Dan Gifford forwarded an email that says not so fast:
If You Want to Follow my Lead…: A few list members shared with me their comments to congressmen and the NRA-ILA regarding HR 822. These are the comments I sent to my representative, Paul Gosar, by means of GOA’s contact option at http://capwiz.com/gunowners/dbq/officials/:I suppose now advocates for both viewpoints are going to hash this out on blogs and in forums...
I am a dedicated and long-term activist for the restoration of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Still, I must ask that you vote "no" on HR 822, the Stearns-Shuler bill to mandate nationwide recognition of state carry permits. Laudable as the goal sounds, the concept is a Trojan horse.
Sen. Feinstein has already announced her intent to establish federal standards for the issuance of concealed-carry permits at state level, to include a California-style requirement for proof of need. Costly medical and psychological testing, along with police-level "qualification" courses could also be included.
While none of this is in the current bill, making the carry of firearms a federal matter creates a ready vehicle for amendment when the political pendulum swings back to the left. The nation's experience with the 55 mph speed limit showed how easily the federal government can obtain compliance with federal standards simply by threatening to withhold federal funds.
Me, I've always been kinda partial to Constitutional carry...
6 comments:
The last thing we need is federal involvement in this - or anything else.
And, one state at a time, "constitutional" carry is becoming the norm.
Which, of course, is exactly what all the hoplophobes want to prevent at any cost.
No licensing standards are set up by the bill, but I understand the fear about the camel's nose. It won't pass anyway.
given to choosing between the two options, i agree with the opinion from the email. i would rather see that states have their own ways of doing things without a federal law imposed on them, no matter what it is.
states hostile to gun ownership should see the error of their ways in lost travel, increased crime, and so on. there is no reason to subsidize their stupidity by spreading the risk of obtuse licensing requirements to all the states simultaneously.
Sen. Feinstein has already announced her intent to establish federal standards for the issuance of concealed-carry permits at state level, to include a California-style requirement for proof of need. Costly medical and psychological testing, along with police-level "qualification" courses could also be included.
Feinstein, too? I know Boxer has introduced such legislation--which is funny, in light of her saying, in debates last year over the Thune Amendment (basically last year's version of H.R. 822), that federal level involvement in concealed carry would violate state sovereignty:
This debate is not about the right to own a gun. That has been settled by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. It is about allowing States to determine their own laws. And I totally get why some more rural States with fewer people would have different laws on conceal and carry than a State of 38 million people, my home State of California. Leave us alone. Leave us alone. You want to have conceal and carry with very few requirements, fine.
I'll concede that there is some merit to that argument--a sentiment that several here seem to share. It amuses me, though, how quickly she abandoned the state sovereignty platform, when it suited her.
Isn't there already a Federal standard that states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"?
Why would a Senator propose an obviously unconstitutional law, wasting effort, time and money of all involved, both for and against?
Delusion?
Incompetence?
Treason?
How about a Federal law restricting Federal funds to any state that does NOT have Constitutional carry? Would not that be in alignment with her oath of office?
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
See:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Oath_vrd.htm
Sounds like a bad a nightmare as a Constitutional Convention.
Post a Comment