Senator Thune wants to nationalize gun laws

[nopasties]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/opinion/21tue2.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Gun Crazy in the Senate

Published: July 20, 2009
On Wednesday, the Senate is expected to vote on the latest assault on public safety in the name of gun ownership. Introduced as an amendment to the military’s budget bill by Senator John Thune, a Republican of South Dakota, this radical measure would nullify the laws of almost every state, subjecting police officers to greater risk and increasing the potential for gun violence.
Nearly all states issue licenses to carry concealed firearms, but the criteria for granting such permits vary widely, and it is now, sensibly, up to each state to decide whether to accept another state’s permits.
At least 35 states prevent people from carrying concealed weapons if they have certain misdemeanor convictions. At least 31 states prohibit alcohol abusers from obtaining a concealed carry permit and require gun safety training. The Thune amendment would force states with more restrictive standards to accept concealed carry permits from states with less stringent rules — in effect giving the lax rules national reach.
Passage of the amendment would make it much harder for law enforcement to distinguish between legal and illegal possession of a firearm. It would be a boon for illegal gun traffickers, making it easier to transport weapons across state lines without being caught.
Proponents of Senator Thune’s attempt to create the equivalent of a national concealed carry system claim it would reduce crime. But the evidence shows otherwise. Between May 2007 and April 2009, people holding concealed handgun permits killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens, according to a new study by the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy organization. Other examples of crimes committed by concealed-carry licensees are plentiful.
For Alaska to permit residents who have committed repeated violent misdemeanors or who have committed misdemeanor sex offenses against minors to carry a concealed weapon is terrible public policy. For the Senate to extend that permit to 47 other states would be the height of irresponsibility, as well as a breathtaking violation of legitimate states’ rights.
Senators Charles Schumer of New York and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, both Democrats, are leading the fight in the Senate to defeat the Thune amendment. We fervently hope they succeed.

I do not follow gun rights or gun related issues much but this one sounds like a bad idea IMO. A Republican advocating the overstepping of state rights here and nationalizing the gun laws. Effectively this sounds like the gun laws will have a battle to the bottom effect.

Anyone more knowledgable of the subject please add some info.

I doubt this would go through, it seems like one of those things to reassure the gun lobby. Thoughts?

[danzig]

It is an extremely flawed bill and Thune should be ashamed, gun laws should be decided on state level not the fed level regardless of pro or anti gun. If anything he is opening a pandora's box that if this bill somehow managed to pass would open the door to attempting to change laws in the opposite direction. The bill itself steps too far, I'm all for gun ownership but I would never ever want to see concealed weapon law here in NY, it might work else where but not here no thanks. That said I do so love the neutral reporting of the NY Times in the article....

[Admiral Piett]

Are Republicans just that focused on destroying all boundaries and causing a whiplash that could prove disastrous to gun rights?

Seriously, just shut up about the issue and Democrats may be less inclined to even consider it an issue.

[Purified_Slander]

Are Republicans just that focused on destroying all boundaries and causing a whiplash that could prove disastrous to gun rights?

Seriously, just shut up about the issue and Democrats may be less inclined to even consider it an issue.

Way to stereotype republicans. -_-

This is just one Sen, bro.

[Admiral Piett]

Way to stereotype republicans. -_-

This is just one Sen, bro.

Check out the way your local representative votes.

[Barry Goldwater]

How about no? While I am strongly pro-guns I am also very strongly pro-states' rights, and this bill oversteps that.

[Каие]

We all know Republicans have no problem overstepping state rights if it benefits their own dogma. I.e. ''Marriage between man and a woman'' and ''abortion''.

[Purified_Slander]

We all know Republicans have no problem overstepping state rights if it benefits their own dogma. I.e. ''Marriage between man and a woman'' and ''abortion''.

Again with the stereotyping, eh?

[Last Roman]

Again with the stereotyping, eh?

there's stereotyping and then there's generalizing for sake of argument, he's doing the latter.

[Phier]

''abortion''.

Might want to rethink that one

[danzig]

We all know Republicans have no problem overstepping state rights if it benefits their own dogma. I.e. ''Marriage between man and a woman'' and ''abortion''.

Actually for the most part Republicans ARE prostate rights on those issues, where do you think state ballot proposition on gay marriage etc come from? Sure there are always some who would like to push thru a fed declaration of what marriage is or abortion but for the most part republicans are pro "state rights" on issues like that because they know they can win there as opposed to fed level. I mean California for crying out loud voted for definition of marriage as being between man and a woman....this isnt Texas or some other southern state. So you got the wrong examples there Im afraid.

[Каие]

Sure there are always some who would like to push thru a fed declaration of what marriage is or abortion but for the most part republicans are pro "state rights" on issues like that because they know they can win there as opposed to fed level.

Precisely.

[Darth Red]

The issue that I didn't see in the (bias) article is recognition of gun rights. For an example I being licenced to carry a firearm in The Commonweath of Massachusetts, travel to say New York, New York doesn't recognize my licence because it is of another state. This bill I am to assume would grant me the right to travel throughout this great country of mine without reprocutions of carrying an "illeagal" firearm. Massachusetts has already said I am fit to carry and conceal. The other 49 states should recognize in a federal law my right. Where states rights come in to play is the application process, where as you need to apply in your state of origin and get approval from that state.

[cfmonkey45]

We all know Republicans have no problem overstepping state rights if it benefits their own dogma. I.e. ''Marriage between man and a woman'' and ''abortion''.

John McCain and multiple leader Republicans have actually said that they don't want such a law, instead deferring it to the states.

I'm so glad I have a Brit telling me what I believe.

[C-Rob]

dont' they have enough power by having authority over interstate trade?

[Phier]

The way the supreme court is going states rights are pretty much out the window anyways in a few more years.

[IvanTheTerrible]

This is one issue I think should be nationalized as the creators of this country deemed it to be the number #2 most important one.

[Gaidin]

This is one issue I think should be nationalized as the creators of this country deemed it to be the number #2 most important one.

The right to bear arms is a superset of the ability to legally carry them concealed in public areas. One can do the first(e.g. I have a shotgun in my apartment), without the second(e.g. I have no pistol, and I have no CCW license, though if I had a pistol, I could carry it in such a fashion as it were visible). If this issue is to be nationalized you need to first come up with a national standard for how the licenses are to be issued. That is the major crux of why this bill rightly failed.

As far as the expected discussion of what the 2nd ammendment means. It's been held that the 'regulated militia' and the 'people' are distinct entities(prefatory and operative clause subjects repectively), and that the operative clause is indeed, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The 'regulated militia' is largely a context flavor added that has been interpreted to mean all males physically capable of acting in the common defense.

The SCOTUS, however, did stipulate that it is not a right to bear weapons however you choose and for whatever reason.

[Shi Huangdi]

Not to split hairs with you but, It does start out with the phrase "A well regulated militia,..."
I am only subjecting my interpritation of the word "militia" could be refered to as "citizen" or citizen army. I am wholly supportive of the second amendment but do belive in some regulation, not to be confused with red tape.

The militia clause is merely there to instruct the citizenry as to why they are allowed to bear arms. The Second Amendment explicitly denies the government the power to regulate possession of arms ("shall not be infringed"). It only grants the government the power to regulate the collective militia.

It specifically says.... ''Regulated Militia''. It's very vague. It allows the right to bear and keep arms, but says nothign on the regulation. In fact it specifically okays regulation. One bit you did conveniently miss out from the constitution;

Article 1, Section 8.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The Constitution provides for the regulation of the militia, but not the regulation of the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment first addresses the need for a "well-regulated militia", and then states that the right to individual ownership of arms "shall not be infringed". There is a sharp distinction to be made between the collective militia and the individual citizen who chooses to bear arms.

You did two things there.

1. Prove what I said EXACTLY right.
2. Contradict yourself. ''We have no intention of banning abortion on a federal level, but would support an amendment to the FEDERAL constitution protecting the unborn [banning abortion]''

Since a Constitutional amendment must be approved by the states, it cannot be considered an imposition on states' rights. When I said that Republicans have no intention of outlawing abortion at the federal level, I meant that we do not plan to use the branches of the federal government over which the states have no direct control (such as the Judicial, the Legislative, and Executive).

[Darth Red]

Infringement would mean denial for no other reason than to deny. A regulation would be a rule or rules that apply. Not every citizen that applys for a gun permit will be accepted. Every state still must prove beyond a reasonable doubt why it would deny.