Thune, Lautenberg Clash on Concealed-Carry Gun Proposal

[stevie_d_64]

Dag-nabbitt!!! Heard about this on the way to the house just now...

Oh well, at least we gave it a shot...Pardon the pun...

And as for Senator Boxer..."This FLIES in the FACE of States Rights!!!"

Duly noted senator...We'll remember that comment coming from you for next time...

[The Annoyed Man]

This is the first I'm hearing of this, so please excuse my ignorance. Does this mean I can no longer carry my concealed firearm in Oklahoma with my Texas CHL license? Or does the ruling simply say "just because you have a license from X state doesn't mean you're allowed to carry in the rest of the country - you still have to obey the reciprocity map".

Pre-existing reciprocity agreements still stand. A loss on this bill "merely" means that reciprocity between states is not federally mandated.

[bkj]

Well this is not going to make me an any friends here but I could not support this bill. It would be another assault on the 10th amendment. I truly belief this Boxer is just using it for a convenes

[stevie_d_64]

A CHL holder pays his money goes through a few hours in class and a brief time on the range, all in one weekend.

Speak for yourself, not me, or anyone else here...

[pdubyoo]

A CHL holder pays his money goes through a few hours in class and a brief time on the range, all in one weekend.

Speak for yourself, not me, or anyone else here...

Here Here!

I spend far more time at the range than my HPD neighbor, and can outshoot him hands down. Yes, he has many more tools at his disposal, including mental tactics to deal with certain situations, but don't short sell a CHLer!

[jimlongley]

I'm all for incorporation, and even believe the 2nd Amendment goes further than the 1st in stating it is a right of all citizens. While the 1st Amendment states "Congress shall make no law....", the 2nd simply states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Therefore, I believe the Founders intended the 2nd to be more fundamental than the 1st. However, that's not the way it currently is.

Even with incorporation, would we still support some infringement on gun rights? Would felons then be allowed to own guns, or the mentally unstable? Would we still allow the wording of Article I, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution ("Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."). If we do allow that, then what about other infringements in other state constitutions?

In short, I don't think there's a simple answer.

No, there is no simple answer, but incorporation is not a be all and end all, it's essentially SOCTUS, and by extension the federal government, giving us permission to exercise a right, which turns it into a privilege.

Felons, by definition, have forfeited their rights, so there is NO infringement, the mentally unstable are ("unable to understand or competently participate in their defense") and thus not alllowed the same level of rights, therefore no infringement.

My understanding of the 14th (and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) with regard to our rights is that it declares the intent that A) "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" and B) that the "privileges or immunities" referred to at the time (07/09/1868) in that amendment are codified in Amendments 1 through 13.

But it is already pretty much settled that the privileges and immunities clase should not apply to the second, as that makes the 2nd a right granted by the constitution rather than protected by it. The only part of the fourteenth that we can count on working, and only to a limited extent, is the "due process" clause, and that leaves the door open for lots of infringement.

Therefore, incorporation is another reality that we are forced to deal with in which the SCOTUS has held (since 1833, BTW) that the 14th Amendment does not apply to all of the Bill of Rights at the state level.

The fourteenth wasn't passed until 1868, so SCOTUS could hardly hold something with it since 1833.

I still remain convinced that what we really truly need is a SCOTUS decision that states that the 2nd applies, without incorporation, due to the way it was written, all the way down to the village board.

. . . THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE . . . SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

[mr surveyor]

If I remember correctly, the 14th Amendment was adopted over the issue of freed slaves originally.

[Rex B]

This guy covers the history and intent about as well as I've seen it done:

http://patriotpost.us/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Excerpt:
"So, in regard to Sen. Thune's reciprocity amendment, I ask, "Reciprocity for what?" Are we so steeped in the errant notion that our rights are a gift from government that we no longer subscribe to the plain language of our Constitution based on the inalienable rights of man? Has the temperature been turned up so slowly over the last eight decades, so incrementally, that when we finally feel the heat, it will be too late for us to jump, like frogs, out of the pot?

"With our Constitution now in exile, I can understand why Sen. Thune would forward an amendment to provide interstate reciprocity for law-abiding concealed weapon permit holders.

"However, the Second Amendment still enumerates my right to carry. "

[roberts]

And as for Senator Boxer..."This FLIES in the FACE of States Rights!!!"

Like Roe v Wade?

[boomerang]

And as for Senator Boxer..."This FLIES in the FACE of States Rights!!!"

Like Roe v Wade?

It's a legislative act so probably more like LEOSA.

I presume Senator Boxer and VPC will work equally hard to repeal LEOSA. Unless they're traitors to the constitution who like armed government agents and hate armed free citizens.

[nitrogen]

If congress REALLY Wants to do this, they should tie passage of a state law to some tax funding, like they did with the 21 year old drinking law or the now-repealed 55 mph speed limit.

that would be a far more constitutional way to ram this down states throats.

[WildBill]

If congress REALLY Wants to do this, they should tie passage of a state law to some tax funding, like they did with the 21 year old drinking law or the now-repealed 55 mph speed limit.

that would be a far more constitutional way to ram this down states throats.

I don't think congress REALLY Wants to do this. I don't think it has a snowball's chance. IMO, it's political posturing - business as usual.