Republicans claim to be in favor of local control and states rights, but you wouldn't realize it from their ham-handed efforts to use the federal government to prevent states from controlling their own destinies.
Wednesday the House of Representatives passed the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act," a bill that would force all states to recognize the concealed gun permits that other states issue. This law is controversial because some states allow just about anyone to carry guns, including former felons.
Republicans are also behind efforts to override state laws that prevent out-of-state insurance companies from offering insurance to citizens in states where the company has no real presence (and hence no real ability to provide the services the customer is paying for).
Republicans in the Bush administration were also responsible for the No Child Left Behind law, which was perhaps one of the most intrusive federal mandates into local control of education since federally mandated busing to end school segregation.
They've also been trying for years to pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage, forcing federal control over state marriage laws.
Republicans want to force state reciprocity for concealed weapons, but forbid it for openly gay marriages.
Allowing any clown to carry a loaded gun on their person anywhere they go is simply a dumb idea. Remember Plaxico Burress, the football player who shot himself in the thigh when the Glock tucked in the waistband of his sweatpants started sliding down his leg?
If this bill becomes law there won't be a plague of deaths across the land. And neither will those concealed weapons stop any significant number of crimes. But it's just unwise. Even Tombstone, Arizona in Wyatt Earp's day had stricter gun laws than they do today. If this law passes, some number of Americans, maybe 20, 50 or 100 per year, will be shot or killed because some nitwit brought a gun into a place where he shouldn't have. It's just a needless waste of blood and money and time.
The most galling thing about this is how Republicans so shamelessly forget their states rights mantra every time it comes to them forcing what they want on the rest of the country. To be sure, Democrats have variously backed local control for some things and federal mandates for others. But they've never claimed to have a rigidly simplistic and pure ideological stance proclaiming states rights are so completely inalienable that guys like Rick Perry think Texas should be able to secede from the Union if their tender sensibilities are offended.
Democrats have always contended that issues can be complicated, and some things are handled better locally while others are handled nationally. And they also acknowledge that, as technology and society change, the balance changes, things get more complicated or simplified and the way we do things may need to change.
The simple fact is, different people in different places and different situations need different things. A rancher in snake-infested Arizona near the Mexican border has very good reasons to carry a loaded weapon. A football player going into a New York City club -- most likely ferried door-to-door via limo from his posh lodgings -- has no business carrying a gun into a place filled with drunks.
Untrained amateurs carrying loaded weapons in crowded places are a demonstrably greater danger to themselves and the innocent people around them than they are a deterrent to any would-be assailants. Hand guns fired in haste are notoriously inaccurate, and bystanders are very likely to be hit instead of the target. Anyone gunning for Plaxico in that club would shoot him first, in the back, from cover, and then disappear into the crowd very possibly without anyone even seeing them in the mass confusion. Liberal concealed carry laws make the assassin's job that much easier.
People should be able to have guns to hunt, for target shooting, for collections, and to protect their homes (though, honestly, you're much more likely to have it stolen, shoot a family member or commit suicide with it than deter an intruder). If you live in the middle of nowhere it's no big deal carrying a gun in your glove compartment to fend off the coyotes dogging your sheep. But cities like Washington, New York and Chicago should be able to regulate gun usage as they see fit, within reason, just as Cochise County should be able to.
Forcing New York to abide by Cochise County's gun laws makes as much sense as forcing Cochise County to abide by New York's parking laws.
Under this law, would a church or women's shelter have no right to prevent an abusive spouse from out of state from entering their building with a loaded weapon?
Why stop at gun laws? Why not make all states recognize lawyers who've passed the bar in other states? If I live in Texas If prostitution is legal in Nevada, why can't Nevada prostitutes ply their trade in Omaha? If California decriminalized marijuana use, Californians should be able to smoke weed on the steps of the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, right?
One of the basic institutions of our legal system is that everyone is treated the same. With this law would that be the case? Could someone from Texas go into a bar with a gun, while someone from New York could be arrested the instant they set foot in the very same joint?
When someone comes into your home, they have to play by your rules. Isn't that the conservative way? Why should people with guns have more rights than the rest of us?
2 comments:
Where do you get your information? Did you actually read the bill? It isn't long, in fact only 2 pages. It is no way invalidates states rights. There is no provision for overriding a state's prohibition of concealed carry so people still can't carry in Illinois or DC. Furthermore, this bill states specifically that the laws of the state must be followed where they are carrying. At least in mine, you can't carry in a bar and you can't carry if you are drinking alcohol and those would still be valid.
All it does is recognize another state's license - just as they do now with a driver's license and local requirements still apply.
As to your other crap, these were gems:
If this bill becomes law there won't be a plague of deaths across the land. And neither will those concealed weapons stop any significant number of crimes.
Both of these statements have been proven false in every case where concealed carry has been implemented. Every time. So what do you have to stand on making these statements? They have never been true except in liberal fantasies.
But this has to take the cake for most stupid statement posted to this blog (and it would take a doozy to get that title):
Anyone gunning for Plaxico in that club would shoot him first, in the back, from cover, and then disappear into the crowd very possibly without anyone even seeing them in the mass confusion. Liberal concealed carry laws make the assassin's job that much easier.
So, do assassins look at laws before they ply their trade? Would a concealed carry law stop them from murder?
An assassin is the very definition of breaking laws against murder and you think some silly restriction on concealed carry is going to make his job harder? Wow
Liberal knee-jerk reaction - thanks N. How unexpected - not!
I was curious how the proprieters were going to handle this - as it was an acid test for the Obama Admin that M has so often claimed to be gun friendly.
Post a Comment