Two key issues with bill S.1390: On the Amendment To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.
Naturally the leftards trumpeted the death of this bill with the usual bloviating (as reported in the NY TIMES 
“Lives have been saved with the defeat of this amendment,” Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a leading opponent of the amendment, said in a statement. “The passage of this amendment would have done more to threaten the safety of New Yorkers than anything since the repeal of the assault weapons ban.”
The 2nd amendment makes it perfectly clear that citizens have the right to bear arms. Thus, any laws abridging that right are unconstitutional.
That being said, the courts have made it clear so far that while you may have a right to arms, state governments have the ability to regulate ownership and transport of said weapons. While I do not agree with this interpretation of the constitution, present law is what it is. This amendment, should it have become law would have potentially changed the legal argument, but would have simultaneously trampled on states rights by forcing one state to recognize another state’s laws as their own is a clear violation of individual states rights and an overstep by the federal government.
What is truly needed is additional court work to follow up on the SCOTUS Heller vs. District of Columbia decisionthat the Feds may not abridge a citizens right to keep and bear arms to actual states and municipalities such as New York , New Jersey and Chicago.
Best quote from the Heller Decision is below – take the time to read the whole opinion HERE - its an amazing piece of work!
Voting “yes” were 20 Democrats and 38 Republicans.
Voting “no” were 35 Democrats, 2 Republicans and 2 independents.
List of how Senators voted on this amendment HERE
The New York Times has a cool graphical interactive map of the votes HERE
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.
Comments (2) 
