Stupid Senate Tricks — Concealed Carry Edition

POLS UPDATE: We got a kick out of this press release from Udall’s office. Who wrote the first line, Steve Harvey? “Since 2003, Colorado has had a relatively relaxed reciprocity statute recognizing the conceal-carry permits of 27 other states.” Uh, what?

Update: Both Colorado Senators voted for the amendment which, thankfully, was defeated by Senators with better judgment.

Original post follows:

GJ Sentinel:

Both Colorado senators are undecided about a vote today on a measure that would allow holders of concealed-carry permits to travel with their firearms across state lines.

Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall, both Democrats, are reviewing the measure proposed by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., according to their Washington, D.C., offices.

Both Colorado senators voted earlier this year to allow holders of concealed-carry permits to carry their weapons in national parks and monuments, as did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Make no mistake, this red-meat eating, gun-toting, concealed carry permit holding wabbit is no gun control nut. In fact, I’d be an NRA member if they weren’t so overtly partisan.

But this amendment stinks to high heaven.

We live in a Constitutional Republic. From the original 1876 Colorado Constitution, Article II Section 13:

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

On the frontier in 1876 when everybody had a gun and wasn’t afraid to use it, our state’s founders saw fit to specifically reserve the right to regulate concealed carry. The Thune amendment would make Alabama’s law (where you don’t even have to have eyesight to get a permit) apply in Colorado, where we have minimal, but slightly more sensible requirements.

Our Senators should vote it down.

15 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Danny the Red (hair) says:

    I oppose assault weapon bans because they are meaningless.

    I support concealed carry if properly administered.

    However, I do not want states that still argue about evolution or the confederate battle flag making laws that bind Colorado.

    This is a race to the bottom at its worst, an invasion of local control, and for a conservative a direct assault on states rights.

  2. For State’s Rights unless they interfere with Guns, God, and Gays….

  3. G Pulviczek says:

    No idea why.  IMO, states’ rights should take precedence here.

    • Ralphie says:

      They had five or six more votes if they needed them, but there were senators who had a dispensation if the vote wasn’t close.

      You might have just named two of them.

      • ThillyWabbit says:

        Ours were probably among them, for the reasons gertie stated below.

        When a swing state senator’s vote won’t change the outcome on a hot button issues like this, they tend to vote in the direction they think will result in the fewest even remotely credible claims for attack ads likely to be run by the opposition.

        And as my head cools down I remember that in the 2008 election, very few of the special interest ads actually had to do with policy areas the groups running them actually cared about. Take this one from the US Chamber of Commerce that has nothing to do with business or taxes:

        They and the NRSC would happily run whatever ads they can get past Adam Schrager’s fact check on the flimsiest grounds. So might as well not give them the fodder is the logic.

        Doesn’t mean I always like it.

  4. Arvadonian says:

    so long as they permit people with marriage licenses issued in one state (Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, off of the top of my head) to be recognized as married (with all of the benefits and responsibilities) when they cross state lines….

    Hell, were this to pass, my partner and I would be off to Iowa this weekend….

  5. SaveCoH2O says:

    They both voted Yea.  

    • gertie97 says:

      The Republicans, cheered on by the NRA, routinely do things like this. They don’t care if it passes because the goal is to rough up senators from western states who would not want to be tagged as anti-2nd Amendment. Udall and Bennet didn’t fall for it.

      There will be more.

      • ThillyWabbit says:

        However the NRA routinely goes against its own word and attacks Democrats who actually have good records on guns. They are a partisan organization and they can not be trusted, therefore they should not be pandered to any more than the NRSC.

  6. ThillyWabbit says:

    The example I used of Alabama is moot as Colorado already has reciprocity with Alabama, stupidly enough.

    Since no state has a lower bar than the states Colorado already has reciprocity with, the net effect would be zilch. The race to the bottom has already been achieved for us.

    That being said, I think California, which would be a G8 member if it were a sovereign nation, ought to be able to regulate firearms within the limits of the Second Amendment. And thankfully they will.

  7. smellykat says:

    They have bought into the fear tactics of the NRA, and ceded that ground to the gun nuts.  The arguments presented here all the good reasons to have voted no on the thune amendment.  but we have a couple of limp dicks for senators on this issue.  

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.