't carry it into a burger king if they post a sign saying i can't....which would deny me a state right...i think guns should be like cars...i can drive it anywhere i want..."

Do pro-gun advocates participating in this blog agree with him? If so, then I guess I'll have my answer regarding the kind of America you want.

[Thirdpower]

"Otherwise, as I noted earlier, the various "no guns allowed" policies of businesses make the carry legislation largely moot."

And just how does it do this? Do you have statistics on the percentage of businesses that choose the 'no guns allowed' option?

Feel free to present them.

[legaleagle 45]

"concealed or open carry... will presumptively allow carry in public places and in private places that are open to the public. "

That is already the case for the most part in state ccw laws. In order to prevent ccw, the business owner must post a sign of some sort to notify persons of the no gun policy.

"Otherwise, as I noted earlier, the various "no guns allowed" policies of businesses make the carry legislation largely moot."

Your argument is based upon a foundation which has not been proven, to wit, that a vast majority of businesses will ban ccw on their property. That is certainly not my understanding, but perhaps you have some statistics to butress your claim?

[owlbreath]

So states' rights go out the window when it is convenient for the conservatives.

[molonlabe]

Conservatives? I thought we were talking about law-abiding gun owners rights?

I understand this is the HuffPo, but you picked the wrong forum to play the "It's Bush's Fault!(tm)" game.

Come back when you have something to offer.

[Dimensio]

It is fundamentally dishonest to suggest that only "conservatives" have an interest in preserving the right to keep and bear arms.

[owlbreath]

The right to bear arms does indeed cross party lines, but Thune's proposal would make the right to carry a concealed weapon a federal law. How does the Conservative wing reconcile that with a state's right to make its own gun laws?

[twogunmojo]

dear jimtom....i will answer your question...i think it is wrong for gun owners to be discriminated against..if the 2nd is incorporated into the 14th several states will be hard pressed to deny a legal citizen the right to carry...i have no trouble admitting that i have carried a gun since before i was 18....i carried it illegally into bars and restaurants...even though i now have a permit i continue to carry it into places that prohibit such activity...as the anti-gun crowd in tn. may soon find out it may very well be illegal for them to deny me rights recognized by the state and federal government....under no circumstances does local ordinances trump county law....under no circumstances does county law trump state law...under the guns in parks law i can carry my gun in the smoky mountains since i can carry my gun in tn...but i can't carry it into a burger king if they post a sign saying i can't....which would deny me a state right...i think guns should be like cars...i can drive it anywhere i want...i can have any model i choose...and the more horsepower the better....

[legaleagle 45]

Paul, as soon as you start campaigning for the repeal of the Federal Brady Law which forces federal restrictions to be observed within each of the states concernig guns, then we can talk about "states rights". OK Paul?

PS a good start would be to stop advocating for a federal ban on so called "assualt weapons"... let each individual state decide for themselves what guns can be sold in their respective states... sound good Paul?

[kaveman4]

Wow, lookie here!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VURrbLTKBVw&feature=channel

3 IMPD officers arrested in a matter of weeks, the latest one after a 3 month investigation for selling a handgun to a felon.

So paul, if CCW permit holders are shooting cops, doesn't that simply mean they're shooting criminals?