I wrote to both my senators demanding that they vote for the Thune Amendment. As you'll recall it went down to defeat by two votes. I did not expect Upchuck Schumer to reply to my email, and he hasn't. However, Kristen Gillibrand, the junior senator, did. Here is how she justified her "No" vote on this issue. Items colored in red are my coloration for talking points I will discuss after you've read her reply.
September 3, 2009
Dear Mr. XXXXXXX:
Thank you for writing to me with regard to the Thune Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2009, which would have allowed individuals to carry concealed weapons across state lines. While I understand your concerns, I voted against this amendment which was not related to the Defense bill and would have put millions of New Yorkers and law enforcement officers at risk.
New York State has some of the strongest gun safety laws in the nation, and the amendment offered by Senator Thune would have circumvented New York's ability to enforce our own public safety laws. It is contrary to state's rights and would have allowed state legislatures in other states such as South Dakota, Louisiana or Texas, to decide whether their residents could carry concealed weapons in New York. Local mayors and chiefs of police, including New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, have made it clear to me that this amendment would have made it very difficult for them to do the important work of ensuring the safety of our streets, neighborhoods, parks, public transportation, and other public spaces.
I continue to support the rights of law abiding gun owners to own firearms for sport or their own personal protection, but I also support sensible legislation, widely supported by the law enforcement community, to protect the safety of New York's communities.
Thank you again for writing to express your concerns and I hope that you keep in touch with my office regarding future legislation and concerns you may have. For more information on this and other important issues, please visit my website at http://gillibrand.senate.gov and sign up for my e-newsletter.
Sincerely yours,
Kirsten Gillibrand
United States Senator
My response to this load of pious horsedung follows.
Regarding people being put at risk by concealed carry: Baloney! We all know that everywhere the People can carry concealed, crime rates go down. Everywhere that their rights to keep and bear arms are restricted, such as New York City, crime rates are high. The correlation is direct and undeniable. The FBI's crime statstics prove it. Don't lie to me, Senator!
For "strongest gun safety laws," read "oppressive gun control laws intended to disarm citizens." New York ranks as the sixth most oppressive state concerning the citizens' right to keep and bear arms in the United States, according to the Brady Campaign. You should not be proud of this. You should be deeply ashamed and working to pass laws that insure the rights of our citizens. You had a chance to do so by voting for the Thune Amendment. You blew that chance, Senator.
A law requiring reciprocity of all pistol permits would not run counter to states' rights, any more than does requiring them to give full faith and credit to other states' documents such as marriage licenses and driver's licenses, as provided for in Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. It is the existing clusterbleep of a patchwork quilt of state-negotiated recognition of each other's pistol permits that is counter to the law, Senator. I note that it was to prevent just such a situation as exists vis a vis states' recognition of pistol permits that Article IV, Section 1 was written into the Constitution in the first place.
Now we get to the real reason you voted against the Thune Amendment, Senator.: The Democratic fatcats in New York City don't like the idea of the little people having the right to carry guns in their fiefdom. The fact that more political campaign money originates in New York City than anywhere else in the state has nothing to do with how you voted, of course. Don't try and sell the gun owners of New York State the Brooklyn Bridge, Senator. We aren't buying your rationalization for voting no on a bill that would not only have straightened out the reciprocity mess, but would have resulted in a safer New York City for the police to insure the safety of the people who live and work there for a single New York minute.
Your voting record, Senator Gillibrand, which used to have an A rating from the National Rifle Association is rapidly spiraling down to where it's as low as that of the senior senator from New York. Kindly do not insult the intelligence of New York State's gun owners by quacking the usual Democratic Party duckspeak that translates to, "We Democrats want to abrogate the Second Amendment, but we don't have the votes... yet" on us.
I am very disappointed to have to report to the membership of G&G that it seems we new York State gun owners have been had. We hoped Gillibrand would be a countervail to the rabidly anti-gun Senator Upchuck Schumer. It seems we were wrong. Gun owners in New York do not have an ally in Kristen Gillibrand. Instead, we have a gutless wonder who votes the leftist Democratic Party line. I'm disappointed.
Excellent response Cyrano. I don't get much chance to unload on my senators like that, though I did have to pin Lindsey Graham to the mat and ask him if he knew what day it was after his role in the Sonya Sotomayor debacle. Maybe I'll write your senators too. Can I call them Kristy and Chuck?
__________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Was "Your" Voice Heard Today? NRA-ILA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excellent response Cyrano. I don't get much chance to unload on my senators like that, though I did have to pin Lindsey Graham to the mat and ask him if he knew what day it was after his role in the Sonya Sotomayor debacle. Maybe I'll write your senators too. Can I call them Kristy and Chuck?
His Senator will never read it or hear about it. I have a better chance of winning the lottery...........
__________________ Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.
Some of them will put the letter in the "I think this guy is serious file." All of the newspapers, news magazines, and major networks have an online forum where people can comment on issues. The president and the Congress, or their designees, really do refer to them to get a pulse of the people, so there is definitely something to them.
__________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Was "Your" Voice Heard Today? NRA-ILA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There's one valid point that does stick out of all that hogwash: requiring reciprocity without laying out uniform standards would knock the requirements for CCW down to the lowest common denominator. Whichever state had the loosest standards would set the rules.
When it comes to things like marriage, the solution traditionally was that a marriage from one state was recognized by other states only if it met their requirements. What's the answer here? Do we say that a state doesn't have to allow reciprocity unless the other states meet its standards? Do we let the federal government write uniform requirements for a CCW, and apply them nationwide? Or do we just shrug and say, 'well, if the state with the loosest requirements makes the standard, that's a good thing"?
No matter what we think of the CCW laws in New York, should the federal government have the power to tell the State of New York it has to follow the laws written by Texas, instead of its own laws?
No matter what we think of the CCW laws in New York, should the federal government have the power to tell the State of New York it has to follow the laws written by Texas, instead of its own laws?
Granted, the federal government should not regulate state CCW requirements any more than they should regulate marriage and state drivers' license requirements. However, they can set a "guideline of compliance" for a state. Case in point; in the early 80s, South Carolina prison standards dropped below the generally accepted standards of inmate incarceration and the state was sued for substandard prisons. The federal government stepped in and suggested a period of consent where the U.S. Bureau of Prisons would put forward suggestions that were in close compliance with the standards of other states. All parties agreed. The suit was suspended, and eventually dropped as the state met and eventually exceeded even formal accreditation standards.
That may be the solution for New York. They may have to at least put forth a solution to granting CCW that is within the policies and procedures of the "broadest cross section" of CCW states in America. Other states that have no CCW or states that are on the fringe of being draconian in issuing CCW licenses would eventually, through legal precedence, be pulled into more acceptable standards of CCW issue and requirements.
__________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Was "Your" Voice Heard Today? NRA-ILA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Granted, the federal government should not regulate state CCW requirements any more than they should regulate marriage and state drivers' license requirements. However, they can set a "guideline of compliance" for a state. Case in point; in the early 80s, South Carolina prison standards dropped below the generally accepted standards of inmate incarceration and the state was sued for substandard prisons. The federal government stepped in and suggested a period of consent where the U.S. Bureau of Prisons would put forward suggestions that were in close compliance with the standards of other states. All parties agreed. The suit was suspended, and eventually dropped as the state met and eventually exceeded even formal accreditation standards.
That may be the solution for New York. They may have to at least put forth a solution to granting CCW that is within the policies and procedures of the "broadest cross section" of CCW states in America. Other states that have no CCW or states that are on the fringe of being draconian in issuing CCW licenses would eventually, through legal precedence, be pulled into more acceptable standards of CCW issue and requirements.
The ideal solution would be for the states to work it out among themselves. And actually, they're getting there. There's an instructor here in California who teaches CCW classes, and offers three state licenses. None of the three requires you to be a resident of the state issuing them. If you get all three licenses, between them the reciprocity agreements cover most of the states in the Union.
But of course, California refuses to recognize any other state's CCW licenses. So the instructor's graduates are in the odd position of being able to legally carry in most of the country, but not in their own home state.
