States Rights and Concealed Carry

[Commander]

I ran across a YouTube video that discussed Obama's anti-gun views. One of many was his promise in 2007 to pass a national ban on concealed carry. For the legal minds on this forum - Can that legally be done? Concealed carry laws are state laws, how can a federal law over rule what should be a state right? I know that the Feds have mis-construed the interstate commerce clause in the constitution to regulate a number of things that should be in violation of the constitution. But can that be applied to concealed carry?

Another ruse used is the withholding of certain Federal funds for states that don't comply with the law. The best example of this is the 55mph speed limit. If states did not comply, Federal highway funds would be withheld from the non-complaint states. I don't see how that could be used to ban concealed carry.

Another promise attributed to Obama was to pass a law within 90 days of taking office banning ALL semi-automatic guns. That's really scary. A ban would surely require that existing guns be turned in.

Whatever your differences with the NRA, its time to join and give them the strength they need. They are the main voice for the gun owner. If you are already a member, buy an associate membership ($10) for members of your family. We need all the members we can get if we are to keep our rights.

[Weg]

I really don't want to be a polly anna, but I don't think there will be any new federal gun control laws passed in the next 2 years. Maybe, the original 94 AWB ban will be re-instated, but I even think that is a long shot, but I definitely don't think there will be any Federal attempt to curb state chl laws. I even remember seeing Obama say in one of his later interviews that he would leave gun control to the states, with the exception of the AWB. The main reason I think nothing new will get passed is not because Obama won't sign it, but because congress will probably not pass anything. You half to remember a politicians primary goal is to get re-elected, and every one of those congressman or woman come up for re-election every two years. The democrats want to stay in power, and to do that they need to hold on to their conservative districts that they gained by beating republicans, most those districts are pro-gun. Hope i'm not wrong.

[bridge]

I think Weg is correct. There was a lot of saber rattling by Obama during his campaign in an effort to rally his troops. I think it can also be attributed to his skewed perception from representing Chicago, he wasn't able to measure the pulse of the rest of the country with regard to this issue. Once he saw and heard the outcry every time he even mentioned the word firearm the rhetoric diminished. I think he'll have his hands full with the economy and won't see any reason to modify or moderate ANY commerce in this country. If he puts anyone out of work it only increases his problems. If there are any major legislative changes I don't think we'll see those until late 2010. Anyone seen any enrollment numbers from the NRA since the election?

[Morgan]

I understand that logic. However, I also understand THIS logic... the anti-gun lobby helped Obama get elected, and they're going to want SOMETHING for their money and support. That's politics.

[bridge]

Agreed, quid pro quo. I think he'll help push along some legislation to the floor, if it gets passed (doubtful) his debt is paid. It is doesn't, we'll then that's the will of the people and he gets off the hook for giving it the o' college try. He could also string them along until the mid-terms to make sure the DNC coffers stay filled with anti-gun money.

[Morgan]

Well where ELSE would they put it? LOL