On Saturday, 25 February, 2017, Senator John Cornyn (R) Texas announced that he will introduce the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act in the Senate this week. From the dailycaller.com:
Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn announced Saturday at the general meeting of the Texas State Rifle Association in Austin that he will introduce the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act in the upper chamber next week.The bill is said to mirror H.R. 38, in the House of Representatives.
A similar national reciprocity bill was put forward by Senator Cornyn in 2013. It came within 3 votes of overcoming the Senate fillibuster. 57 senators voted for it, 43 against it. After the 2016 election, that number should have switched to 58, assuming that all Republicans vote for the bill, and all Democrats who voter for it before will still vote for it. The Democrats who voted for it in 2013 are:
Joe Donnelly of Indiana
Jon Tester of Montana
Tom Udall of New Mexico
Martin Heinrich of New Mexico
Mark Warner of Virginia
Joe Manchin of West Virginia
Those senators are all still in office.
33 senators voted against it, and are still in office. The turnover of 10 senators who voted against the bill from 2013 to2017, only switches one vote with clarity. Of the 33 who are still in office, five are up for election in 2018, in states that Trump won. Those five senators are from states with large numbers of concealed carry permits. One, Missouri, is now a Constitutional carry state, which means that everyone who votes in Missouri, over the age of 20, is now a potential legal gun carrier. The numbers of permit holders in those states has increased from those listed below:
Bill Nelson, Florida Over - 1,400,000 resident permits in Florida. All are voters.
Claire McCaskill, Missouri - Over 171,000 permits, potentially all voters over 20.
Sherrod Brown, Ohio Over - 574,000 permits in Ohio. All are voters.
Bob Casey, Pennsylvania Over - 1,000,000 permits in the state. All are voters.
Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin, over 240,000 permits in the state. All are voters.
It is reasonable to believe that in 2013, the Obama administration lobbied hard against the national reciprocity bill. In 2017, it is reasonable to believe that the Trump administration will lobby hard in favor of it. National reciprocity was one of the pillars of the Donald Trump campaign.
Will they be able to switch two votes to overcome the 60 vote filibuster barrier? It looks to be eminently plausible.
The only reason to vote against the bill is purely ideological. Why would Senator Bill Nelson of Florida want to prevent 1.4 million voters in his state from being able to carry in other states? Permit holders from other states can already carry in Florida. The same is true in Ohio, Missouri, and Wisconsin. Pennsylvania honors permits from 25 other states.
Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin is an extreme ideologue. I do not expect her to switch. I am not so certain about the other four. Perhaps readers with more information can comment on Bill Nelson, Claire McCaskill, Sherrod Brown,and Bob Casey.
Only two senators have to flip to pass national reciprocity over the 60 vote filibuster barrier.
I predict that we will obtain national reciprocity under the Trump administration.
©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Posts
4 comments:
Brown is not a friend of the second amendment, at least not as we understand it. He hasn't seen a citizen gun control measure that he wouldn't support, so I doubt he'd be changing his vote anytime soon.
I'm just going to wait and see what Trump's supreme court appointee does. the supreme court is where this issue belongs. A permit to exercise a constitutional right is unconstitutional. One appropriate ruling would over turn all states infringing laws. without worrying about a filibuster. call a spade a spade , all of these state laws are infringements.
I can see being confident that a reciprocity bill will pass, and be signed. I would expect, however, that multiple suits to have it blocked will be filed within 24 hours of the signing, and that the fight will drag on for at least a decade. The anti-gun crowd will severally and collectively lose their tiny minds, and put all their political and monetary capitol into getting the thing ruled unconstitutional. They may well not win, but I don't see the bill actually going into force while Trump is still in office.
CSP: my point is these infringing laws should never have existed in the first place. Existing Supreme court rulings already void them all. How many times will these morons have to be slapped down before they get the point. the big problem we have right now is we have a constitution that is not being taught in our schools. we are not ruled by opinions we are ruled by laws that must be fair and equal. Opinions of bleeding hearts are not laws that must be enforced. The supreme court clarifies law as being constitutional or unconstitutional. it can not make law. the supreme court can actually request congress to change a law, but until that law is changed the court is required to enforce what is written. You may want to research the real reason Supreme court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor resigned. supreme court justices are not appointed to enforce French laws. When they write that is what they did they should be impeached and removed. an old woman without retirement pay just might be destroyed. a published ruling is rather difficult to dispute.
Post a Comment