Mayors Against Illegal Guns oppose Thune concealed carry state reciprocity measure before Congress

Wingnuttery

when the dems defeat this, they will be labelled as anti-gun rather than as anti-OK-Corral-meets-Manahttan

It is a political ploy to mobilise the Right.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:31:59 AM CDT

When this group

stops engaging in misinformation, I'll be glad to consider their viewpoint.   Exactly what does their stated goal of defeating a federal reciprocity statute for Conceal Carry Permits have to do with Illegal Guns?  Having a CCW permit (Which I do have, in 4 states) does not allow me to carry, possess, or purchase any weapon that has been deemed "Illegal" by either Statute, or BATF Regulation.

I personally support Federal Reciprocity in principle, and the Thune Amendment, specifically.  

But this comes down to the larger tenth amendment issue regarding State Sovereignty.   For instance, how, in all intellectual honesty, can one support the repeal of DOMA, which does fulfill the Tenth Amendment promise of State Sovereignty, by not requiring any state to recognize "Civil Unions" or "Same Sex Marriages"  performed in another state.  Or a Federal Hate Crimes and/or Fully Enclusive Non-Discrimination statute, which at it's core is a violation of the Tenth Amendment, taking regulatory responsibility from the states, and giving it to the Federal Government. (Please note, I do support repeal of DOMA, and passage of Hate Crimes/ENDA at the Federal Level) Yet oppose federal reciprocity of Concealed Carry Permits?

Same Tenth Amendment issue on all.

I'm not trying to address the larger issue of Guns in general here, just trying to point out that you can't have it both ways.  Either the "several states" are sovereign, or they're not.  I'm honestly conflicted on this.  As I tend to a libertarian view in my political leanings, and do believe in governance at as local a level as possible.  I do believe in the original wording of the constitution, and that the rights not enumerated as belonging to the Federal Government, via the Constitution of the United States, or the Bill of Rights, are reserved to the States to legislate as they see fit.  

But I see too many cases where other states are doing things that patently offend me, and if I did live in a State with full Non-Discrimination and Marriage rights (Unfortunately, I don't live in such a State), I would want the other states to offer me Full Faith and Credit for those things.  But the Libertarian in me shudders every time I see Federal Legislation being forced over the Sovereignty of the States guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment...

I doubt I've convinced anybody here, and it's possible that I've just managed to write a nonsensical and rambling post, but something really just sits wrong with me on these issues.

---

by: sfalken @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:37:20 AM CDT

I don't think you've rambled

But I do disagree with you, to an extent.

I don't think you can look at the Tenth Amendment without looking at the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Ninth Amendment gives the people rights not expressed in the Constitution. The Fourteenth curbs the power over the states, stating that no state can make or execute laws that will limit the privileges of citizens of the United States.

Marriage and guns, in my opinion, are two entirely different issues. Marriage is recognized as a fundamental human right by the United Nations (Article Sixteen of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Furthermore, the US Supreme Court has struck down laws that restricted marriage. Oftentimes, Pam mentions Loving v. Virginia where the SCOTUS struck down laws restricting marriage to two persons of the same race. Turner v. Safley is another Supreme Court case that says prisoners have the right to marry. Couple that with the right to privacy and you have a case for marriage equality.

So with that, marriage is a fundamental right.  

Gun ownership, like driving a car, is not a human right. State laws with regards to guns are like state laws with regards to speed limits or licenses to drive. There are federal baselines regarding gun laws, but the state is entitled to do as it sees fit, as long as the the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed upon. The large question then becomes: Do our current gun laws infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Depending upon how you interpret the Constitution will answer that question for you. For me, it does not. But now looking at the marriage argument: Do current laws in 45 of the 50 states infringe upon the fundamental right of one person to marry the partner of his/her choice? Again, it depends upon how you look at it, but with what I stated above, I find DOMA and the restrictive marriage laws to be unconstitutional.  

In the end, Constitutional questions are answered depending on how you look at the Constitution.

One of my biggest problem with the Thune Amendment is its sponsor. Here we have a man who commits himself to less federal government, more state regulation, but, in this case, is willing to throw his principle to the side to pacify the NRA or to further his political career (it is starting to rumble that he will run for President).

I think you make valid points and I completely understand your logic behind them. This is just the way I see it. I think I may have rambled as well.  

"I like your Christ, but do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." ~Gandhi

---

by: keithan81 @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:14:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ahh, see, but you've forgotten something there.

In the United States, via the Second Amendment, possession of firearms is a fundamental human right, with supreme court precedent starting to develop to back that up, due to the decision in D.C. Vs. Heller earlier this year....  And there are a few more cases bumbling their way through the appeals courts that should serve to further define that.

I suppose the argument could be made that it's not a fundamental human right, as it's not a universal right worldwide, but neither was marriage for much of human history, I'd have to dig around to find some citable sources, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that universal marriage for all wasn't commonplace until after the dark ages.  Prior to that, the serfs weren't allowed to marry, as they were really basically property (if not quite slaves), of their Lord (At least in Europe, I'm not nearly as personally aware of what may have been going on in Africa, the Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent, or Southeast Asia during the same period.)

---

by: sfalken @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:23:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But still...

Does the law as it is right now, without the Thune Amendment, put an undue burden on the right to keep and bear arms? I personally do not think it does, but that is my interpretation of the Constitution. Furthermore, I cannot forget that the Second Amendment includes the term "well-regulated."

What the Thune Amendment would do is nullify existing gun laws that were placed on the books by state governments for the purpose of protecting their citizens. States have that right.

Now, let's say that I drove from Georgia into South Carolina on I-85. The speed limit drops as soon as I cross the river into South Carolina. Since I am driving into South Carolina, I have to abide by their rules. Same thing with guns...if I bring a gun into one state from another, I have to play by the rules of that state.

"I like your Christ, but do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." ~Gandhi

---

by: keithan81 @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:50:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, on that I agree with you

I'm not even attempting to say that at present, I don't have to abide by the laws of whichever given state I'm in.  I'm constantly reminded of that when I go to Boise, as I have to pass through a bit of Oregon, and their 55 MPH speed limit makes me flippin crazy.

I would make the argument that there is an undue burden on the right to keep and bear arms though, at least from a usage, and self-defense perspective, perhaps not just as the simple ability to purchase, possess, and use firearms. With the non-reciprocity of CCW permits from state to state, as it sits right now, I've had to travel to four different states, and comply with each states individual requirements (which really do vary quite widely), and even with those 4 permits, and the Interstate Reciprocity agreements those states have entered into with each other, I'm only covered for something like 15 States (I think, I'd have to check), were I to head back east for some reason, I would have to get yet another permit, possibly in each state I traveled through, depending on their reciprocity agreements.  

I know there are plenty of folks out there that disagree with my choice (and yes, it is a choice) to carry a firearm in my daily life, but if something were to go down, calling Local Law Enforcement is kind of like shutting the barn door, after all the horses are gone.   Law Enforcement doesn't prevent crime, and they never have, unless you happen to be lucky enough to have an Officer living next door, that is a decent human being.

Personally, I'm of the belief that Nevada's current licensing scheme is one of the better (you are required to take a course on the law, as it pertains to Nevada, and actually qualify, on a live range, with the weapon you want to carry, as well as pass a background check.)  I really don't have an issue with ascertaining that someone that wants to carry a weapon isn't a criminal, although criminals are going to carry, permit or not.  

---

by: sfalken @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 14:05:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good post, and well said.

In reality, this is no different than the fact that I have a Georgia drivers license and can use it, legally, in 49 other states to drive on their roads, even when their laws may differ on what it takes to get a license or keep it.

And, allowing me to use my Georgia license in Florida or Oregon or any state in between has NOTHING to do with those who are driving in any state without a license.

My bigger concern is safety - I do believe that one should be required to take and pass a course in gun safety AND marksmanship to get a carry permit.


Stormie
Religious beliefs are not a basis upon which to affirm or deny civil rights.

---

by: StormWalker @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:19:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Does Thune have a carry permit

and is he hoping to be able to bring a weapon to work with him some time soon?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:38:42 AM CDT

The Dems should agree not to oppose this

in the name of bipartisanship...just don't vote in favour...and send the Pink Pistols to Colorado Springs and Lynchburg Va. Armed gays in fundieland will cause a drastic change in the Right's thinking on gun carry permits

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:50:56 AM CDT

The Pink Pistols

might even be able to make friends among the fundies by collaborating on a red-hunt.

---

by: M @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 15:33:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Defeated in Senate

Story here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:02:02 PM CDT

Consistency? HA! I laugh at you!

As usual, the wingers are all about "State's Rights," unless they're not.

It's like reasoning with three-year-olds.  There's no concept of an actual "position," or a philosophical "belief" that works the same way in different circumstances.  It's just making shit up so that "we get what we want" in every situation, under every set of circumstances.  Consistency be damned.

Liberals:  "Believing in free speech means I have to believe in it, even for people I disagree with."

Wingers:  "Believing in free speech means I get to say what I want, and you get to SHUT UP."

---

by: popebuck1 @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:10:51 PM CDT

Unless of course...

...the speaker is a conservative or libertarian, and then we can disrupt meetings and call names instead of engaging ideas.  

Stormie
Religious beliefs are not a basis upon which to affirm or deny civil rights.

---

by: StormWalker @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:21:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]