I think we're a bit hypocritical about CCW bill

[MrJT]

I hate to say it... but it's true. I think we're being a little
hypocritical when it comes to the nationwide reciprocity bill.

How often do we complain about the federal government stepping on the states toes? Anytime the feds talk about a ban on certain weapons, we cry "It's the states decision!"

When a bill comes up though that would create nationwide reciprocity, DESPITE the wishes of some states, we are all for it. When it fails, we complain that the federal governmant didn't pass the bill mandating noationwide reciprocity.

I was upset about this bill failing until realizing this. We can't have it both ways. I feel that yes, we are a little hypocritical in this situation.

We can't say "Feds, stay out of the states' affairs... unless it's something that we support."

JMO

 

[pinduck]

I agree it does seem odd, however lets "Remember in November"
Glen

 

[Pasifikawv]

I am not sold on the hypocrisy in this instance. In addition to States' rights there are also the individual rights. And it is (sometimes) the role of the federal gov't to protect certain individual (dare I say inalienable) rights when certain States attempt to strip away the rights/privileges reserved to the individual…

SCOTUS has ruled (Heller) that the 2A is an individual right, but we have not yet seen a ruling to indicate that it is a "fundamental" right – which most on this forum would argue that it is…

This was not so much about federal law trumping state rights, but (IMO) about federal law protecting the rights/privilege of the individual that may be trampled by certain states….

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

It is not hypocritical. Quite aside from 2nd Amendment considerations, which, in my opinion, should obviate the need for any license in the first place, the Constitution specifically credits such a license by Sections 1 & 2 of Article IV, and invites the Congress to explain this.

 

[FirebirdV8]

The Bill of rights as a whole are the rights of every US citizen, regardless of state. I don't believe that a state can randomly change how a guaranteed right is applied to a certain person. If allowing a certain state or local government can ban a certain gun or not allow handguns at all (Chicago for instance), that would mean our freedom of religion could also change from state to state, or our freedom of speech, or due process. No politician would dare make the same claims about the other original 10 amendments that they make about the 2nd. I do believe that the right to self-protection is a God given right that shouldn't be legislated to by local, state governments or even the federal government (unless they are simply reaffirming our right to self protection).

 

[Bat Guano]

To me it's a two part process. First, according to Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is no law. Secondly, catch me--if you can.

Tyrants come in all sizes, and they all seem to think they have the right to control our lives and thinking.

When the politicians develop a conscience about wildly irresponsible spending, and secure the border, they might have some credibility.

Don't think I'll hold my breath or change my habits.

 

[Crazy K38]

I do see where you are coming from and from that angle I would agree, but the system is set up so that the federal gov. can add rights without the state, BUT they cannot take rights without the state, so not really hipocritical but not really right either

 

[pharmer]

I don't know why the .gov needs to get involved in this issue at all. The 2nd A is an INDIVIDUAL right as are all the others. We shouldn't even need a stinking "license" to carry anywhere inside the US. Joe

 

[Crazy K38]

agreed pharmer, but you know good ol government if they don't have their finger in everything how do they get rich and 'keep us in check'

 

[smith revolver cop]

I am not sold on the hypocrisy in this instance. In addition to States' rights there are also the individual rights. And it is (sometimes) the role of the federal gov't to protect certain individual (dare I say inalienable) rights when certain States attempt to strip away the rights/privileges reserved to the individual…

SCOTUS has ruled (Heller) that the 2A is an individual right, but we have not yet seen a ruling to indicate that it is a "fundamental" right – which most on this forum would argue that it is…

This was not so much about federal law trumping state rights, but (IMO) about federal law protecting the rights/privilege of the individual that may be trampled by certain states….

I agree- was it trampling on "states' rights" to pass the 14th amendment and apply Constitutional privileges on the states? Not at all. The sorry part is that it takes the Congress to make a law guaranteeing the exercise of this Constitutional rights; the sorrier part is that the Congress didn't enact the law.

 

[flop-shank]

The sorry part is that it takes the Congress to make a law guaranteeing the exercise of this Constitutional rights; the sorrier part is that the Congress didn't enact the law.

I agree, and off with their (political careers) heads!!!!!!

 

[bigc45]

I hate to say it... but it's true. I think we're being a little
hypocritical when it comes to the nationwide reciprocity bill.

How often do we complain about the federal government stepping on the states toes? Anytime the feds talk about a ban on certain weapons, we cry "It's the states decision!"

When a bill comes up though that would create nationwide reciprocity, DESPITE the wishes of some states, we are all for it. When it fails, we complain that the federal governmant didn't pass the bill mandating noationwide reciprocity.

I was upset about this bill failing until realizing this. We can't have it both ways. I feel that yes, we are a little hypocritical in this situation.

We can't say "Feds, stay out of the states' affairs... unless it's something that we support."

JMO

I'm sorta new on this board but I've been reading it for quite awhile. I'm a Commercial Truck Driver......my license is valid in all fifty states. My wife has a regular Michigan Drivers License........it's good in all fifty states. If you move to a different state you must get a new license from that state. C.P.L.'s should be the same way. Driving is only a privilage......self defense is a right. I think the nationwide reciprocity bill is a good think and makes perfect sense.

 

[BigRich315]

I'm sorta new on this board but I've been reading it for quite awhile. I'm a Commercial Truck Driver......my license is valid in all fifty states. My wife has a regular Michigan Drivers License........it's good in all fifty states. If you move to a different state you must get a new license from that state. C.P.L.'s should be the same way. Driving is only a privilage......self defense is a right. I think the nationwide reciprocity bill is a good think and makes perfect sense.

+1, very nicely stated.

 

[USAF385]

I can see what you're saying, MrJT.

However, since the 2A applies to everyone regardless of which state they reside in, to me the states don't have the right to restrict guns in the first place.

 

[MR .44 Spl]

I thought the funniest thing in the whole debate was when one of the senators from Califonia (I forget which) complained that the proposal was a violation of states rights.

I'm not quite certain how they were able to say that with a straight face. I can't recall a single other time when one of the uber-liberals in congress tried to make a states-rights argument. Usually they are firmly on the side of an all-powerful federal government as their path to utopia.

 

[Gutpile Charlie]

Welcome to the forum Bigc45. You are spot on. Couldn't have said it better my self!

 

[user]

I hate to say it... but it's true. I think we're being a little
hypocritical when it comes to the nationwide reciprocity bill.

How often do we complain about the federal government stepping on the states toes? Anytime the feds talk about a ban on certain weapons, we cry "It's the states decision!"
...

I hear you, but I disagree. The question is whether the U.S. Constitution says it's a state's prerogative or the fed's prerogative.

For example, I think the federal prohibition against being in possession of a firearm within a thousand feet of the outer perimeter of the land on which any school is located is hogwash for just that reason. That law has absolutely nothing to do with interstate commerce, and is an attempt to regulate the ownership, possession, and use of firearms, which are exclusively state law prerogatives. The U.S. Sup. Ct. has repeatedly stated that the states have exclusive and superordinate control over health, education, public welfare, and the police power. The U.S. has absolutely no authority to attempt to regulate possession of firearms within the states (as opposed to within the U.S.: Guam, the Virgin Islands, Washington DC, military installations, etc.).

The Court has also repeatedly stated (mainly in the context of civil rights cases) that people traveling from state to state is absolutely a matter of interstate commerce. Commerce doesn't just mean sales of goods and services, after all. So the U.S. can absolutely regulate the conditions under which people travel to and from state to state. Article 1, Section 8, U.S. Const.

 

[tom turner]

Don't worry about being hypocritical on this issue, if that's what it is . . . for there are plenty of hypocrites on BOTH sides of the aisle in Congress.

A vote for a Nationwide Reciprocity Law is simply adding one more layer of protection that the anti's would have to spend years to overcome . . . in case there's another move to eventually ban all guns.

 

[Goldstar225]

I thought the funniest thing in the whole debate was when one of the senators from Califonia (I forget which) complained that the proposal was a violation of states rights.

I'm not quite certain how they were able to say that with a straight face. I can't recall a single other time when one of the uber-liberals in congress tried to make a states-rights argument. Usually they are firmly on the side of an all-powerful federal government as their path to utopia.

You're absolutely right!! I noticed it myself when I saw Pelosi speak on the issue. I thought "This is probably the only time you've been concerned with states rights".

No hypocrisy on our side as I see it. Just trying to ensure that all States observe established constitutional rights.

 

[FHBrumb]

It's the same as folks yelling that all the "new" bills are Socialist, and we hate Socailism!!! Now, could we please get more Federal Funding for our Schools and Police Forces?

It's funny to me that this has not come up as an easier sell, however. After all, all States choose to honor every other States Driver's License, at least in the short term. I think that exact set would be good for CCW. Not to permanently honor, but honor it for travel through, and for like 90 days if you move there, or whatever the time limit is for the Driver's License...

And Cash for Clunkers? I heard a guy on the radio complaining that all the vehicles were being crushed. He said the Government should give them to people that need them. Then he went on to call lots of other folks a Socialist...

What we really need, is what will never happen. We need a President, Congress, and Supreme Court full of Justices that clarify the Second Amendment by simply reading it word for word. Any degree of interpritation is a loss for us. Every CCW permit system is just a measure of gun control...