Dems urge Obama to veto HR822

[Mindflayer]

Dems urge Obama to veto HR822: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011 ... n-measure/

[Kreutz]

In the letter, the Democrats said it was “particularly surprising for Congressional Republicans to be pushing a measure that goes directly against their deep-rooted beliefs in states’ rights.”

They do have a point there. The only one in the article I would concede, but its a valid one.

[VBshooter]

Coming from 2 of the biggest buttholes on the planet (Lautenburg and McCarthy) is not a surprise..ALso not told is the Dems don;t like this bill because it contains no amendments and will only be voted on that way,,, I have my reservations about the feds being involved here ,,,I' m very leary of problems down the road with further attempts at gun control by a sleazy administration....Additionally states rights are somethng that they need to preserve and use more often to tell the feds "Go to Hell" "We don;t want your help or your blood money blackmail"

[grumpyMSG]

In the letter, the Democrats said it was “particularly surprising for Congressional Republicans to be pushing a measure that goes directly against their deep-rooted beliefs in states’ rights.”

They do have a point there. The only one in the article I would concede, but its a valid one.

Funny about your observation, that is one of the roles of the Federal Government enumerated in the Constitution laid out in Article 4 Section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

A more bizarre thought is that any pro-gun legislation would get through senate at all, Ol' Harry probably wouldn't want to be seen voting against it, so he just wouldn't schedule it to get to the floor.

[TenchCoxe]

I have to agree that it does seem to be a pretty hypocritical move by the Repubs, who claim to be all about state's rights and less interference by the federal government. It is pretty damn inconsistent with that supposed claim to then turn around and push a federal law that would require all states to accept concealed carry permits from other states, regardless of the wishes of the citizens and legislature of that state.

[Kreutz]

In the letter, the Democrats said it was “particularly surprising for Congressional Republicans to be pushing a measure that goes directly against their deep-rooted beliefs in states’ rights.”

They do have a point there. The only one in the article I would concede, but its a valid one.

Funny about your observation, that is one of the roles of the Federal Government enumerated in the Constitution laid out in Article 4 Section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

A more bizarre thought is that any pro-gun legislation would get through senate at all, Ol' Harry probably wouldn't want to be seen voting against it, so he just wouldn't schedule it to get to the floor.

My point wasn't the substance of the argument states should all accept permits; i consider the 2A (obviously) Federal..."shall not be infringed" is very clear cut.

The point was the anti-gun Dems are right in pointing out the seeming hypocrisy regarding states rights being seemingly infringed by this.

[TenchCoxe]

If anyone wants to apply the Full Faith and Credit Clause as a reason why states must accept concealed carry permits from other states, then prepare for it to also be used as a reason why states must acknowledge same-sex marriages from other states. Again, consistency, please.

[Kreutz]

If anyone wants to apply the Full Faith and Credit Clause as a reason why states must accept concealed carry permits from other states, then prepare for it to also be used as a reason why states must acknowledge same-sex marriages from other states. Again, consistency, please.

14thAmedement is pretty clear, I don't think any state has the right to refuse civil ceremonies to gays.

Shouldn't really be a state issue, but a recognition of federal law; just as the second amendment is clear no one shall infringe on our rights to be armed. States should not try and supersede the Constitution under the banner of states rights; states must allow free speech or freedom of the press, why do they get a pass on firearms?

[TenchCoxe]

The issue is that it has yet to be "found" by binding legal precedent that the Second Amendment includes a fundamental right to carry a concealed handgun anywhere you want to go. And in fact, in Heller, the SCOTUS expressly said that certain restrictions are valid. And I do believe that is consistent with the history of the right to keep and bear arms as it long has been understood in the U.S.

Because even though it always was generally understood that there was an individual right to have guns, there also have been local bans and restrictions on the concealed carrying of firearms all along. So I think you'd have a hard time convincing a court - or a legislature - that even a generous reading of the right protected by the Second Amendment would prevent a state from restricting the concealed carry of guns.

All we know from Heller and MacDonald so far is that the 2A forbids an outright ban of handguns for defensive use in the home, and that that rule also applies to the states. It remains to be seen how far we'll be able to push the extent of what a state can and cannot do before it is considered to be "infringing" upon the right to keep and bear arms.

As for me, my general default position is that it's usually undesirable to ask the federal government to "fix" something like this. More federal legislation rarely is the answer. And I am as yet unconvinced that the right to keep and bear arms, as protected under the Second Amendment, as long understood, extends to guarantee the unfettered right to carry a concealed handgun. As much as I would like it to - I have family in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York, and whenever we travel to visit, I have to leave my gun at home, because we end up driving through the strongly anti-gun enclaves of Maryland, NJ and NY.

[Diomed]

The findings attached to the original version of the bill are pretty clear in their intent, which is to protect an existing right of citizens currently denied by some states.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.

(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.