So people are talking about a national concealed carry reciprocity bill, to protect citizens from being caught by unusual and impossible to understand local regulations. We can hope for the best for swift passage and being signed into law.
But why stop there? Consider someone traveling to a different State who unexpectedly finds themselves in a risky situation. Why shouldn't they be able to purchase the tools to protect themselves? Sure, it would be the sale of a firearm to an out of State resident. But if a CCW licensed person can be trusted to bring a firearm into a different State without causing riot and disturbance, why not let that same citizen buy a gun? It's not like you expect him to cause riot and disturbance, after all.
15 comments:
I am puzzled why I don't need 50 driver's licenses when I travel through the US, but I need, or can't have, a license related to a firearm.
That sounds logical, which is exactly why it won't become law.
Makes perfect sense to me...I do so agree. But, I'll not hold my breath.
If I recall correctly the reason for the home state restriction was mainly for processing and background check purposes. In today's computer age with Nics the restriction has outlived it's time.
The biggest argument I can see politicos wringing their hands about would be that say I were a resident of Kalifornia. I could by a handgun that wasn't on their list of vendors who paid them.
One step at a time :)
NM just recently passed a law allowing out of state residents in non-continuous states to be allowed to purchase.
You aren't allowed to say, "Modest Proposal," and then make a proposal which is modest. It's against the Swiftian Rules.
Or, another idea, and stay with me here...
...how about we pass a law that says something to the effect of "The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and then incorporate that federal law to all of the states and then live by that law, under the legal definition of "shall not be infringed" which translates pretty directly to "cannot be licensed or denied by any state actor whatsoever?"
I know that this is a pretty radical idea, but think about how much easier it would be if this were the case. Ohh, if only such a law existed!
Vending machines that check for CCW endorsement on your credit card, until that pesky Constitution thing kicks in fully. OK, security problems, but something should be workable.
I'm against it. The bill is not constitutional. It's bad when the left does it, and it's bad when the right does it.
It's bad because everyone is looking at it from the wrong angle.
Let me start with an example:
Washington state just passed a law allowing homosexual couples to get married. The left is cheering and the right is despairing. (Yeah, I'm generalizing a bit to keep this short.)
The left thinks they've won a battle by gaining permission from the government to get married.
The right thinks they've lost a battle when government says two men or two women are married.
They are missing the big point: The government does not give people permission to get married.
If you read Biblically, a man and woman come together and are one. (Sex = marriage) So why the hell would you want the government involved in that?
If you look at it from the left, a government that can suddenly allow gays to get married can be overturned so they later say 'no'. Is it your right to 'hang out' with whomever you want? Live with whomever you want? Sleep with whom you want? When you die, leave your belongings to whomever you want?
Well--now the right is doing the same thing with guns. We're begging the federal government to assume the power of being able to grant/deny things relating to guns--arguing that the government has the authority to grant us permission to carry firearms in various different manners and different states.
Well? What if they take it away? (They will eventually.)
I don't get permission to carry a firearm from the state. It's my God-given right.
I also don't ask the state for permission to be Christian, Jewish, Mormon or Branch Davidian. It's my right to worship how I choose.
I also don't ask the state for permission to say 'Bush sucks', 'Obama sucks', or 'The US Government sucks'. I have the right to speak freely about what I wish. It wasn't granted to me by government, so they can't revoke it.
Watch from about 7:30 until 9:10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVX6sIwyFVs
Then if you're even remotely curious about what rights you have lost, start with first video in the series.
Aaron, you make some good points, but you could argue that it's Constitutional under the Militia Clause. But IANAL.
If anything, it's legal to prohibit interstate sales under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
I don't like it and don't think it's right, but it is probably legal.
I wonder if it was always this way? I know that prior to 1968 you could buy a rifle through the mail without a C&R or FFL license from the federal government. Was there a time when you could walk into a store in any state and buy a handgun with just a license and some cash?
@Borepatch: I think you misunderstand the second amendment and its relationship to the Militia.
Here's a decent explanation in my opinion: http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_well_regulated_militia.html
Love the blog by the way--keep up the great work!
-A
Aaron, IANAL but my point was that Congress may have authority not under the 2A but under Article I.
TOTWYTR - Yes, there was a time prior to 1938 when guns were no different than flour - they were a good/commodity that was for sale that you could buy anywhere you wanted to go in any manner that you could imagine.
I think it is funny when people ask questions like this - how long before our children are saying things like "was there ever a time when you could go to any state and buy a car without a special license from that state to do so?"
Fact is, it hasn't even been a hundred years ago that buying a gun was nothing different than buying a wagon or a car or a bag of flour - you have the money? Good, here is your gun. Enjoy!
The funniest thing, to me, is that the crack down on guns came with a rise in violence caused by another government crack down on alcohol. More of that same old thinking - we cracked down on booze, and it caused more crime, so let's carck down on guns - I'll bet that will have the desired result!!!
@Borepatch: I am not a lawyer either, but Article One doesn't change a thing. It direct Congress to provide a means for calling forth the already-established militia to defend the Union. It also directs them to provide a way to organize, arm, and discipline them when they are employed in the service of the United States.
In time past, that used to mean they'd give you a certain amount of powder and musket balls.
But in order to form a militia--you need people. 'We the people' are formed (able-bodied men) into a militia to defend the nation using our own arms. It's less and less necessary now that the government can just order up their own mass-produced weapons and ammo on the cheap, but it was very necessary 'way back when'.
But at its core: The government doesn't *grant* me the right to speak freely, worship the God I choose, or what I use to defend myself from a bad guy or a bad government invading my land.
They didn't give me those rights, therefore they have no authority to modify, tweak, amend, change, or destroy those rights.
If you'll also recall from our founding documents, 'We the People' created the government--the government serves us. The created serves the creator. (Not sure if you're a religious man or not, but the same holds true with God--man serves him, not the other way around).
Lastly, the basis of our freedom is property and contracts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_contract). We are free to contract with whomever we want for whatever purpose. $20 to mow my lawn for example.
I didn't sign my name at the bottom of the constitution, nor did I swear an oath to follow it.
(As a "private citizen" you can totally say "You aren't allowed to carry a gun in my house" or "You can't bang on my door and discuss insert-a-religion-here")
You say "Congress may have authority...". They have exactly as much authority as "We the people" grant them.
Post a Comment