General Categories > Carry Issues

Opinion What's Wrong With Making It Easier to Carry a Gun Across State Lines?

<< < (2/3) > >>

DanClrk51:

--- Quote from: CitizenClark on November 17, 2011, 10:24:49 AM ---The Second Amendment was not originally a "state issue" because it is an amendment to the federal constitution, designed to restrain the feds, but this doesn't mean that regulation of firearms was not a state issue. To the contrary, regulation of the carrying of firearms has historically been part of the police power that is reserved for the states.

Like other provisions in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment only applied to the feds for almost all of United States history (Massachusetts had an official state religion for years, the First Amendment notwithstanding). The Heller case didn't change the fact that the Second Amendment was only a restraint on the federal government and its organs—it just clarified that the right described by the Second Amendment is an individual one.  The Mcdonald case, however, did incorporate the Second Amendment as against the states in another instance of "selective incorporation" via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights#Selective_versus_total_incorporation).

Besides implementing a sort of forced reciprocity, HR 822 also "would require the Comptroller General of the U.S. to conduct an audit of the laws and regulations of each state that authorizes the issuance of a valid permit or license to permit a nonresident to possess or carry a concealed firearm.  The audit would include a description of the permitting or licensing requirements of each state that issues concealed carry permits or licenses to persons other than the residents of that state.  The audit would also include the number of valid permits and licenses issued or denied (and the basis for the denial) by each state, and the effectiveness of state laws and regulations in protecting public safety."

It makes me nervous when the feds start nosing in this sort of thing.

--- End quote ---

Yeah, I guess I have to admit that your analysis sounds pretty damn straight. Not sure what this will mean for the country though. It could be very bad i suppose in the future.

CitizenClark:

--- Quote from: DanClrk51 on November 17, 2011, 11:26:21 AM ---Yeah, I guess I have to admit that your analysis sounds pretty damn straight. Not sure what this will mean for the country though. It could be very bad i suppose in the future.

--- End quote ---

At the end of the day, restrictions on keeping and bearing arms are violations of my natural (i.e., "God-given"; cf. "constitutional") rights, so it doesn't exactly break my heart to see the feds telling certain states that they can't continue violating people's rights in this particular way.

My concern, though, is that this is the first step on the road to nationalization of carry laws, and that does scare me. It is hard enough to defend against the wacko anti-gun types in Lincoln and Omaha without having to worry about the ones in New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and DC.

DanClrk51:

--- Quote from: CitizenClark on November 17, 2011, 12:03:54 PM ---At the end of the day, restrictions on keeping and bearing arms are violations of my natural (i.e., "God-given"; cf. "constitutional") rights, so it doesn't exactly break my heart to see the feds telling certain states that they can't continue violating people's rights in this particular way.

My concern, though, is that this is the first step on the road to nationalization of carry laws, and that does scare me. It is hard enough to defend against the wacko anti-gun types in Lincoln and Omaha without having to worry about the ones in New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and DC.

--- End quote ---

Agreed.

and yes that is a scary thought. I don't like the provision in the bill that was snuck in that creates a study of the carry laws because that will imply that Congress will try further "improvement" of the nation's carry laws.

Roper:
I tend to agree with CitizenClark on this one. 

KGillen:
While the 2nd Amendment may be a part of our Federal Constitution, so is the 10th. Regulation of any kind, perceived as good or not will lead to over regulation. I wish I could be more eloquent on the subject, but that pretty much sums up my view.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page