House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

[Polk]

I think "shall not be infringed" is pretty ******* absolute, don't you?

No, I don't.

Using your standard, people should be to own nuclear weapons. Criminals should be allowed to own guns. People with severe mental disability should be able to as well. No court has ever endorsed that standard, and for good reason.

For one fissionable material is highly regulated and almost impossible to purify to the extent needed for a bomb and much of the equipment and materials needed aside from the fissionable material are astronomically expensive and highly regulated as well. But if I chose i could pretty much build a nuke sans the fuel. It would be useless but I could do it.

Fissionable material is highly regulated because we've made the social choice to do so. In a world where there is an absolute right to own any weapon, there would be no legal grounds for doing so.

 

[Polk]

They're not.

States can add MORE restrictions...not less. That's the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution at work.

Take for example drinking laws. 19 is the age of majority in Alabama...but 19 year old's can't drink. Why? Because Alabama gets federal money for roads if the state's legislators change the law. Alabama can make things MORE restrictive than the Constitution...but not less. Make sense?

that is not accurate. if the law makes it more strict and conflicts with federal law, then no they cannot.

Yes, they can.

 

[Polk]

I never said there was a right to drink. Stop clouding the issue.

And yes, the Supremacy Clause means that Federal Law wins over State Law. A state can add MORE restrictions, but can't make laws LESS restrictive than Federal law. I deal with this on a weekly basis in my work as a lawyer, so I'm going to side with myself on this one. K? thx.

So a state can make the right to free speech or freedom of religion more restricted?

How by requiring licensing to speak or practice religion?

And do you think states would be able to pull that off without legal fallout?

States already do that to an extent (you can't just declare your house as a church to avoid paying taxes).

 

[Skull Pilot]

This thread is why the right's claims about "state's rights" are laughable.

No state is allowed to supersede the rights of speech or religion. Why should a state be allowed to interfere with the right to bear arms?

States are allowed to interfere with both of those rights. If my religion mandated human sacrifice, I couldn't kill you because of it.

No one is allowed to murder with impunity except the state that is.

So a permit to speak or to practice a state sanctioned religion is OK with you?

How about requiring that people pay for the right of protection against unlawful searches?

After all if one can be forced to pay to exercise one right guaranteed by the constitution then why not force people to pay for all of them. What a revenue generator that would be.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I never said there was a right to drink. Stop clouding the issue.

And yes, the Supremacy Clause means that Federal Law wins over State Law. A state can add MORE restrictions, but can't make laws LESS restrictive than Federal law. I deal with this on a weekly basis in my work as a lawyer, so I'm going to side with myself on this one. K? thx.

So a state can make the right to free speech or freedom of religion more restricted?

How by requiring licensing to speak or practice religion?

And do you think states would be able to pull that off without legal fallout?

States already do that to an extent (you can't just declare your house as a church to avoid paying taxes).

That's a tax issue not a practice issue. Practicing religion has absolutely nothing to do with tax status

 

[jillian]

if it restricts or obstructs the right to carry arms, it falls under the second amendment.

That only works if you assume the right to bare arms is an absolute.

The right to life is A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E.

.

really? starting when? in utero... when it's a sperm... when it's a ovum? when it's two cells? four? eight?

when it's a rodent? a bovine?

when is the right to life absolute and on what do you base that assertion? (reminding you in advance that the declaration isn't binding law... you know, just to save you the embarrassment).

so you believe the death penalty is wrong? that war is wrong? that killing in defense of your own life or another's life is wrong? you're a vegan?

 

[pgm]

Fine open carry

Open carry is better than concealed, in my opinion, but I'm not sure that really addresses what reasonable restrictions a state can place on where you carry your gun. For example, you don't get to carry your gun into the state legislature or a school and you can't carry it onto a plane. Should the state have the right to restrict you from bringing it into a public library or onto the subway? Cars are a bit different, since that's your property.

 

[Polk]

No state is allowed to supersede the rights of speech or religion. Why should a state be allowed to interfere with the right to bear arms?

States are allowed to interfere with both of those rights. If my religion mandated human sacrifice, I couldn't kill you because of it.

No one is allowed to murder with impunity except the state that is.

So a permit to speak or to practice a state sanctioned religion is OK with you?

How about requiring that people pay for the right of protection against unlawful searches?

After all if one can be forced to pay to exercise one right guaranteed by the constitution then why not force people to pay for all of them. What a revenue generator that would be.

Sure, but preventing that murder would be an interference with my religion freedoms. That's the point. The biggest problem with your analogy is that you equate any sort of restriction with a ban. That's not accurate.

 

[jillian]

So a state can make the right to free speech or freedom of religion more restricted?

How by requiring licensing to speak or practice religion?

And do you think states would be able to pull that off without legal fallout?

States already do that to an extent (you can't just declare your house as a church to avoid paying taxes).

That's a tax issue not a practice issue. Practicing religion has absolutely nothing to do with tax status

it's both. churches aren't taxed because it was intended that a government not be able to tax a church out of existence or to discriminate in favor of one religion or against another vis a vis taxation.

 

[Londoner]

I support state's rights.

Why does the Right always want a one-size-fits-all solution imposed by the Federal Government?

Whether it be the war on drugs, homeland security, or gun laws, the Right always wants the Fed to tell the states what to do.

When I'm in the US, I live in a state with very "relaxed" gun laws. I like this. My brother, on the other land, lives in a state with tight gun laws. He likes that. To each his own. People should be able to live in the state of their choice without having to having to worry about Washington bureaucrats.

I don't need some Big Brother Nanny Government to impose my views on other states.

When will the Right stop using the Federal government to impose their garbage on the states?

I don't care what the law is. If it's a federally imposed solution, it's wrong.

(Will someone please protect us from Big Government Conservatives. They're coming back in 2012 and they will do what they always do: grow the Federal government)

 

[JWBooth]

I support state's rights.

Why does the Right always want a one-size-fits-all solution imposed by the Federal Government?

Whether it be the war on drugs, homeland security, or gun laws, the Right always wants the Fed to tell the states what to do.

When I'm in the US, I live in a state with very "relaxed" gun laws. I like this. My brother, on the other land, lives in a state with tight gun laws. He likes that. To each his own. People should be able to live in the state of their choice without having to having to worry about Washington bureaucrats.

I don't need some Big Brother Nanny Government to impose my views on other states.

When will the Right stop using the Federal government to impose their garbage on the states?

I don't care what the law is. If it's a federally imposed solution, it's wrong.

(Will someone please protect us from Big Government Conservatives. They're coming back in 2012 and they will do what they always do: grow the Federal government)

What he said.

 

[Skull Pilot]

States are allowed to interfere with both of those rights. If my religion mandated human sacrifice, I couldn't kill you because of it.

No one is allowed to murder with impunity except the state that is.

So a permit to speak or to practice a state sanctioned religion is OK with you?

How about requiring that people pay for the right of protection against unlawful searches?

After all if one can be forced to pay to exercise one right guaranteed by the constitution then why not force people to pay for all of them. What a revenue generator that would be.

Sure, but preventing that murder would be an interference with my religion freedoms. That's the point. The biggest problem with your analogy is that you equate any sort of restriction with a ban. That's not accurate.

Chances are you could kill someone and only after you did would you be jailed.

I am unaware currently of any religions requiring human sacrifice but the case you bring up illustrates a conflict between the rights of 2 individuals. But I will say that if one person volunteered to be killed in the name of his religion then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Now my carrying a gun does not conflict with any right of any other person does it?

Telling me that I must pay to exercise a right guaranteed in the constitution is contradictory. A poll tax would never be acceptable nor would the state requiring permits to engage in any nonlethal religion. How would you like the state to issue permits for a fee stating who could or could not be be a Baptist or a Catholic or who could or could not talk about the government in public?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Fine open carry

Open carry is better than concealed, in my opinion, but I'm not sure that really addresses what reasonable restrictions a state can place on where you carry your gun. For example, you don't get to carry your gun into the state legislature or a school and you can't carry it onto a plane. Should the state have the right to restrict you from bringing it into a public library or onto the subway? Cars are a bit different, since that's your property.

If you are a phyical threat to the public then yes their should be a restriction if you are insane yes their should be a restriction If you are not a respondsiable person yes there should be restriction.

Should the state have the right to restrict you from bringing it into a public library or onto the subway

If a person legaly purchased a firearm why shouldn't they be allowed to take their firearm anywhere they choose to?

 

[Skull Pilot]

States already do that to an extent (you can't just declare your house as a church to avoid paying taxes).

That's a tax issue not a practice issue. Practicing religion has absolutely nothing to do with tax status

it's both. churches aren't taxed because it was intended that a government not be able to tax a church out of existence or to discriminate in favor of one religion or against another vis a vis taxation.

You are presuming that a church is needed to practice a religion. It clearly is not.

 

[Londoner]

I remember when the Bush Fed went into California and over-turned their marijuana legislation. George was taking a page from Reagan, who used the War on Drugs to create sweeping Federal controls over the States.

Everyone knows that the GOP loves to grow government just like the Liberals (same thing, different day). They don't just want to make Washington big enough to control the 50 states, they want Washington to be powerful enough to rebuild whole Arab nations.

The only people who don't see this kind of stuff are "Talk Radio Republicans". They've been convinced that the Republican Party wants small government. Everyone knows this is false ...

(everyone except the useful idiots)

God help us because they are coming back in 2012. Get ready for the War on Terrorism on steroids. Get ready for Big Government Surveillance and biometric ID cards. The Republican Party loves to grow government. God help us.
A hidden world, growing beyond control

Save the Republican Party Ron Paul! Please Save it!

 

[Londoner]

Ron Paul doesn't want the government to tell private restaurants who or what or how to serve.

Ron Paul doesn't want Big Brother to tell adults what substances they can or can't put in their body.

Ron Paul doesn't want Big Brother to intervene in other countries for their resources.

(Ron Paul doesn't think Washington can protect people from evil doers. Ron Paul thought Bush created a wasteful National Security bureaucracy based on a
utopian myth: total safety)

Ron Paul doesn't want Big Brother to tell woman what to do with their bodies.

Ron Paul wants freedom.

Big Government can't end poverty.
Big Government can't end terrorism (-in fact, any attempt to end evil or poverty will only bankrupt the country. You can't solve every problem with bureaucrats and money)
Big Government can't control global temperature.

Please - I'm begging the Right - stop giving Washington so much money and power to solve impossible problems. Government can't fix all the world's problems. We can't afford another 8 years of Bush. We can't afford military adventurism. It is impossible to change the worldview of 1 billion Muslims (-only a "Talk Radio Republican" believes Washington is powerful enough to Save the universe.)

(God Help Us because they are coming back in 2012)

Life includes risk. Deal with it. Stop turning to Washington for protection. Be your own first responder.

The War on Drugs doesn't protect children, it only wastes money. Besides: only strong families can protect children. The War on Terrorism doesn't make us safer, it only make Washington more powerful.

(They're coming back in 2012, and they will use the terrorist threat to scare us into giving Washington more power. God Help us!)

(Total safety is a utopian myth)

(The corporations who own the Republican party do not want small government. They want no-bid contracts: they want access to tax payer dollars, i.e., they want access to the biggest source of free money on the planet. God Help US because they are coming back in 2012 )

 

[Ernie S.]

No, I don't.

Using your standard, people should be to own nuclear weapons. Criminals should be allowed to own guns. People with severe mental disability should be able to as well. No court has ever endorsed that standard, and for good reason.

nuclear weapons are pretty well regulated. One could assume the private owner of such a weapon would intend more than the defense of his home and person. Fully equipped and armed aircraft carriers would fall into that category as well.
Prohibiting the insane and violent people from owning weapons would fall under the intended meaning of the welfare clause.
Where the slope begins to get slippery, is when government limits the use of personal combat weapons, up to and including fully automatics.
My ownership of a 20 megaton bomb presents a clear danger to the public. My ownership of a Thompson sub-machine gun does not.
The dozen guns of various types stored withing 6 feet of where I sit pose no danger to you or anyone else. I, myself, pose you no danger until you enter my home uninvited.

Now you're contradicting yourself. Your original argument is that the "right to bare arms" is absolute. Now you're arguing that it is absolute, but only if the weapon is intended to defend "home and person". You also claim to support prohibitions against weapons ownership by the "insane and violent". That, by definition, means you don't consider the right absolute.

OK I contradicted myself. Great catch. You caught me. I admit I'm sane. No private person should own their own nuke or cruise missile, no aircraft carrier.
No psychopath or violent felon should possess a gun.
WHY?
Because a sane man would recognize that allowing the above puts society at real risk. It is the responsibility of government to limit that risk, is it not?
I, on the other hand have a closet full of weapons. Most would vouch for my sanity, and I have never committed a violent felony. I may or may not carry one or more weapons in public. You'll never know without a pat down. I do not present a risk to the public, in fact I have prevented crime due to concealed carry.

 

[pgm]

If a person legaly purchased a firearm why shouldn't they be allowed to take their firearm anywhere they choose to?

Private businesses? Private residencies? Public Schools? The White House? The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum?

 

[Skull Pilot]

If a person legaly purchased a firearm why shouldn't they be allowed to take their firearm anywhere they choose to?

Private businesses? Private residencies? Public Schools? The White House? The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum?

So people having guns means they will shoot everyone right?

Maybe if another citizen was armed those people would not have has the chance to kill as many. The ******* cops sure didn't stop it.

 

[J.E.D]

So much for the GOP loving states rights.

but don't you love the states' righters wanting the feds to step in when its an issue THEY like

So now beg reb is for big federal govt getting bigger in their powers?

I suggest you folks pick up a copy of the Bill of Rights and read it and maybe you'll stop engaging in such ridiculous hyperbole.

I suggest you cons stop being hypocrites. Which is it - are you for or against states rights? Bill of Rights, schmill of rights - if the US congress is pushing for a bill that will allow neighboring states' gun laws to supersede my state's gun laws, then the US congress (more specifically, the GOP) is not too serious about states rights. Spin it how you wish, just don't act like states rights are the gospel when you support such legislation.