Senator James John Thune has introduced an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that would mandate full reciprocity for concealed carry permits and licenses. Presumably, this would include states where currently no one can carry concealed.
Gun control advocates fret over Thune move to expand concealed carry
Of course they do.
Thune submitted an amendment this past Thursday to a Defense appropriation bill that would allow individuals who have permits to carry concealed weapons, including firearms, to enjoy that same right in other states.
I wonder what other concealed weapons the author was thinking of?
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a major gun control advocate, said that bill would "override state law."
Of course overriding state law is OK when it's for an assault weapons ban, or micro stamping ammunition, or even "one gun a month" legislation.
Not only are the Brady Bunch anti freedom, they anti freedom hypocrits. And liars, but you knew that.
They aren't even entertaining any more.
I don't know if this will go anywhere, in fact I would think it won't given who controls the Senate. Still, it's interesting.
Posts
7 comments:
You know, I've been watching this and I really don't know how to feel. On one hand nationwide ability to carry concealed would be great.
But you have to tramp states rights.
Damnit, doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still wrong. Right?
Mr Fixit
I'm conflicted. I'd like to see this as the law of the land, but I hate to see the Fed.Gov push the states around.
My preference is incorporation of the second amendment, with right to "bear" upheld in court.
Maybe this is idealistic, but it seems that this is what the people signed up for - the Constitution guarantees X, government passes a law infringing X, court overrides X.
Like both of you, I'm a bit torn. I'd much rather see the states get together and agree on this, as they do with driver's licenses.
The problem is that driver's licenses are more or less (I know there are some age differences) similar, while right to carry is much more diverse.
I'd like to see incorporation too, but I don't know if the current cases will address right to carry concealed outside the home or place of business.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (Soc. NY) has already chimed in on this, saying states are better positioned to know the ins and outs of concealed carry, and as such is a states' rights issue. Funny how things like this are ok to be left to the states but things like nationalized health care are best left to the new federalists (as opposed to the Jeffersonian federalists).
Schumer can go screw for all I care, the sanctimonious, arrogant prick that he is.
- Brad
Sen JOHN Thune.
Well, there's Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution (aka the Full Faith & Credit Clause). For once it's something they're actually supposed to be able to do, instead of shoehorning it into the Interstate Commerce Clause.
CD, oops! I'll fix that.
Brad, which is also part of my dilemma. I'm morally opposed to the Federal Government sticking it's nose into the business of the states' except when it's absolutely necessary. Whether this particular instance is or not, I don't really know.
Post a Comment