House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

  • Thread starter Thread starter maryjk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TMC said:
That is Section 2 of DOMA, and the Obama administration continues to defend that part of DOMA. The more important part of DOMA is Section 3, which says that the federal government will not recognize same sex marriages, even if they are valid in the state where the couple resides. That is the first time that the federal government has refused to recognize that states have the power to say which of its citizens are validly married. That is the portion of DOMA that conflicts with the 10th Amendment and the part that the administration has said is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Well, Section 3 is perfectly legitimate. The federal government has no business “recognizing” SS marriage. It is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution. You want it, call for a Constitutional amendment.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
You name for me a state, give me the statute number, that gives felons the authority to carry a concealed weapon.
Click to expand...
I don’t know all the state laws on guns, but I know they are different and they are different because the citizens of those states chose to make them different. States rights is about preserving the power of states to make those decisions, this law is about preventing states from making those choices. The GOP appears to be determined to do away with the federalism aspect of our federal system of government.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Well, Section 3 is perfectly legitimate. The federal government has no business “recognizing” SS marriage. It is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution. You want it, call for a Constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...
We don’t have system that gives all power to the federal government unless there is an amendment that says the government does not have that power. We have a government of limited, enumerated power. Wow, Scott, you are sounding more like a liberal big government guy with every post.
 
TMC said:
Unless what they please is to bar people from bringing in guns from other states. Or even to set reasonable restrictions on gun laws within their own borders. For example, if Missouri does not allow felons to carry guns, but Illinois does, should St. Louis be forced to allow felons from East St. Louis to carry guns in their town because Illinois thinks that’s OK? How would any state be able to enforce its own gun laws if they are forced to recognized permits issued by other states? Every state’s laws would be de facto reduced to being equal to whatever state has the most lax laws.
Click to expand...
Your argument about Felons being allowed to carry guns is specious, because current Federal Law has probhited felons from purchasing, owning, or posessing firearms. It is one of the civil liberties-along with the right to vote-that an individual loses upon conviction of a felony.
An argument typical of the anti gun crowd. Loaded with half-truths and mis-information.
 
TMC said:
We don’t have system that gives all power to the federal government unless there is an amendment that says the government does not have that power. We have a government of limited, enumerated power. Wow, Scott, you are sounding more like a liberal big government guy with every post.
Click to expand...
No, I sound like a Constitutionalist.
 
TMC said:
We don’t have system that gives all power to the federal government unless there is an amendment that says the government does not have that power. We have a government of limited, enumerated power. Wow, Scott, you are sounding more like a liberal big government guy with every post.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court gave that power to the federal government in Wickard v. Filburn. From that point on there was nothing that the federal government “can’t” do in terms of regulation. That’s why we have the health care bill, 1.6 gallon toilets, Fish and Game agents that can conduct warrentless searches and the EPA.
 
TMC said:
Huh? By your own statement, you say that if you qualify to for a carry permit in your state you should be allowed to carry that gun anywhere. So if one state allows felons to carry guns, all states have to let those felons carry their guns in their states. How is my hypothetical about St. Louis and East St. Louis incorrect? This law would prevent Missouri, for example, from barring Illinois citizens with gun permits from carrying guns in Mo. So if Illinois allows felons to have guns, those Illinois felons can carry them into Missouri, right? So Missouri (and every state) loses its right to control who carries guns within its borders.
Click to expand...
Actually federal law states that any person attempting to purchase or possess a firearm is subject to 10 years of prison - doesn’t matter what the states have to say about it. If the federal government can regulate that, why not this?
 
SamH said:
The Supreme Court gave that power to the federal government in Wickard v. Filburn. From that point on there was nothing that the federal government “can’t” do in terms of regulation. That’s why we have the health care bill, 1.6 gallon toilets, Fish and Game agents that can conduct warrentless searches and the EPA.
Click to expand...
I agree that the federal government is continually creeping into areas traditionally left to the states. My point is that I thought that the GOP was the party that had pledged to stop that advance. This legislation confirms that the GOP’s commitment to federalism is simply another political talking point that they are happy to abandon when it suits them. They are entrenching themselves as the “say one thing, do another” party.
 
SamH said:
Actually federal law states that any person attempting to purchase or possess a firearm is subject to 10 years of prison - doesn’t matter what the states have to say about it. If the federal government can regulate that, why not this?
Click to expand...
Ask Scott, he is the one advocating a federal takeover of the general police power, not me.
 
George_Stegmeir said:
Your argument about Felons being allowed to carry guns is specious, because current Federal Law has probhited felons from purchasing, owning, or posessing firearms. It is one of the civil liberties-along with the right to vote-that an individual loses upon conviction of a felony.
An argument typical of the anti gun crowd. Loaded with half-truths and mis-information.
Click to expand...
OK, so replace “felon” with whatever characteristic you choose. Say Missouri requires gun owners to complete a training course, and Illinois doesn’t. Or Missouri also bans guns from those convicted of a violent misdemeanor in the last two years, or whatever. The point is that this law’s intended effect, not some accidental by-product, but the purpose of the law is to prevent individual states from deciding who may or may not carry guns in their communities.
 
TMC said:
Except that you skip over the 10th Amendment when you find it politically inconvenient - just like every liberal I ever met.
Click to expand...
How so? The 10th Amendment cannot be used to subvert the 2nd Amendment.
 
TMC said:
Ask Scott, he is the one advocating a federal takeover of the general police power, not me.
Click to expand...
Hhow so. Explain it to me because I have no idea what your talking about. Feel free to mimic Don Quixote if you’d like, but I don’t think anyone here besides YOU knows what your talking about, and I am not even sure if you do.
 
It isn’t going to pass into law. There are far more important things for a Republican Congress to address than to cater to the gun lovers.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
It isn’t going to pass into law. There are far more important things for a Republican Congress to address than to cater to the gun lovers.
Click to expand...
The economy was important back in 2009, but Obama and the Democrat Congress still took an entire year to pass Obamacare, and then 2010 figuring out which ones of their special interest supporters to give waivers to.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
How so? The 10th Amendment cannot be used to subvert the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges. If the individual state laws violate the 2d Amendment, they should be challenged and thrown out (as some have been). But if each state should be allowed to pass gun laws that are constitutional. This federal law usurps that right - which violates the 10th.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Hhow so. Explain it to me because I have no idea what your talking about. Feel free to mimic Don Quixote if you’d like, but I don’t think anyone here besides YOU knows what your talking about, and I am not even sure if you do.
Click to expand...
Retreating to insults is a poor tactic, but you know that. You are advocating the federal government controlling how states regulate both marriage and guns. If the federal government has the right to usurp the states in those two areas, what rights doesn’t the federal government have? How does your position on these two laws not equate to the federal government having the power to usurp state authority whenever it chooses to? What is left of the 10th Amendment in that situation?
 
TMC said:
Apples and oranges. If the individual state laws violate the 2d Amendment, they should be challenged and thrown out (as some have been). But if each state should be allowed to pass gun laws that are constitutional. This federal law usurps that right - which violates the 10th.
Click to expand...
The Second Amendment is clear, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The right to bear arms is just as fundamental as the right to own them. If a state infringes upon my right to bear arms, then those laws are unconsititutional. I see this bill (unless I am reading it wrongly) affords for every American the capacity to enjoy their Constintutionally protected right to bear arms, in light of a state’s attempt to infringe upon them. SCOTUS has determined that the right to arms is an individual right, and not tied to a collectivist act, such as being a member of a militia. In fact, the regulation of the militia is dependent on a well-armed public, not vice versa.

If I have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in the course of dutifully protecting myself and my family against violent predators here in Virginia, what right does New York State have in abridging those rights?

What if I am going from Virginia to Maine, which gives me reciprocity for my concealed carry permit, but New Jersey and New York do not. I can carry my piece through Pennsylvania. Then when I hit the Jersey border, I have to lock it up in the trunk through Massechussetts, then I can get it back out when I get to New Hampshire? Its stupid. These states are infringing on my federally guaranteed right to bear arms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top