Schumer threatening to filibuster amendment to let licensed permit holders carry guns into states with similar laws
Politico has this:
A posse of Dems led by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are threatening to filibuster a controversial amendment that would allow licensed handgun owners to carry their weapons into states that have similar carrying laws. . . . .Schumer: “This amendment is a bridge too far, and could endanger the safety of millions of Americans. Each state has carefully crafted its concealed-carry laws in the way that makes the most sense to protect its citizens. Clearly, large, urban areas merit a different standard than rural areas. To gut the ability of local police and sheriffs to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense. It could reverse the dramatic success we’vie had in reducing crime in most all parts of America. In the past, the gun lobby has had as its rallying cry, ‘Let each state decide.’ With this amendment, they are doing a 180-degree flip. Whether you are pro-gun or pro-gun control, this measure deserves to be defeated. We will do everything we can to stop this poisonous amendment from being enacted.”
Labels: ConcealedCarry, GunControl
posted by John Lott at 5:42 PM
6 Comments:
Just another graphic reason that illustrates WHY the Dems are NOT a part to American freedoms.
What part of into states that have similarly carrying laws does Senator Schumer not understand. Obviously, for example, if Nevada and California have widely divergent concealed weapon laws, then carrying from the state with more relaxed laws into the one with more restrictive laws would be problematic. In that case, the carrier would need to defer to the more restrictive laws if he or she wanted to cross state lines. If they laws are similar, what's the big deal?
Do not 32 states reciprocate with Utah or Florida? Why can't the states get together and agree to reciprocate? That being said, I live in Iowa, a state that will not recognize permits from other states, so in turn, most won't recognize mine. Considering Iowa's small rural population, I cannot understand why it is not more pro-gun. What am I missing here John?
Regardless of the strictness or leniency of any state's carry permit process, no state has had a problem.
It's no different than a driver's license.
Hecate:
It's a lot different than a driver's license. Driving a car is a privilege, owning a firearm is a right.
As usual, those whom wish to deprive us of our right to bear arms in defense of ourselves and our country, ignore the Constitution.
In doing so they endanger all Americans just so they can get votes from ill informed folks whom have bought into this idea that the government should decide what is, and what isn't ours to decide for ourselves.
Sotomayor herself relied on U.S. v Cruikshank to make decisions. The aforementioned decision led to former slaves, and other citizens being deprived of their God given rights, and here we are in 2009 still suffering from an illegal decision that was made by a politically motivated court. SCOTUS cannot nullify the Constitution. Nor can Congress. Yet we simply stand by and allow that to happen. Why?
Marbury v Madison (1803) clearly states that any laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are void.
The 14th Amendment applied the whole of the Constitution to the States, so that states could not deprive any citizen of their rights, and that includes the keeping and bearing of arms. States cannot legally bar us from firearms anymore than can the Feds. If one were to misapply interstate commerce (happens all the time),that should prohibit a legal product from crossing state lines, and the Political Party of Ass would not be in an uproar, now would they?
Obviously, there are those who repeatedly ignore the law in order to further their own personal agendas. Chucky Schumer anyone?
Post a Comment
<< Home