The Annoyed Man wrote:I understand, and I agree in principle, BUT....... Just how often is the Constitution being respected by the federal gov't these days? For instance (regardless of where you come down on the issue), the recent administration attempt to cow school districts into opening their bathrooms and locker rooms to any gender by threatening to withhold DOE funds if they don't comply is a CLEAR case of interference in states rights.......by a federal bureaucracy for which the Constitution makes no charter. And that example came right off the top of my head. Witness how often Congress has used the Commerce Clause to regulate national policy in ways that would have horrified the Founders.......i.e. Obamacare most recently...... And you know as well as I or anybody else knows that this bill will NOT clear Congress without amendments. Remember the Lautenberg Amendment? Or how about the Hughes amendment to FOPA? And THAT was with a republican president who had a republican senate majority. And now we are facing an presidential election between the two presumed nominees, one of whom has made it her goal to institute Australia-style gun control, and the other of whom is also left of center with a record of having favored draconian anti gun laws in the past.TXBO wrote:I'm a strong believer in state's rights but no stronger that I am a believer in personal rights. The 10th amendment clearly states:The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other, but I can see a possible pro-gun argument for not supporting the bill........and that would be that federal involvement in firearms law is already too prevalent, and we either believe in states' rights, or we don't. In that light, isn't it possible that Rep. Burgess has a principled reason for not having cosponsored it? I don't know anything about the guy. How has he been on the 2nd Amanemdnet otherwise?
"“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The 2nd amendment reserves the right to keep and bear arms to "the people". Heller confirmed the individual right.
So how is trusting the Constitution to the grubby paws of DC working out for you?
Yes, it would be a GREAT idea if all it did was force all states to recognize one another's carry licenses, just like they do drivers licenses and marriage licenses. But, I don't think the federal gov't can get involved without its insisting on implementing top down control. Why? Because it concerns guns.....the fed has NO problem forcing states to recognize a completely new marriage paradigm, but with guns, that's a whole 'nuther level. And if there is one thing that a statist politician fears more than anything is an armed (and angry) populace. And right now, people are REAL angry. And there's another issue....... It automatically negates constitutional carry nationally by recognizing that a guaranteed right may be restricted nationally - unlike driving and marriage which are not Constitutionally guaranteed rights. And in my opinion, neither the state nor the fed has any business regulating marriage - let alone issuing licenses for it. If people want to cohabit and have the state recognize it for tax purposes by registering their relationship as a civil union, that's fine; but marriage is a sacred commitment, and it belongs in the purview of religion......whatever religion one ascribes to.....and "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or preventing the free exercise thereof". And the 1st Amendment is an incorporated right. So DL and ML are totally different issues than CL.
Mine may not be the popular opinion, and it may not suit everybody, but I believe it is the only one that protects the right to carry better than putting it at risk of top-down federal control.
Reasonable people of good will are free to disagree. This is just my opinion, and worth exactly what it costs.
Charles with all due respect, I understand that a bill to create a nationwide reciprocity law sounds good on it's face,Charles L. Cotton wrote:I understand the desire to keep the feds out of guns laws, but we are many decades too late. National reciprocity won't open any doors for further federal control over states. We know how to protect the bill.
Chas.
but I have to agree with TAM on this. No law ever creates freedom, only restriction. Either for the government, or the governed. Before a new law is passed for reciprocity, I would like to see the Federal government force states to abide by the Constitution, which restricts the Federal government from infringing on our rights. Since that won't happen any time soon, I would just as soon have the Federal government stay out of the entire issue. While the legislature and people such as yourself who help craft legislation, may be able to protect the bill from amendments on it's journey to become law, that law could be used to inflict future restrictions at the federal level. JMHO