I partially agree with you here, but I don't think there's anything we can do about it.

The right to bear arms pre-dates the Constitution- it is a inherent, God-given right that cannot be taken away by the government, be it in a federal or state form.

If we leave CCW and the like up entirely to the states, it means that people in states such as IL, WI, NJ, etc will have their inherient rights stripped away just because of where they live. Since this is an infringement on a person's rights, the states cannot be allowed to regulate CCW issues. Therefore, it must fall under federal guidelines in some fashion. Free speech or religious issues are not handled by the state for the same reason. If the Constitution is supposed to protect our 2A rights, wouldn't allowing the states to decide the issue be in conflict with the Constitution?

When the 2A gets incorporated and falls under federal protection, there will end up being a minimum standard of gun freedoms. The more oppressive states will make their laws as strict as possible, whereas the more free states will open things up or keep the laws as they are. Can states be penalized for offering more freedom than what falls under federal protection? I don't think so.

Let's say that hypothetically CCW is ruled not to be protected by the 2A, but handgun bans must fall. That means that IL, NJ, etc will have to allow handguns but will deny CCW, whereas the rest of the country will keep their existing CCW rules.

And as an aside, thank you for your compliments. Frankly, given the responses I've gotten on what I wrote earlier on other gun boards, I was expecting to be rebuked for what I wrote. I guess I should have given you guys more credit as you definitely don't fit that mold.

I do agree with you on some level. I think it could move it into a federally issued license, which can be nothing but bad. I never said anything about my position on it..

I'm just bringing up other examples that could be used to say "we don't need to federalize it.. we survive with these other licenses that are different.." if someone does say "we need federal standards"

but with the way the bill is worded, it would still leave it up to the states.. if they don't issue CCW permits, an out of state one wouldn't be valid..

I think quite afew states would be pressured by the sky is falling groups to remove their existing CCW rules if a ruling like that was ever made on the 2A.. "You can repeal this and not worry about the pesky NRA suing you for infringing on a 2A guaranteed right."

Here's what the gun-grabbers lose:
1) People with permits will be able to travel (carefully, being subject to the rules of each individual state) with their guns.

Here's what the gun-grabbers gain:
1) Ill. will NEVER pass shall-issue once this is signed (Maybe they never would have. We can argue that later).
2) Cal. will NEVER pass shall-issue (same as above)
3) Wis. and NJ will NEVER have ANY issue (shall or may).
4) The gun permit crowd immediately loses support from anyone in any of the aforementioned states with a resentment.
5) The grabbers now have a ready-made plausible excuse to feed the sheep about how important a nationalized PTC process is.
6) Grow BATFE, grow gov., regulate guns (WHEN not IF) they scoop up the permit process.

They did a nice job of divide and conquer with the police nation-wide carry thing. We lost a big chunk of support for our cause there. This one peels away more support. This bill leaves intact any states right to NOT issue permits. All it does is tell states with permits to accept permits from other states. They'll call this a big gesture of how "not anti-gun" they are. This reminds me of Native Americans trading land for trinkets. So many smart people within the carry community don't even realize what they're giving away with this "great bill that lets us carry in other states".

According to the Senate.gov website, it is still in committee, and they are meeting on Thursday.



Senate Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs
View a webcast of this hearing
DATE: July 23, 2009
TIME: 02:30 PM
ROOM: Dirksen-226

You can listen online here.

Here are the Senate Committee on the Judiciary: Crime and Drugs Members

Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Sen. Lindsey Graham [R-SC]
Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D-MD]
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R-OK]
Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA] (Author of the 1994 AWB)
Sen. Charles Grassley [R-IA]
Sen. Orrin Hatch [R-UT]
Sen. Edward Kaufman [D-DE]
Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Sen. Herbert Kohl [D-WI]
Sen. Charles Schumer [D-NY]
Sen. Jefferson Sessions [R-AL]
Sen. Arlen Specter [D-PA]

I wrote Senator Klobuchar this morning about this hearing.

Are there any others on the committee that are on the fence that we should be contacting? I figure Feinstein and Schumer are a loss.
b

Yeah, Russ Feingold. He's a bit all over the map on 2A, and didn't always make me happy, but has sided with the NRA more than once in recent years. Speaking from personal experience, he will listen to and consider a well put-together argument.

-Mark

Iv'e been reviewing NRA grades, and legislative history, and here is what I came up with...

Please feel free to correct me.

On Board:
Sen. Lindsey Graham [R-SC]
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R-OK]
Sen. Charles Grassley [R-IA]
Sen. Orrin Hatch [R-UT]
Sen. Jefferson Sessions [R-AL]
Sen. Arlen Specter [D-PA]

Back and Forth:
Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI]

No way:
Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D-MD]
Sen. Charles Schumer [D-NY]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Sen. Herbert Kohl [D-WI]

Unknown:
Sen. Edward Kaufman [D-DE]

Thanks -- sent a note via his website and will call his office on my drive home this evening.

B

You forgot about the DNA sample.

Russ Feingold opposed the Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act allowing concealed carry by LEO's. I believe he argued it was a states' rights issue.

singhcr,
Both your posts, in my opinion, were coherent and well reasoned. My feelings almost to a T.
However, I also have bensdad sitting on one shoulder, whispering in my ear and I can't ignore him. Past experience has shown that there is a more than even chance that he is correct.


What consenting adults do in the privacy of their home/s should be no one else's business.

Like I said, he's a weird one. Definite maverick. Not always going to turn out how we want, but at least he's not a party hack.

-Mark

Yawn.

It's a simple issue of full faith and credit. We don't have nationalized drivers' licenses, do we?