I didn't see an active thread, so. . .

Senate Blocks Gun-Rights Measure

Quote :

"The Senate on Wednesday turned aside the latest attempt by gun advocates to expand the rights of gun owners, narrowly voting down a provision that would have allowed gun owners with valid permits from one state to carry concealed weapons in other states as well."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/us/politics/23guns.html

And before some of you start popping off about the "gun-totin' wackos," the embattled "Dingy" Harry Reid supported the measure:

Quote :

"The Senate's majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada — who is up for re-election in 2010 — also supported the amendment."

7/22/2009 1:55:45 PM

Damn it. This should've passed.

7/22/2009 1:56:30 PM

I agree. It was reasonable.

7/22/2009 1:57:11 PM

i'd be willing to accept this law if they also required states to recognize marriages from one state to another.

i haven't read the bill. were there provisions for minimum requirements for CC permits mandated?

[Edited on July 22, 2009 at 1:59 PM. Reason : .]

7/22/2009 1:58:14 PM

how about we let the states decide if they want to recognize permits issued by other states, there are already many states with reciprocity for concealed carry. this legislation just erodes states rights.

7/22/2009 2:05:16 PM

^^ From what I understand, a CC holder would still have had to abide by any applicable state laws. The good thing about it was that it simply let a CC holder carry from one state to another--a state that already allowed CC. The CC holder would not have been able to override a state's laws that didn't allow CC.

Of course, each state's requirements for CC permits vary--I'm sure that some are more lenient, if you will, than others. This was the rub.

I do find it amazing that, unless I'm mistaken, the Democrats' main objection to the measure was that it "infringed on states and cities." How laughable--I haven't seen the Democrats' concern for the rights of states before. Hell, anytime a conservative brings it up, you immediately hear the left squalling something along the lines of "RACIST!!!1"

^ HOLY SHIT!!!1 And there it is--right on cue! Just wow.

[Edited on July 22, 2009 at 2:09 PM. Reason : .]

7/22/2009 2:08:01 PM

i have a pretty clear record in support of gun rights, but i don't agree with legislation intended to erode state rights.

states already decide reciprocity, for example north carolina recognizes permits from 30 other states based on their permit requirements. i would rather not have our state forced to recognize permits from states with minimal requirements.

[Edited on July 22, 2009 at 2:25 PM. Reason : .]

7/22/2009 2:21:27 PM

yea as someone who is pro guns either A) its states rights or B) irrelevent because the 2nd ammendment already allows this.

7/22/2009 2:24:21 PM

^^ Okay.

^ I guess some would argue that carry and concealed carry are different. But I see your point.

7/22/2009 2:58:32 PM

some of the opponents said it would cause more gun violence....because we all know that people with concealed carry permits statistically contribute to most gun violence

7/22/2009 3:14:51 PM

I'm all for reciprocity agreements. I am against the Federal Government basically having a registery of concealed carry permits.

It's about time the republican party stops talking about the state's rights party if it is so willing to override State's rights in this issue.

7/22/2009 3:19:08 PM

i didn't even think about it leading to a federal registry

yeah... no thanks

7/22/2009 3:27:39 PM

Quote :

"it is so willing to override State's rights in this issue."

Could it be a strategy to reach a federal court decision striking down all state prohibitions on carrying?

Quote :

"i didn't even think about it leading to a federal registry"

Yeah, fuck that.

[Edited on July 22, 2009 at 3:34 PM. Reason : ]

7/22/2009 3:34:13 PM

Quote :

"It's about time the republican party stops talking about the state's rights party if it is so willing to override State's rights in this issue."

I have to admit that this is probably correct. While one can argue that if the 2nd were incorporated, then the whole state's rights thing goes away, right now it's not. It's still legal for a state to decide "reasonable restrictions" until the courts say otherwise. I think that's a bogus, made-up interpretation, but it's not for me to decide.

I like the idea of universal reciprocity, but it would be fairly hypocritical to have this kind of thing in place. It basically says to me, "I don't care that you had to go through hours of training and qualifying and background checks and fingerprints and fees - this guy with the misdemeanor over here can carry just like you without any of that, simply by virtue of coming from another state."

If it passed, I wouldn't be opposed to it since it would realistically do more good than harm, though I would still have an issue with the fact that it brings permit requirements to the lowest common denominator.

7/22/2009 4:10:31 PM

I don't see why this amendment was so necessary, given as others have pointed out, the existence of reciprocity agreements regarding concealed carry permits. I also say this as a strong believer in an individual right to firearms ownership, and someone who supports the idea of CCW in general.

Furthermore, I strongly dislike the way this was attempted to be snuck in the back door via the amendment process. If this is really the pressing issue proponents claimed it was, then make a new bill. The fact is, this looks like certain legislators trying to burnish their pro-2A credentials on a remarkably narrow issue before an election, at the expense of their 10th Amendment cred.

7/22/2009 5:24:19 PM

Quote :

"i'd be willing to accept this law if they also required states to recognize marriages from one state to another."

7/22/2009 7:43:31 PM

Now the democrats have no problem forcing abortion down the throats of states...no states rights worries there. And there is no mention of abortion or abortion rights anywhere in the Constitution.

But when it comes to the right to own firearms which is specifically mentioned and protected in the Constitution, the democrats have a conniption over "protecting" states rights.

The double standard is crazy.

And it pisses me off to see democrats demagogue CC people. "Oh we've protected people against gun-violence." "We've saved a cop"

As a group, Conceal-Carry people are among the safest of the gun-owning populace.

7/22/2009 9:30:37 PM

Quote :

"Now the democrats have no problem forcing abortion down the throats of states...no states rights worries there."

the supreme court decided roe v. wade, all of the rest is still left to states. what are you talking about exactly?

7/22/2009 9:35:31 PM

Quote :

"And there is no mention of abortion or abortion rights anywhere in the Constitution."

Please explain Amendment IX to me. I am interested in your particular interpretation of this one.

[Edited on July 22, 2009 at 9:40 PM. Reason : .]

7/22/2009 9:40:42 PM

Quote :

"Now the democrats have no problem forcing abortion down the throats of states...no states rights worries there. And there is no mention of abortion or abortion rights anywhere in the Constitution. But when it comes to the right to own firearms which is specifically mentioned and protected in the Constitution, the democrats have a conniption over "protecting" states rights."

The instant you start talking about a well-regulated militia I'll start believing you give a shit about the text of the constitution.

7/22/2009 10:15:47 PM

Quote :

"the supreme court decided roe v. wade, all of the rest is still left to states."

Roe v Wade was decided along the party lines of the court. They forced the states to permit abortions, what's left for them to do except carry out the details.

The Roe decision considered abortion as a basic right. They had to use the tortured logic of prenumbras to justify this. The second amendment is pretty straight-forward. But the democrat congress sees no need to allow citizens to exercise the right of self-defense if they cross a state line.

7/22/2009 10:17:24 PM

Quote :

"Roe v Wade was decided along the party lines of the court."

7 to freaking 2. And it's not tortured logic. It's a right not explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights; if only we had an amendment covering stuff like that!

Quote :

"But the democrat congress sees no need to allow citizens to exercise the right of self-defense if they cross a state line."

Nor do they see a need to restrict it.Talk to the states if you have a problem. I know you want to frame this purely as a Second Amendment issue, but it isn't. Should the federal gov't require states to recognize each others' business licenses?

Just like abortion, voting, business licenses, and CC permits, "they [force] the states to permit [it], what's left for them to do except carry out the details."

7/22/2009 10:33:24 PM

Quote :

"And it's not tortured logic. It's a right not explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights; if only we had an amendment covering stuff like that!"

Wait, so your argument for upholding Roe v. Wade and not reserving the right to the States due to it not being explicitely enumerated is...the 10th Amendment?

I'm sorry, you need to explain to me how this isn't tortured logic.



Also, as a side note, the enumerated powers are not found in the Bill Of Rights.

7/22/2009 10:46:36 PM

1. the 9th.

2. Enumeration is a verb meaning "to list/spell out." It doesn't necessarily refer to powers in Article I.

7/22/2009 10:48:38 PM

In his dissent of Roe v Wade, Rehnquist stated:

Quote :

"The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. "

So why do the states have no privilage to decide on abortion, but do have the privilage to decide on guns?

7/22/2009 11:39:58 PM

Quote :

"but do have the privilage to decide on guns?"

They don't. Which state has banned guns? In fact-- you do recall the SC overturning the city-level ban in DC, right?

7/22/2009 11:42:17 PM

Quote :

"So why do the states have no privilage to decide on abortion, but do have the privilage to decide on guns?"

As far as I recall, RvW divided up the legal regime into three medically arbitrary "trimesters," with states having increasing prerogative to regulate within each. But let's not the facts get in the way of a good argument.

That being said, I'm still waiting to hear what you think the Ninth Amendment means. Space filler to give us a nice, round ten?

7/23/2009 7:01:27 AM

you rang?

7/23/2009 8:45:26 AM

Quote :

"As far as I recall, RvW divided up the legal regime into three medically arbitrary "trimesters," with states having increasing prerogative to regulate within each."

I see no mention in the ruling that states have any right to regulate any part of this decision.

Quote :

"That being said, I'm still waiting to hear what you think the Ninth Amendment means. "

The majority wrote in their opinion that their decision was not based on the 9th's recognition of non-enumerated rights. They based it on the 14th's due process requirement. They claimed that the 14th amendment emanated a right to privacy and that Roe was denied due process.

It's laughable that democrat politicians, who crave central federal authority, run and hide behind a State's Rights argument. Self-defense shouldn't stop at the state border. This ruling hurts people like truck-drivers.

Hopefully, Pro-2nd amendment voters will hold these lawmakers responsible for this vote.

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 10:49 AM. Reason : .]

7/23/2009 10:49:29 AM

Now I've heard it all. A libertarian complaining about a court decision that said people have the right to privacy.

7/23/2009 11:08:33 AM

Quote :

"I see no mention in the ruling that states have any right to regulate any part of this decision."

Well then you're not terribly familiar with the actual legal regime of Roe v. Wade, then, are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Quote :

"Section X[22] explained that the trimester of pregnancy is highly relevant to the weight of the factors in this balancing test. Thus, during the first trimester, the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion in any way; during the second trimester, the state may only regulate the abortion procedure "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health"; during the third trimester, the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit when the fetus is viable ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother")."

Honestly. Another person opines about a subject they know nothing about. Welcome to The Soap Box.

Quote :

"The majority wrote in their opinion that their decision was not based on the 9th's recognition of non-enumerated rights. They based it on the 14th's due process requirement. They claimed that the 14th amendment emanated a right to privacy and that Roe was denied due process."

An Obama-quality dodge. Hooray. I still want to know just what the hell you think the Ninth Amendment is all about.

Quote :

"Self-defense shouldn't stop at the state border. This ruling hurts people like truck-drivers."

The difference is between CCW and between general exercise of the Second Amendment. Until you demonstrate that concealed carry - not simply legal possession and open carry - are integral, fundamental parts of the Second Amendment, this argument carries little weight. And again, I say this as someone who does support individual gun ownership, who believes in an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, and who also supports CCW in general. Nonetheless, no precedent has found that CCW is fundamentally provided by the Second Amendment.

When the argument becomes about states banning any transfer of legally owned firearms across state lines, then you might have an argument. But the right to gun ownership does not mean that every single state in the union must recognize concealed carry.

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 6:09 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2009 6:08:34 PM

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 6:33 PM. Reason : ]

7/23/2009 6:32:33 PM

Quote :

"The difference is between CCW and between general exercise of the Second Amendment. Until you demonstrate that concealed carry - not simply legal possession and open carry - are integral, fundamental parts of the Second Amendment, this argument carries little weight. And again, I say this as someone who does support individual gun ownership, who believes in an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, and who also supports CCW in general. Nonetheless, no precedent has found that CCW is fundamentally provided by the Second Amendment."

In many states, carrying the gun, in your vehicle and within your reach is considered concealed carry, so there is legitimate concern, something that a recent bill which allows a person who may legally carry a gun in one state traveling to another state in which they may legally carry the gun, to also carry it through states in which they may not be allowed.

That said, this bill was the wrong way to go about it.

7/23/2009 8:40:11 PM

Quote :

"Until you demonstrate that concealed carry - not simply legal possession and open carry - are integral, fundamental parts of the Second Amendment,"

Well I guess this comes down to your definition of what it means to "bear arms". The amendment doesn't specifically define it. I assume you define it as meaning only open-carry where I see bearing arms can also include concealment.

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans had an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. I don't see a crime in hiding a firearm on your person..only when you pull it out and commit a crime with it.

Quote :

"Now I've heard it all. A libertarian complaining about a court decision that said people have the right to privacy."

You see the abortion issue as a privacy issue for the mother. I see it as a possible murder case for the unborn child. At some point, any thinking person would agree that a unborn baby is a person and not a clump of tissue.and deserves its shot at life. At some point, aborting it would be an act of murder.

Murder is and should be handled at the state level, not the federal level. Each state should decide at what point an abortion is murder and pass laws accordingly. Abortion is not a federal issue, it is a state issue.

7/23/2009 10:10:28 PM

Quote :

"At some point, any thinking person would agree that a unborn baby is a person and not a clump of tissue.and deserves its shot at life. At some point, aborting it would be an act of murder."

there are actually a lot of philosophers who have not reached this conclusion

7/23/2009 10:13:24 PM

Quote :

"Well I guess this comes down to your definition of what it means to "bear arms". The amendment doesn't specifically define it. I assume you define it as meaning only open-carry where I see bearing arms can also include concealment."

I'm going by how the law has been interpreted thus so far. This, as we know, is subject to change. Thus so far, however, challenges have not yielded a specific right to concealed carry - this is still controlled by individual localities.

Quote :

"In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans had an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. I don't see a crime in hiding a firearm on your person..only when you pull it out and commit a crime with it. "

It's a matter of concealed vs. open. You might argue it's a semantic difference, but thus so far the law treats it otherwise.

P.S. I'm completely serious about my Ninth Amendment question.

7/23/2009 10:25:44 PM

Charles Schumer in his argument against the CCW bill:

Quote :

""Each state," says Schumer, "has carefully crafted its concealed-carry laws in the way that makes the most sense to protect its citizens. Clearly, large, urban areas merit a different standard than rural areas.""

So Schumer is claiming that the 2nd Amendment prohibits only the federal gov't from infringing on your right to bear arms. He doesn't see the amendment as preventing states from infringing on the same right.

So does it follow that states can regulate other amendments?

Our rights are not a gift from gov't. They don't stop at the arbitrary line of a state border. They exist in man for his ownself.

Which leads us into this....

Quote :

"Please explain Amendment IX to me. I am interested in your particular interpretation of this one."

Madison came up with the 9th amendment to protect those many rights not specifically recognized the Bill of Rights. AntiFederalists were worried that if the Bill of Rights listed only some rights, the gov't would stake a claim on all other unmentioned rights.

The Founders believed all rights were recognized and not created by the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights. We are endowed with rights which pre-exist all gov'ts. The only reason for the establishment and maintenance of a government is to protect the individual's rights.

The challenge, of course, is deciding what is a legitimate right and what is a privilage. Who determines what a right is? What is closer to the people- a federal court or a state legislature?

7/23/2009 11:16:38 PM

Quote :

"The challenge, of course, is deciding what is a legitimate right and what is a privilage. Who determines what a right is? What is closer to the people- a federal court or a state legislature?"

That essentially answers nothing. You basically say, "Rights exist a priori rather than granted by the government" and then immediately turn around and say that as to the matter of unenumerated rights, the legislature (albeit local) defines the matter. It's a complete contradiction.

Furthermore, the very fact that local legislatures were rolling on rights was the very reason for the Due Process clause of the 14th, as well as incorporation. So again, that answers nothing.

The main thrust of this is that you make the frankly silly claim that, "Well X right isn't in the Constitution." And yet you clearly articulate that Amendment IX's intent was that the Constitution is not intended to be an exhaustive list of rights. Ergo, the claim that a right isn't explicitly dictated in no way precludes its existence. If you believe a word you just said about Amendment IX, it's right there in plain English, the contradiction starting you right in the face.

7/23/2009 11:24:26 PM

Quote :

"You basically say, "Rights exist a priori rather than granted by the government" and then immediately turn around and say that as to the matter of unenumerated rights, the legislature (albeit local) defines the matter"

I did not say that the legislature defines the matter. I simply noted that there is a conflict between who in our gov't defines a right.

It's true that abortion was not mentioned as a right in the Constitution. Some people think it's a unnumerated right protected by the 9th, while others do not. My opinion is that it is a state issue. That is my point.

7/24/2009 9:01:24 AM

this might shock a few of you people, but I think I would oppose this bill. I am against one state being forced to recognize the marriages performed in other states. While I am also against any infringement upon the right of citizens to own and carry weapons, I can't help but say that states shouldn't be forced to accept the laws of other states, no matter what the issue. That was, you know, kind of the point of having states in the first place...

7/31/2009 8:38:41 PM

Quote :

"So Schumer is claiming that the 2nd Amendment prohibits only the federal gov't from infringing on your right to bear arms. He doesn't see the amendment as preventing states from infringing on the same right."

this is about concealed carry, not the right to bear arms

7/31/2009 9:06:38 PM

you do realize that concealed carry would be a type of "bearing arms." And that the 2nd amendment says there shall be no infringements upon that, right? Or are you that dense? Remember, gramatically speaking, the militia clause has no effect upon the meat of the 2nd amendment. The founders could have written "Because the sky is made of cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and it would be equally binding, right?

7/31/2009 9:10:45 PM

Quote :

"you do realize that concealed carry would be a type of "bearing arms.""

Inorite; I bet if you sawed off a brown bess you could get it below four feet long.

Quote :

"The founders could have written "Because the sky is made of cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and it would be equally binding, right?"

This is a controversial interpretation, but it's completely beside the point. Unless you believe that private citizens should be able to own nuclear weapons, you don't believe the interpretation you were advocating.

7/31/2009 11:48:39 PM

Quote :

"This is a controversial interpretation, but it's completely beside the point."

Is it really beside the point? And, how is a direct grammatical interpretation "controversial?" Except in the "modern people don't like it" way?

Quote :

"Unless you believe that private citizens should be able to own nuclear weapons, you don't believe the interpretation you were advocating."

You know me, Boone. And you know that is exactly what I believe, no matter how insane it might sound. But, let's not get in to that right now. Even if we take it to only mean "the right of the people to bear guns shall not be infringed," it is still quite explicit. And concealed carry would fit in with that protection

8/1/2009 12:18:58 AM

Quote :

"Unless you believe that private citizens should be able to own nuclear weapons, you don't believe the interpretation you were advocating."

Dear liberal scare tactic: May I introduce you to the concept of "reasonable". As in, everyone has the inalienable right to do whatever they want, so as long as it doesn't, without consent, harm or unreasonably endanger anyone else's person, property, liberty or right to the same. Does the private ownership of rifles constitute an unreasonable danger? No. Does the private ownership of handguns constitute an unreasonable danger? No. Does the private ownership of machine guns constitute an unreasonable danger? Debatable, but no. Does the private ownership of rocket-propelled grenades constitute an unreasonable danger? Probably. Does the private ownership of nuclear bombs constitute an unreasonable danger? Of course it does.

8/1/2009 7:52:56 AM

I like to think the difference between the US and say, Iran, is the ownership of weapons. Iranians protest a tyrannical and oppressive regime, and the military and government slaughter them in the street because they are unarmed slaves for all intensive purposes. I think the right to bear arms and the right to truly protest go hand in hand. Any truly oppressive government will seek to destroy private gun ownership. Citizens bear arms, subjects and slaves do not.

[Edited on August 1, 2009 at 8:19 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2009 8:18:45 AM

Quote :

"Dear liberal scare tactic: May I introduce you to the concept of "reasonable". As in, everyone has the inalienable right to do whatever they want, so as long as it doesn't, without consent, harm or unreasonably endanger anyone else's person, property, liberty or right to the same. Does the private ownership of rifles constitute an unreasonable danger? No. Does the private ownership of handguns constitute an unreasonable danger? No. Does the private ownership of machine guns constitute an unreasonable danger? Debatable, but no. Does the private ownership of rocket-propelled grenades constitute an unreasonable danger? Probably. Does the private ownership of nuclear bombs constitute an unreasonable danger? Of course it does."

this is not the interpretation aaronburro is advocating. he is saying there shall be no infringement; requiring an approval process for concealed carry would be an infringement, and it would be easy to make an argument that allowing anyone to carry a concealed weapon would place others in unreasonable danger.

8/1/2009 10:24:10 AM

Quote :

"this is not the interpretation aaronburro is advocating. he is saying there shall be no infringement;"

Yeah... that's unreasonable. People shouldn't own nukes.

Quote :

"it would be easy to make an argument that allowing anyone to carry a concealed weapon would place others in unreasonable danger."

It would be even easier to lose that argument.

8/1/2009 10:29:44 AM

Quote :

"I like to think the difference between the US and say, Iran, is the ownership of weapons. Iranians protest a tyrannical and oppressive regime, and the military and government slaughter them in the street because they are unarmed slaves for all intensive purposes. I think the right to bear arms and the right to truly protest go hand in hand. Any truly oppressive government will seek to destroy private gun ownership. Citizens bear arms, subjects and slaves do not."

Not at all the same. The Iranian people are not protesting for the overthrow of their government.

The possession of firearms would do nothing to improve their chances of achieving their goals.

8/1/2009 10:36:26 AM

^^so you would be ok with a hot headed 16 year old kid carrying a handgun under his shirt?

[Edited on August 1, 2009 at 10:37 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2009 10:37:38 AM