Senate Rejects Concealed Arms Bill

[Reason]

YouTube - Raw Video: Senate Rejects Concealed Arms Bill

 

[JK/SEA]

hmm?...is this a bad thing?..states rights an issue here?

 

[Cowlesy]

Missed by two votes. This was reciprocity between States for CCP's.

 

[Matt Collins]

Self-defense, and owning firearms is a fundamental right (that is also guaranteed in the US Constitution). There shouldn’t be ANY permits needed to exercise this right. Rights don’t need permission from the government to be exercised.



Should we have to get a permit before we start our own newspaper? Should we have to get a permit to write a blog? Should we have to get a permit to have children? No of course not. Why? Because all of the above are rights that don’t need a governmental grant of approval.
If we have to ask permission, then it isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. And since owning firearms and self-defense IS indeed a right, there is no need to ask permission to do it!


This country would be better off if everyone understood the fundamental difference between rights and privileges and that the two are opposites!

 

[Zeeder]

Self-defense, and owning firearms is a fundamental right (that is also guaranteed in the US Constitution). There shouldn’t be ANY permits needed to exercise this right. Rights don’t need permission from the government to be exercised.



Should we have to get a permit before we start our own newspaper? Should we have to get a permit to write a blog? Should we have to get a permit to have children? No of course not. Why? Because all of the above are rights that don’t need a governmental grant of approval.
If we have to ask permission, then it isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. And since owning firearms and self-defense IS indeed a right, there is no need to ask permission to do it!


This country would be better off if everyone understood the fundamental difference between rights and privileges and that the two are opposites!

Exactly. I would have voted against this bill. And proposed an end to all "permits". Voting for the bill Just reinforces the idea that guns are a privledge. I wonder how ron paul voted.

 

[john_anderson_ii]

I'm fairly convinced that, had this bill passed, it would have paved the way for a court case which would have incorporated the 2A. Incorporation of 2A would give the Federal government the legal authority to strike down Montana & Tennessee's new gun laws.

Therefore, I'm not sad this law wasn't passed.

 

[TCE]

I wonder how ron paul voted.

It was a Senate amendment proposed by Senator John Thune, so it was not brought up at all in the House.

 

[TCE]

I'm fairly convinced that, had this bill passed, it would have paved the way for a court case which would have incorporated the 2A. Incorporation of 2A would give the Federal government the legal authority to strike down Montana & Tennessee's new gun laws.

Therefore, I'm not sad this law wasn't passed.

...Incorporation would mean that states cannot ban guns. That would be a good thing. Additionally, the federal government cannot strike down state laws, it can either supersede them with their own law in the name of interstate commerce, or a federal district court can strike it down.

Basically, I'm confused as to why your reasoning would lead you to the conclusion that this amendment was bad.

 

[john_anderson_ii]

...Incorporation would mean that states cannot ban guns. That would be a good thing. Additionally, the federal government cannot strike down state laws, it can either supersede them with their own law in the name of interstate commerce, or a federal district court can strike it down.

Basically, I'm confused as to why your reasoning would lead you to the conclusion that this amendment was bad.

Incorporation would not mean that the States cannot ban guns. It would mean that federal law would supersede state law when it comes to guns, including restrictions imposed on this right. I mean to say, incorporation is a two way street. The machine gun ban of '34 for instance would supersede Montana's Firearms Freedom Act. That would mean that the practice of manufacturing, buying, and selling machine guns within the borders of Montana would have to follow Federal law, and Montana's legislature would have no legal grounds to enforce their Freedom Act. It also means that the next Clinton like AWB will supersede State laws to the contrary. For instance, if the Federal Government again bans standard capacity magazines, Arizona couldn't enforce, within the courts, a law to the contrary on 2nd and 10th Amendment grounds. Instead, one would have to prove that the federal statute violates the 2nd Amendment, which the courts clearly wouldn't agree with.

I have more reasons for disapproving of this bill here.

 

[bill50]

It is a bad thing this bill did not pass. Forcing states to recognize other state's permits does not violate the Constitution. It is an act of enforcement of the Constitution even if only slightly.

 

[RSLudlum]

Remember Rahm Emanuel's statement that if you're on the "no fly list" you shouldn't be able to own? If this passed, couldn't it play right into their hands?

 

[SimpleName]

I'm a little confused. Feel a bit stupid too. First, why the term "incorporating" and what do you mean by it? Second, how would such a case end the Montana gun laws that do not interfere with interstate commerce? Third, wouldn't this just bring back the reality of the fact that states cannot override a "right" in the Bill of Rights, especially taking into account the 14th amendment? The major thing I fear, maybe what you mean by incorporation, is that the federal government may then take the power to issue permits and would, of course, being excessively stringent on qualifications and issuance.

 

[ramallamamama]

No worries, in a couple months many, many more people will be carrying concealed anyway.

 

[TCE]

I'm a little confused. Feel a bit stupid too. First, why the term "incorporating" and what do you mean by it? Second, how would such a case end the Montana gun laws that do not interfere with interstate commerce? Third, wouldn't this just bring back the reality of the fact that states cannot override a "right" in the Bill of Rights, especially taking into account the 14th amendment? The major thing I fear, maybe what you mean by incorporation, is that the federal government may then take the power to issue permits and would, of course, being excessively stringent on qualifications and issuance.

Incorporation is a judicial term. To keep it short: Incorporation is when a part of the Bill of Rights, under the 14th Amendment, must be followed by the states. The Bill of Rights, as it was written, only applied to the Federal Government, however, the Supreme Court has ruled that some amendments must be followed by the states as well.

Example: The First Amendment has been incorporated. States cannot prosecute you for using your right to free speech. Case: Gitlow v. New York.

 

[TCE]

Incorporation would not mean that the States cannot ban guns. It would mean that federal law would supersede state law when it comes to guns, including restrictions imposed on this right. I mean to say, incorporation is a two way street. The machine gun ban of '34 for instance would supersede Montana's Firearms Freedom Act. That would mean that the practice of manufacturing, buying, and selling machine guns within the borders of Montana would have to follow Federal law, and Montana's legislature would have no legal grounds to enforce their Freedom Act. It also means that the next Clinton like AWB will supersede State laws to the contrary. For instance, if the Federal Government again bans standard capacity magazines, Arizona couldn't enforce, within the courts, a law to the contrary on 2nd and 10th Amendment grounds. Instead, one would have to prove that the federal statute violates the 2nd Amendment, which the courts clearly wouldn't agree with.

I have more reasons for disapproving of this bill here.

Not quite, sir. Incorporating it just means that the Amendment must be followed by the states. It doesn't incorporate laws as well. The federal government already has limited firearms with the Brady bill among other such bills in the form of the Commerce Clause. What Montana and a few other states are doing is Neo-nullification.

 

[SimpleName]

Incorporation is a judicial term. To keep it short: Incorporation is when a part of the Bill of Rights, under the 14th Amendment, must be followed by the states. The Bill of Rights, as it was written, only applied to the Federal Government, however, the Supreme Court has ruled that some amendments must be followed by the states as well.

Example: The First Amendment has been incorporated. States cannot prosecute you for using your right to free speech. Case: Gitlow v. New York.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Conservative Christian]

There's a grave misconception that this bill would have FORCED the two states which do not permit any form of concealed carry (CC), Illinois and Wisconsin, to allow people from out of state to carry concealed in those two states.

FALSE!

Illinois and Wisconsin's laws against CC would NOT have been overturned.

The bill would have simply required that all states that currently allow their OWN citizens to carry concealed, would also have to allow permit holders from out of state to carry concealed.

The out-of-state permit holders would also be obligated to follow all the concealed carry regulations of the state they were visiting, such as the places that were off limits for CC, etc.

I don't see any significant violation of states rights here, nor did the NRA or Gun Owners of America, both of which have a very keen understanding of states rights as they apply to gun ownership, possession and carry.

.

 

[TCE]

Does anyone else find it strange that so many Democrats voted "Aye" on this? And not only this, but also the amendment to the "Washington D.C. Gets a Representative" bill that allowed for a rescinding of most of D.C.'s gun laws? What's up with that?

 

[john_anderson_ii]

Does anyone else find it strange that so many Democrats voted "Aye" on this? And not only this, but also the amendment to the "Washington D.C. Gets a Representative" bill that allowed for a rescinding of most of D.C.'s gun laws? What's up with that?

Not all Democrats are 'liberal progressives' or whatever the term is for statist "let the police protect you" type liberals. There are a lot of democrats from blue states in office right now, and there are a lot of democrats who can read the writing on the wall. 38 states have shall issue, right to carry laws. The momentum is moving toward firearm freedom right now, and politicians like to stay in office.

Not quite, sir. Incorporating it just means that the Amendment must be followed by the states. It doesn't incorporate laws as well. The federal government already has limited firearms with the Brady bill among other such bills in the form of the Commerce Clause. What Montana and a few other states are doing is Neo-nullification.

That's not the point I was getting at, and it's much more complicated. For instance, what if 2A were incorporated and then Obama gets to replace a conservative judge on the bench. Later, Chicago's complete handgun ban goes in front of this new SCOTUS balance. Chicago's gun ban is thus upheld as 'reasonable regulation'. Then the U.S. Federal government passes an absolute handgun ban law. Won't the former case be cited in the latter?

If the 2A were unincorporated, SCOTUS would have never heard the first case and would have left it to the State. Sure Chicago's gun ban would be upheld by Illinois, but that damage would be confined to Illinois.

Incorporating 2A is giving SCOTUS and by extension the Federal Government enough rope to hang us. If 2A is incorporated and the Fed Gov't does the right thing and doesn't try to circumvent the Constitution as it does so often, then that would be a good thing. However, it is a gamble.