Glad to see both of mine voted for it - Wicker and Cochran.

Not sure this was the best vehicle for it, but it can be tried again and again.

Why should a Constitutionally guaranteed right be different than driving privileges?

Correct me if I am wrong, but if a state does allow reciprocity of another state then there is no federal jurisdiction over it. The only way the feds could get involved is if I were to take my concealed weapon into Illinois or Wisconsin (or any others that don't have reciprocity for an MT concealed weapons permit.

With 58 votes, why not a stand alone bill for national CCW?

"With 58 votes, why not a stand alone bill for national CCW?"

Because what a Dem will vote for when he knows it won't pass is not the same as what a Dem will vote for when he thinks it might. (See the numerous aborted attempts to overturn DC gun laws)

Also note: There were two Republicans who could have made the difference on this vote:
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH) Nay

With 58 votes, why not a stand alone bill for national CCW?

Because Obama will veto it, and then you're back needing 60 votes. Even if Obama would play ball, Pelosi isn't.

Sorry, make that 67 votes. It takes 23rd majority to override a veto.

For those of us old enough to remember back to the 70's/80's when it seemed like the 2nd amendment was a dead letter and gun bans, particularly pistol bans, were guaranteed ... could you imagine we'd ever get to this point back then?

Agree with Steve. Completely.

We must not forget how very far we have come, and the foundational shift on this issue.

Imagine what incorporation will bring ...

this loss is actually a good thing in my opinion. I have never agreed with the premise that the government has the legit authority to require a permit to exercise a constitutional right. Whenever we push for legislation that promotes that idea, we are taking two steps back in the long run even if we win that battle. Recognizing that politicians are authorized to require a permit to exercise your right to carry could eventually turn into requiring a permit to exercise your right in your home. Losing this battle was good for the cause in the long run and especially because the politicans can't hide from their vote. This is good material for the next election. In the meantime, hopefully the states will get a smackdown in SCOTUS for incorporation.

So many people seem to be stuck on the gun issue of this amendment, in fact it’s a constitutional issue. The US Constitution has what is called the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV Section 1), which says that public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of one state must be honored by all other states. This is why your driver’s license, marriage license, etc. is valid from one state to the next. Having a CCW license have full 50 state reciprocity SHOULD be, according to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the default and for you not to be able to carry in a given state would require a hearing in a court of law. I believe because of the passions aroused by and the sensitivity of people to the issues of civilians owning/carrying/using guns that the states ignore (unconstitutionally in my opinion) Full Faith and credit and causes this patchwork of CCW laws.

Why blame this on the Dems and politicking? The R's were in complete charge for 8 years and never proposed this when they had the votes to make it count. It's not particularly brave of them to submit this now when they're out of power, and only do so because they know it will make political hay in their next campaign. Disappointing, posturing on both sides, both equally venal.

oh yeah, HD, both equally venal.