He introduced and pushed for a right-to-carry bill that would haveThere--I fixed it for you. I hate it when "our side" does that.given peoplerecognized the right to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise, without having to obtain a permit. [More]
I've addressed this on Gun Rights Examiner--several different columns, actually, presenting both sides of the debate:
Competing concealed carry bills in Iowa divide gun owners
Iowa Gun Owners promote 'real right-to-carry'
Iowa Carry says NRA bill 'best chance at getting (concealed carry) into law'
Competing concealed carry bills in Iowa divide gun owners
[Via Boris Karpa]
Comment I left on site:
ReplyDeleteDon't know if it's been approved as yet???
The NRA seems to have forgotten what the 2nd Amendment actually says. The last phrase is "... shall not be infringed."
Heller determined that the right of We The People to "keep and bear arms" is an individual right not "granted" by the Constitution, but "recognized" by the Constitution.
"Shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says. There is a period immediately following the word "infringed". That period cannot be debated.
Any laws, so-called "reasonable regulations", special taxes, or gun bans cannot be anything other than infringements upon We The People's right to keep and bear arms.
The road to the hot place is paved with good intentions and reasonable regulations.
[W-III]
Title: Can a Politican Be "Too Pro-Gun"?
ReplyDeleteAnswer: He can be if he looks like he might solve the problem and screw up NRA's revenue stream.
While we're picking nits, this is better:
ReplyDeleteHe introduced and pushed for a right-to-carry bill that would have repealed the unlawful prohibition on the lawful carrying of a gun, concealed or otherwise, without first obtaining a permit.
Says you.
ReplyDeleteThe issue here seems to be why you think pointing this out is "picking nits".
The only place where Vermont carry has occured without first going "shall-issue" is Vermont. That's a tough model to replicate, especially in a state without an identical Constitution and a time machine.
ReplyDeleteThe only other proven option is to do it AK and AZ style, "shall" to "unrestricted".
In this case the utterly unpassable "perfect" was the proven enemy of "the good".
That's only if you accept the premise that asking permission to exercise a right is "good."
ReplyDeleteIf you have to ask permission, in what way is it a right?
ReplyDeleteThere is only one valid firearms law in the United States. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The method of bearing is not specified and therefore cannot be legislated. The class of arms is not specified and therefore cannot be legislated. The past of the people who keep and bear arms is not specified and therefore cannot be legislated.
Any law passed in direct opposition to the constitution is void and of no force.
Simple isn't it?
go here listen, courtesy of Between Two Rivers.
ReplyDeleteListen to an interview between Steve Deace of WHO radio and Rep. Sorenson
http://between-two-rivers.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-should-be-end-of-nra-in-iowa.html
click on the obvious link.
Thanks SA. And thanks also to David for bringing attention to our fight in Iowa.
ReplyDeleteHere's the direct link for the interview. Steve Deace of WHO radio and Rep. Sorenson
The NRA is threatening support for the #2 liberal in the state, Sen Staci Appel, instead of Rep Sorensen. And she's a real sweetheart.
We came close to getting rid of the permit process on failed amendments to the concealed carry "reform" bill.
The concealed carry bill passed and is now headed to the governor.
Damn right says me.
ReplyDeleteA bill "recognizing" a right is no bill at all. What we need are bills to repeal the unlawful prohibitions so these rights can be exercised without fear of fine and imprisonment.
If you're going to correct someone, at least correct them correctly.
Talk about nitpicking...
ReplyDeleteOne of the definitions of "recognize" is "to acknowledge the de facto existence or the independence of," which is precisely the point I am making, and one backed by both founding philosophy and settled law.