Dems Champion States Rights, GOP Exalts Federal; Gun Bill Shot to Death

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
It's the introduction to the opposite sketches:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.845:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

`Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:

`(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.

`(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

`926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Click to expand...

I like that it starts off with the phrase "respect state's rights." :lol:

Well, okay, it wasn't really shot to death, but they couldn't win a vote to end a filibuster, falling two votes shy of doing so.

20 Democrats voted to end the filibuster, while George Voinovich (R-OH) and Richard Lugar (R-IN?) did not.
 
I think the argument by Republicans that the power of the federal government supercedes states' rights to be positively fascinating.

If you disagree, why bother posting? You could be busy continuing to knowingly lie like in the other thread.
 
I believe everyone has a right to have a CCW and not just those with connections. That said i'm glad this was defeated. They should be focusing on making a federal level CCW program instead of individual states CCW programs being forced upon other states.
 
The politics at play here were extremely interesting. You had a lot of NRA-fearing Dems who even changed their votes when they were assured passage was not possible. Unfortunately, the NRA being the most powerful lobby in Washington, they'll be back, and in greater numbers. It certainly does expose a certain amount of intellectual bankruptcy for people who pay a lot of lip service to states' rights to be voting to force this on unwilling states.
 
I'm just not sure when State's Rights trump the Constitution... I mean, if the Governor of Alabama decided he wanted to declare war against Turkey, would we let him?
 
The only thing I see really wrong with the bill is that many CCW states have different criteria to get a CCW, so if this had passed, most people could go to the state(s) with the most lenient CCW criteria to get their permits, thereby circumventing the states with stricter rules.

It wouldn't have been a huge issue, but yeah that is infringing on states rights. The main goal of the bill was right though. I hate it when I'm on road trips and I have to do research to see which state I'm traveling through has reciprocity with my CCW.

It just wasn't a very well written bill.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It wouldn't have been a huge issue, but yeah that is infringing on states rights.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, just a lil' states rights trampling. Ain't no thing.
 
The reason I say it isn't a huge issue is because most states don't have wildly different requirements in place to get a CCW - they are relatively minor differences and requirements, which is why many CCW supporting states already have reciprocity rules.

The bill wouldn't have made states that don't allow CCW at all to allow it.

My understanding is that the main purpose of the bill was to just to defeat the super-complex reciprocity rules that could potentially get you arrested for misunderstanding them.

Most people I know still carry in other states, unless it's a state like California. Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona are all pretty safe to carry in with any permit - and the cops generally don't care where your CCW is from as long as you have one.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That and the power of the lobby over the power of the citizen.[/QUOTE]

That is more depressing than interesting, although not surprising. How anyone with a straight face can argue on the one hand that states should be forced to accept concealed weapons permits from another state, while on the other bemoaning federal guidelines for, say, schools is beyond me.
 
The Constitution doesn't guarantee citizens the right to a federally created educational program. The Constitution does guarantee citizens the right to bear arms.
I'm all for State's rights, so long as they don't trump my rights that I'm supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The Constitution doesn't guarantee citizens the right to a federally created educational program. The Constitution does guarantee citizens the right to bear arms.
I'm all for State's rights, so long as they don't trump my rights that I'm supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution.[/QUOTE]

That's immaterial. Just as you have the right to free speech, you don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Similarly, although you have the right to bear arms, you don't have the right to endanger others with them. This is why something like the assault weapons ban is legal, or barring mental patients from carrying weapons (something closer to home here in Virginia). If one state wants to more closely restrict concealed weapons than another, there is nothing wrong with that, and the federal government should butt the fuck out.
 
So, by that logic, different states have different requirements for, say, a Driver's License. Perhaps states should not have to honor Driver's Licenses from different states?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, by that logic, different states have different requirements for, say, a Driver's License. Perhaps states should not have to honor Driver's Licenses from different states?[/QUOTE]

Correct me if I'm wrong but, aren't different state drivers license accepted in other states based on agreements between the states, not a Federal guideline?
 
Pretend we lived in a world where your out of state license may or may not be valid depending on what state you traveled to. Seems like that would screw with interstate commerce a bit. I'm willing to bet if an individual state decided they were going to stop honoring another state's license, the Federal Government would quickly look into yanking highway dollars.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Pretend we lived in a world where your out of state license may or may not be valid depending on what state you traveled to. Seems like that would screw with interstate commerce a bit. I'm willing to bet if an individual state decided they were going to stop honoring another state's license, the Federal Government would quickly look into yanking highway dollars.[/QUOTE]

Realistically yes, the feds would probably put pressure on the state refusing to honor other states' licenses. But also realistically that wouldn't happen because no state would want the others not to honor its licenses. And yes, I think they should have the right to not honor other states' licenses, just as the Virginia State Bar doesn't honor those who pass the Bar exam in Maryland. But doing that with drivers licenses would be stupid obviously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top