The Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013 (H.R. 2959) has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressmen Richard Nugent (R-Fla.) and Jim Matheson (D-Utah). The bill would allow any person who is not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under federal law and who has a valid, concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed handgun in any state that issues its own residents permits to carry concealed firearms. Persons carrying a handgun in another state pursuant to H.R. 2959 would be subject to the laws of that state with respect to where concealed firearms may be carried. Similar legislation to H.R. 2959 passed the U.S. House of Representatives in 2011 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 272-154 . . .
H.R. 2959 would not create a federal licensing system, nor authorize the federal government to interfere with the powers of the states to set standards for the issuance of carry permits, nor establish federal standards for carry permits, nor override state laws allowing for the carrying of firearms without a permit. Rather, it would simply require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits.
This is not a new or untested concept. Since 2004, certain active and retired law enforcement officers have been authorized to carry concealed firearms throughout the United States based on identification issued by the agencies that employ or formerly employed them. Most states that issue carry permits or licenses already have statutes that grant reciprocity or recognition to non-resident licenses or permits under various circumstances. Meanwhile, Right-to-Carry Reciprocity legislation has been introduced in Congress since 1995.
• The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for defensive purposes. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” throughout U.S. history, and that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the protections of the Second Amendment extend to infringements under state and local laws.
• The Seventh and Ninth Circuits, among other courts, have affirmed that the individual right protected by the Second Amendment includes the carrying of firearms in public for self-defense. In the 2012 case of Shepard v. Madigan, authored by Judge Richard Posner, the court ruled that the “confrontations” of which the Supreme Court wrote in Heller “are not limited to the home.” The court accordingly held, “A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.” The Ninth Circuit similarly held in the 2014 case ofPeruta v. San Diego County that Second Amendment protects the right of responsible, law-abiding persons to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.
• Every state has a concealed-carry firearm permit law. Forty-two states, accounting for two-thirds of the U.S. population, readily issue concealed carry permits or licenses. Thirty-nine have “shall issue” laws, requiring that carry permits be issued to qualified applicants. Four states do not require a license or permit for the lawful carrying of concealed firearms. Only the District of Columbia prohibits entirely the carrying of firearms in public for self-defense.
• Citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. In Florida, the state that has issued the most concealed firearm carry permits—due to its large population and the relatively early date of its Right-to-Carry law—only about 0.01 percent of permits issued have been revoked because of firearm crimes by permit holders. Other states that keep such statistics have had similar experiences.
• Violent crime rates have decreased, as the number of Right-to-Carry states has increased. The nation’s violent crime rate hit an all-time high in 1991, when only 17 states, accounting for 25 percent of the nation’s population, had Right-to-Carry laws. Since then, the number of states in which carry permits are readily available has risen to 42, accounting for 74 percent of the population, and the nation’s violent crime rate has fallen to a 42-year low. (Data: FBI.)
• The right of self-defense has been recognized in law for centuries. The Declaration of Independence asserts that “life” is among the unalienable rights of all people. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for “security.” The laws of all states recognize the right to use force in self-defense. The Supreme Court has recognized that a person “may repel force by force” in self-defense, and is “entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force” as needed to prevent “great bodily injury or death.” Beard v. United States (1895). Congress affirmed the right to own guns for protective purposes in the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (1986). In 1982, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution described the right to arms as “a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms.”
• Concealed carry has proven to be sound public policy in the United States. H.R. 2959 recognizes both the increased popularity of concealed carry and the increased mobility of the U.S. population. The current patchwork of state and local laws and reciprocity arrangements can prove daunting and confusing for even the most conscientious and well-informed concealed carry permit holders. People carrying in good faith and strictly for defensive purposes have been arrested and subjected to prosecution for inadvertent violations, sometimes as a result of voluntarily disclosing their possession of firearms to law enforcement officers. H.R. 2959 allows law-abiding Americans to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment with confidence and peace of mind, while still allowing states to enforce their own standards of conduct and restricted places of carry for those in possession of firearms.
He looks a lot like a Velociraptor, I think. EEEP!!!
Ban Velociraptors. Just watch Jurrasic Park to see the threat! Do It For The Children.
WB, look again and tell me the reciprocity bill isn’t giving the MB some Adam Lanza eyes.
Bloomjerk looks like something I ate and dropped
But they don’t attack from the front… no, they attack from the sides.
politicians and raptors have a lot in common. Still a Spas 12 should still work well for both.
Even if it passes the house, for election year credibility, it will fail in the senate.
Might pass the Senate, because there are a few Democrats who would need the cover, and Obama will cover them with a veto. That way everybody wins — Republicans say they tried, Democrats can say they voted pro-gun, and Obama can show he hates guns.
you may be looking at this from the wrong angle, red state dems may support this bill for credibility.
I agree. Reid will never let it get to a vote. It will die either because he “fails” to assign it to a committee, or it fails to make it out of committee. Either way, it is DOA on arrival in the Senate, just like last year. And every year until the Republicans regain a majority in that house.
Isn’t saying something is/was “DOA on arrival” kinda repetitive.
Rather like a double-o in “Leoon”?
NV needs to put this demented fool out to pasture.
DOOOOOOOOO EEEEEEEEEEET
Not a snowball’s chance in hell, but one can hope.
Every law that we hate ed tried over and over, I’m sure. Do it, let it fail. Then do it again, and again.
Yes. Repetition builds support and wears down the opposition. It’s like looking for a job. It doesn’t matter if you’re rejected for 10 jobs if you’re accepted for the 11th.
Had a friend that applied the same general principle to picking up girls. He got shot down more than any of us. He also got lucky more than any of us. Though I suppose “lucky” isn’t the right term here.
Yes, the “try, try again” approach has broad application in life. Good for your friend. He is the teacher of us all.
As commented above, this is a purely cynical political calculation by all parties in an election year.
As much as I would prefer that my Washington “Get out of jail free” card would work in every state in America, I have to repeat that if we give our support to this attempted legislation we are once again agreeing that the government, federal and state, does in fact have the authority to infringe on the Second Amendment. This should NEVER be our default position.
Stop agreeing that they can infringe just a little bit and demand Constitutional Carry and the repeal of all federal and state anti-2A legislation.
Ben Franklin said that a reputation, like a china plate, once cracked is never successfully mended. We may be seeing exactly that same point if we stand by and allow one crack after another in the “…shall not be infringed.” language with the result that the meaning of the amendment may never be successfully mended.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. The idea behind this isn’t that we believe that such infringements, even less restrictive infringements are good or valid, only that they exist. The default position is that no infringement is valid. The intent of this is to move us closer to that position. Acknowleging realty isn’t a compromise of principles. As a practical matter, achieving no progress whatsoever is more of a reversion to the default position.
As I have said before, I fought against this act last time. Reason being the 10th amendment. While I believe the 2A is our concealed carry permit. Until or unless this is recognized, a law passed can be overturned by a 10th amendment appeal.
good point.
Wouldn’t it be covered by the same clause/whatever that covers driver’s licenses?
IANAL
That acronym is so weird.
Full Faith and Credit Clause I believe.
This.
It’s been changed. It’s now called The Full Faith if You’ve Got Really Good Credit clause.
Sert’s correct. The Full Faith and Credit clause primarily applies to judicial proceedings, not legislation, of one state relative to another. Its purpose was to ensure such things as bankruptcies and debts couldn’t just be abandoned by moving to another state. Likewise, a convicted murderer in one state is recognized as convicted everywhere. It doesn’t apply to state laws, even marriage and drivers licenses, because of what’s called the public policy exception.
You may visit another state and drive there, but that’s at that state’s pleasure. If you move there, you’ll have to get their license. There’s no obligation to recognize your out of state marriage license, either, if it violates the new state’s laws against minimum age, recency of divorce, closeness of family relationship (ewww), and so forth.
Really, if this clause covered concealed carry licences, then we wouldn’t need a federal law in the first place, now would we?
No. This is a common mispeeception. The full faith and credit clause has never applied to licenses. Not for drivers, plumbers, doctors, teachers, or barbers or anything else. Drivers licenses are honored because each state has passed laws doing so. Even then, there are differences: out of state learner’s permits are accepted in some states but not others.
You forget about the feds being able to have a say in commerce from state a to state b. So I wonder if this could be related.
What the frack are you talking about, Frank?
It could be looked at as a legislation meant to help enforce the second amendment, but I do think that’s not a good road to go down.
The 10th Amendment establishes that the Federal government may not infringe on States’ rights. but it also re-affirms that neither Federal or State may infringe on the People’s rights/powers.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE.” (emphasis added).
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment also addresses this issue, stating that no State may infringe on the rights of any individual.
“Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
So why aren’t the states’ using the 10th Amendment in their court cases to keep gay marriage from being forced on the ones that do NOT want it? I don’t recall that Amendment being cited in any of the recent court decisions that have been overturning state bans on gay marriage.
I disagree.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Since “shall not be infringed” is in the Constitution, I believe you could successfully argue that the federal government has EVERY right to pass legislation to reinforce the law. IOW, not a 10th amendment matter.
Just so, Kelly, and the history of the 14th Amendment is clear that the purpose was to protect the right to self-defense, among other rights.
It will pass the House easily (again), but it will only get 57 or 58 votes of the 60 it will need in the Senate. That way, it never becomes law, but it still gives Senate Democrats and RINOs who are in trouble at home the opportunity to show how deeply and sincerely devoted they are to our rights. It will give MAIG and Moms Demand Money the opportunity to preen. It will give the NRA another battleground. And it will give us nothing.
Legislative theater at its best. What a con job.
Wait – Harry Reid used the “nuclear option” in the Senate. Doesn’t that make 51 votes a pass on every issue?
That’s only for most filibusters on nominees. In any case, even if by some miracle it passed the Senate it will subsequently need 2/3 support of both houses of Congress to survive Obama’s veto.
That’s only for approving nominations. Specifically, judicial nominations if I recall correctly. But no, a requirement to only get 51 votes to pass legislation would’ve been a MUCH bigger deal.
It will never see a vote in the Senate. Feinstein will use a procedure to block it.
Feinstein can’t block it. Reid probably wants this to come to a vote to help Begich, Landrieu etc. They need something to save their asses, otherwise they’re all going down in November. And it also helps the Dem “progressives” prove that they are the criminals that their constituents want them to be.
I disagree. Reid will prevent this bill from ever seeing a vote in the Senate. Gun control is a wedge issue among the Democrats and he has enough on his plate defending his team from Obamacare fallout. The last thing Reid wants is for voters to be reminded that a significant chunk of his team wants to bring back the Assault Weapon Ban.
Feinstein is in the house not the senate. She is the house minority leader.
That’s Pelosi. Feinstein is, indeed, the senior Senator from CA.
Close but not quite right: she is the “senior moment” leader from California.
They DO preen, don’t they?
It would only take 2 people to stand up and do it.
I’ll take those close odds. Plus, I’d like to see who says no.
If you can point out the two who will switch, I’ll go along with you. But you can’t, because they don’t exist.
These battle lines were drawn long ago. Nobody is switching their votes.
There have been a few cases when an inland innocent would bring a gun to NYC thinking his or her silly little inland carry permit meant anything there. It is interesting that at least pre-Sandy Hook a couple of such cases were disposed of in a rather lenient manner, a plea to something considerably milder than what would normally have put the violator in jail for a few years.
Interestingly, one of the rabidly anti-gun NYC rags – which they all are – opined on one such case that this was the way to do it lest the plight of an innocent inlander would gain enough sympathy in Congress to pass the horror of horrors – a carry reciprocity bill, that would flood the Big Apple with gun-toting yahoos from places that most New Yorkers did not know, did not want to know, and did not need to know existed.
That was pre-Sandy Hook, of course – the mood has darkened quite a bit since. Still, perhaps this stuff does need to keep coming back. I would worry about some crap legislation attached to it though. Even if the final product became law – a most unlikely proposition – the reciprocity could die in the courts that would suddenly get all fired up about State’s rights, while the crap could survive. So, on balance, maybe one wants this theater again this year, but then again, maybe not. At least the tickets are free.
The only good thing about this bill is that we can see who votes against it…
Do you really have to wait?
Find who is going into a campaign this year.
If they are an R or D in a gun friendly state, they will vote especially if they have a close race and need every vote. If they are a D and are not running, they will automatically vote it down without reading the bill. If they are an R, they will vote for it as long as they are not in heavy liberal state like CT.
This is already predetermined. Hell, they probably agreed who would or would not vote over lunch. SNL when it was funny and not so left slanted even used to mock the whole process.
It is all legislative theater for the uninformed.
Nobody will vote against it because nobody will vote on it. Reid will stuff the bill and let it die in committee.
…shall not be infringed.
I have a question that I’m hoping some of you may enlighten me with an answer.
Suppose a businessman fly’s to a state across the US. He arrives at his destination in a cab. Upon entering the business, he spots a sign alerting him that firearms are not permitted inside the building.
While in his home state, his car is usually nearby, and he can easily deposit his carried weapon for hopefully safe keeping. However such is not the case at this time.
Aside from risking his permit, what alternatives does he have, assuming he does not have a lot of time to arrange for the temporarily keeping of his piece?
Of course, he should have checked on this before he left for his flight, but that is not the situation at hand.
If there’s no gun locker inside the prohibited building, he’s well and truly fvcked.
If the sign has the force of law in that state — assuming he is even lawfully carrying that state — the short answer is tough sh!t. Find a secure and lawful place to stow the gun or don’t enter the building.
Furthermore, if he is entering for a legitimate business purpose or meeting, call them and tell them EXACTLY why he will be late or not attending their meeting in their Free Fire Zone.
This will obviously not be a perfect solution, business-wise, but a good salesman or business rep should have done his homework ahead of time.
Find a friendly gun range/gun shop near by and talk to the owner about leaving your gun for uhm cleaning until you come back — 🙂
That shouldn’t be a problem at all in NYC, DC, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, Baltimore or countless other places.
If he flew to another city he wouldn’t be carrying.
Is there a similar law on the books for marriage licenses, drivers licenses, etc? Or do most states just use what little sense they have to create their own reciprocity agreements for those?
I’m always wary of any expansion of Federal power, even if it is for something I agree with. This sets a precedent, after all. What if State A has really lax Professional Engineering licensing, while State B is very strict. The federal government could also force State B to recognize Joe Engineer’s PE license from State A, which apparently gives them away like toys from a cracker jack box.
I know, I know, being a PE isn’t a constitutional right. But precedent is precedent. A long time ago we expanded the definition of “commerce”, and look where that’s gotten us.
Maybe you should re-read the Second Amendment again.
I know it well, and I agree that “Shall not be infringed” means exactly that. But again, all three branches of government have made a habit of setting precedent and/or using precedent for massive government overreach. What I’d much rather see is the Supreme Court ruling that states must recognize each others’ permits due to the combination of 2nd and 14th Amendments, full faith and credit and all that jazz.
Then again, the very idea of judicial review itself has gone down a slippery slope, so even my preferred avenue has risks…like backfiring in a ruling counter to the cause. Not to mention such a case even being heard is as likely as all the snow flakes dumping on my workplace right now turning into candy bars and milkshakes.
Which brings me back to my original question, how are other licenses (drivers, marriage, etc.) recognized interstate? Are they recognized via the 14th Amendment, or do the states handle that on their own? Or is it more muddled approach, IE the states recognizing each others’ licenses in light of the 14th amendment, but apart from any other overriding legislation/court rulings that compel them to do so?
I’m with you about being wary of any expansion of federal power, given how overweening the federal “government” already is, but this is clearly within federal power. 2A + 14A. Simple.
The only trouble is that the bill does not guarantee every citizen his right to self-defence, regardless of state of residence. That’s really the only bill that should be passed. It should be about a page long, and it should wipe away every state law to the contrary.
So in theory, MD would have to recognize my Utah permit?
This sounds too good to be true.
It is.
Only if you’re a resident of Utah.
I think you’re correct on this one. The Reciprocity Bill only applies to resident permits. The bill would not force a state to recognize Non-resident permits (like most of the ones from Utah).
So you would have to show your CCW permit and something like a driver’s license to show residency in the state that issued the permit.
So Maryland’s “May Issue” still screws me over. great…
Your only hope would be for Enrique Peña Nieto to catch on to the Putin Doctrine as applied to Crimea, and apply it to Southern California and New Mexico. With the remaining congress such a bill might pass.
Point of fact: the 9th Circuit did NOT rule that, “in the 2014 case of Peruta v. San Diego County that Second Amendment protects the right of responsible, law-abiding persons to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.” It was actually a 3-member panel of the 9th Circuit Court.
The decision is being held as “en banc” and “sua sponte” issues are debated for another ~2 weeks.
There’s a few threads on this here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=330
One may as well milk this ruling before it’s unpublished.
Point of fact: our federal appellate courts act through 3-judge panels. Unless, on rare occasion, they take up a case en banc. It IS, until further notice, a 9th Circuit ruling.
^This. And unless and until it is overturned, it can be cited as controlling authority. The Richards decision recognized it as such, as will any other case that comes down in the Circuit as long as it is good law.
Controlling within the 9th Circuit.
I am hoping the Peruta decision (or its analog from the 3rd, 4th, or 5th Circuit) goes to the U.S. Supreme Court. When that happens, the plaintiff can simply hand over the Peruta ruling to the Supreme Court and rest. That ruling makes it very clear that we have a right to keep and bear arms in public for self defense and that a state must allow either concealed carry, open carry, or both. With that established, a state like California or New York must allow any U.S. resident of legal age to carry in some manner, regardless of whether they are a state resident or not. The only residency requirement that will be allowable is that the person who wants to carry is a resident of the United States. That will be de facto reciprocity, period.
But as the state of California does not issue permits they will use that to wiggle out of it if it passes.
Although there are several California counties that issue almost no permits, other counties in CA issue several thousand permits (so the law would apply to all of California also).
Mine has issued over 5000 (population 200,000).
Just look at that picture. Tell me that is not the face of a crazy person.
He looks scared, doesn’t he?
The one thing that HAS changed during this 42 year dip in the crime rate is the globalist surge toward a takeover of the US government. It has reached treasonous proportions within the legislature, and the media during this time have been successful in instilling a state of fear into a group of emasculated, panty-wetting, feel-good-now, do-it-for-the-children Chicken-Little supporters currently represented by leftard liberal marxist socialists, hell bent on social collapse and bearing a latent death wish.
Clad I got that off my chest.
I think you may be onto something about a death wish. Radical Socialists have long been in the business of fomenting revolutions here and there. The problem with the US has ever been that it’s too free and to prosperous for many to get behind such a movement. To be successful a revolution requires at least the passive acquiescence of a large portion of the population, a general distrust of government and a core cadre willing to fight, kill and die.
In the US there have historically been very few interested in the tenets of socialism and these heavily outnumbered by those committed to strident individualism and capitalism. While Americans are ever distrustful of government it hasn’t historically been do to either oppression or corruption as in other countries but rather a vague unease about what government can become. Added to this, from at least 1917 on leftists in general have been to some greater or lesser degree the ‘enemy’ of the US, from the anarchists here that preceded even the Bolshevik revolution in Russia right on down through the rising Soviet threat after WWII, the Cuban missile crisis and the communist forces in SE Asia in the late 1960’s right through the 1980’s when the Cold War still raged and our leader was calling the Soviet system the ‘Evil Empire’. We fought communist Chinese in Korea, fretted over communist revolutionaries in central and south America and everyone knew that socialism was only a polite patsy for the Commitern and the only good commie was one that’s dead.
True American leftists have traditionally been seen as traitors, radicals and seditionists, to be marginalized and shut out of both society and the government.
Somehow, in the course of less than 30 years they managed to rebrand themselves as progressives, convince large numbers of the populace to forget everything ever learned about economics, independence and liberty and actually effect to large degree a bloodless coup in the government. In another 30 years what seems radical to us now will be passé and the leftists will march ever onward toward their ultimate goal of statism, centralized control and eventually a communist ogliarchy.
At least, they will if they don’t try to take too much too fast, because that could start a backlash that could find them on the wrong end of quasi-legal court facing charges of treason after some mass uprising and set the tide of communism back by at least 50 years, if not much, much more.
What the left has managed to do is to bypass the revolutionary stage of conquest in the US and leap right into legitimacy. This however hasn’t tempered their radicalism. Elsewhere it’s been an all or nothing fight, either the revolution succeeds or the leftists are killed or exiled. In the US, the political process is such that it can embrace most anything by degree, it’s rather that leftist ideology has never really matured much past ‘revolt, take over, and rule’. They simply don’t know how to get along with others and see every successful advance of their ideology like a battlefield victory that emboldens them to go after the ‘enemy’ all the harder. The enemy has ever been anyone who is established, who doesn’t share their ideology or doesn’t share it to an extreme enough degree, and anyone outside the revolution. Eventually they eat their own because of this infighting and must become more controlling and Draconian to retain any semblance of order, and that is in places where they really have ‘won’.
In the US they have not ‘won’ they’ve been incorporated. If they lose sight of that far enough and long enough they will eventually be marginalized again, and they might be very near it now.
While I am glad to see Matheson’s name on this, I still don’t trust the dude. It’s not just because of the “D” in front of his name, either- he’s going to take a crack at Mike Lee’s Senate spot this year, so he’s hoping for a promotion in the ranks of token Utah Democrat.
Jim’s only real loyalty is it Jim’s career. He’d join the Communist Party if he thought it would get him a few more years in an office.
Every time I look at him, I believe Shannon earns every bit of her pay. Comment Moderated. 🙂
“Nor establish federal standards for carry permits. . . “
There has already been a wedge of “federal standards” established in the Gun Free School Zone Act “loosening” of restrictions.
FROM: Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Exceptions to the possession prohibition include:
Firearm possessors licensed by the state or locality to possess the gun, whose law * requires that before the person obtains a license, state or local law enforcement verify that the person is qualified to receive the license; or . . .
Where the firearm is possessed or used by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity. **
* A federal requirement that “state or local law enforcement verify” the qualifications of a CCW applicant for that CCW to be acceptable for federal exemption has been slipped into the law. Additionally, only those pistol licences issued by the state within whose borders the school zone is located are recognized (if they meet the federal police approval requirement). Curiously, licences issued by other states with identical requirements, and honored and recognized as valid by that state, are mysteriously disqualified from this exception. The chicanery of bureaucrats is without limit.
** The way I read this, there is no “exception” for an OFF-DUTY police officer to possess a gun on school grounds, even if his Department requires him to be armed when off-duty, and uphold the law if he witnesses a felony in progress. The officer would be lawfully in possession ONLY if responding to a ‘felony in progress’, not if he went to the school to pick up his child. Don’t you just love the way they like to make intricate “rules” for everything ?
Did a quick comparison of text of bill to the Senate one introduced by Ayotte. Seems essentially the same with a few variations. Not being a lawyer I don’t know the implications of these differences. Would have to be ironed out in conference.
I would expect a UBC amendment to this legislation.
Yep… The only way this sees the light of day is with a UBC law attached…. Not going to happen in an election year. R’s want to run on Obama are, and D’s would rather fight that than get into a gun control urination contest.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” throughout U.S. history, and that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
That last sentence seems to be an admission of sorts and an interesting one. I read that to indicate that a person may need a weapon to face confrontation with the implication that this is because their attacker might be armed. If everyone were denied arms this wouldn’t be the case unless the attacker illegally bore arms. Thus this could be taken to acknowledge that some people (criminals) will continue to bear arms even if arms are denied to the people.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into it but I’m intrigued by the idea that SCOTUS came very close to acknowledging (admitting?) that criminals do not follow the law and that laws against bearing arms disarm only the law abiding.
If I were an anti, that sentence would give me cold chills of fear and rage. As I am not an anti if gives me hope that at least in it’s current configuration the SCOTUS seems to mostly get it, finally; never minding that pesky 2A, that denying arms to the people, whatever utility it may have, results in more harm than good.
If that idea ever catches on too widely the antis wont just be in retrograde, it will be a full on flight from accusations of pro-crime and anti safety, of standing up only for tyranny at the cost of liberty, or of just being either evil or insane, for once you remove the contrived underpinnings of their tripe about being for safety, crime prevention and/or good sense their real motives will be laid bare; Paranoia, phobia, racism, classism and stateism, none of which is much of a political plank to run on in 21st century US. Insane or evil, but never common sense or in the interest of the greater good, this may end up being the legacy of the antis.
This is a win/lose proposition. If passed and upheld in court, the gays will demand the same for marriage certificates.
So…? It seems like a fair trade.
Why would you have an issue with this?
One promotes a natural right, the other is progressive propaganda being forced down American’s throat.
Why does what gay people do matter to you? It’s not like it’s gun control, where someone is trying to prevent you from doing something. Their getting married would not in any way impact your life.
So again I ask, why is gay marriage an issue?
I can’t see this passing, but how about we push for allowing to keep a loaded firearm in our property where ever it is. By property I mean my car.
You mean in places like the allegedly oh-so-gun-friendly Ohio?
Constitutionally, I don’t see a problem with this (in fact, this is actually a proper case where Congress could exercise its power to ensure that there are no artificial or arbitrary barriers to commerce between the several states.)
Realistically, it’s not going to pass in the current Congress. And even if it passes the next Congress, it still has to get through President Obama.
And even with a GOP Senate, don’t forget, the barrier is *60* votes to end cloture. So I don’t see this passing unless there’s a trade-off on something else.
This is just an attempt for Jim the (D) ick Matheson to save his own hide because he knows what’s coming November, how else does a (D) get re-elected in a red state?