playing politics with the 2nd amendment

[kiryan]

So seriously, why is it that since the Democrats took over we have seen a lot of attention to the 2nd amendment?

Federal government made it legal to carry firearms in parks if you have a concealed weapon permit. A lot more attention to states passing gun laws that say Feds can't tell us what to do and heres the latest one I read about, an I just read one today for an amendment that forces all states to recognize concealed weapon permit holders from other states.

While, I think this is very cool because I'm pro gun, I hate how in the 6 years Republicans owned the Federal government they did nothing and in the first 7 months of the Democratic administration, they have made this an issue. As far as I can tell this is pure and simple playing games. Its either playing games in daring the Democrats to vote for gun control so they can use it for an election issue (threatening to repeat the sweep that took the democrats out of power in 94), or its daring them to hold up their own legislative goals debating gun control... Either way its disgusting.

Now I did hear that the NRA has recently over the past few years broadened its reach and has very strong relationships with a lot of democrats... but the timing of all this is entirely suspect.

--


http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/20 ... nContent.5

I don't know whether to get behind this amendment or not... Supreme court has already ruled states can put reasonable restrictions on guns but can't ban them... I don't know why we would put in legislation to force states to recognize concealed carry permits from other states... It does seem like an infringment of state soviergnity.

[Botef]

The statements made in the Richmond-Times make a good point about the disparity between state laws for issuing a concealed weapons permit. On those grounds I probably would oppose this amendment as it undermines a states right to enforce those regulations as they see fit.

[Ragorn]

Does this have anything to do with Montana passing a law that says that guns bought in Montana are immune to federal regulation?

[Desirsar]

Would be fun if the Democrats turn this around on the Republican and alter the amendment to require states to issue concealed weapon permits by courts only... as would be marriage licenses. (Which are already issued by courts in every state, I believe, but this would mandate both.) It would keep its original function, in that it would for all states to recognize all court decisions by other states (which is supposed to happen anyway), meaning you can pick the nearest state that allows gay marriage and your home state has to recognize it. I wonder which side would bend on that combination of issues first...

[kiryan]

The Defense of Marriage (federal) made it so only marriages between a man and a woman must be recognized by other states.

No Montana was just one of several including Tennessee who passed gun laws that said if its made in montana, doesnt leave montana, then federal laws don't apply. Gun laws and almost everything the feds do is based off the 13th amendment the power to regulate international and interstate commerce. Its basically the states affirming their authority in a very gray area... They are daring the feds to come in and say no we can regulate that so they can get a favorable supreme court decision. Just like pro choicers have been for the last couple years trying to limit cases from going to the supreme court because they fear a pro life interpretation.

[kiryan]

I agree with you botef, then again... the constitution gives us the right to bear arms... states can not take this right away from you. like I said the supreme court ruled there could be reasonable restrictions on the 2nd amendment... but it is possible they could decide that onerous concealed carry application processes / requirements from a state could be a violation of your 2nd amendment right. At that point then it make sense from a practical pov for the federal government to attempt to define whats ok and not ok across the board so the court doesnt have to hear 50,000 cases to define exactly what is constitutional and what is not... plus at this point the court is basically making the law.

This model has occured many times in different areas... regardless of whether they had the authority. when a problem needs to be addressed with conformity across the entire US, the feds make a law and try to get everyone to follow it.

[Ragorn]

The Defense of Marriage (federal) made it so only marriages between a man and a woman must be recognized by other states.

Unless of course, a state passes a law saying that "couples who marry in our state and stay in our state are free from federal regulation" I guess.

[Botef]

I have nothing against the right to bare arms, but concealing it goes a bit further than I am comfortable with. I don't really view carrying a concealed weapon as a right in the same way I do owning one. If someone is really set on being able to carry their concealed weapon in another state then they can go through the authorization process just like a state resident to earn that privilege.

[kiryan]

They might be able to swing that under the 10th amendment where all powers not granted to the feds and not restricted by the constition are granted to the state...

but if the marriage was centric to a business relationship between states (like an insurance policy), it would have to be recognized due to the federal law.