Kansas GOP Sens. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts both supported a measure narrowly defeated in the Senate Wednesday that would have allowed a gun owner to carry concealed weapons across state lines if he have a valid permit from his home state, even if he didn’t meet the permit requirements in the other state. Brownback’s spokesman said the law change was “common sense” and would have made it “easier for the 48 states with similar conceal carry laws to offer reciprocity.” But former GOP Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia argued that forcing states to comply with weak permitting laws in other states “flies in the face of federalist principles” regularly espoused by Republicans.“As conservatives, we usually oppose nationalizing what is best left to the states,” he said. But not when it comes to guns.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Daniel on Open thread 11/23
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Daniel on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
107 Comments
And the vote was 58-39 in favor.
““flies in the face of federalist principles” regularly espoused by Republicans.“”
…as Tom Coburn said ‘he would support the Dems in the states right argument if they’d agree to a bill on enumerated powers and restoring the 10th Amendment. Think there will be any takers?’
I’m a Federalist. But basic civil rights trump any States rights as far as I’m concerned.
And please don’t tell me it’s a rural vs urban thing. 13 of the 20 largest cities(by population) are in states with concealed carry legislation.
I can understand a long haul trucker having a carry permit to protect his rig and life when on the road. It initially seems silly that as he travels across state lines – he has to pack or unpack his weapon of choice.
Then I think of a motorcylce rider having to stop at state lines and put on or take off a motorcycle helmet.
I don’t see this as a limitation on the 2nd Amendement but maybe a trampling on states rights.
Many states have reciprocity agreements with other states now. Why not pursue this on a state by state level? If some states don’t play….
Avoid them, or put your helmet back on as you drive through.
Of course states rights are only important to liberals when it supports liberal views.
Take regulating the banks and mortgage companies for instance….
The Constitution already guarantees this right; no one should have to have a permit to carry.
“The reality of that particular situation is the gang members already have their guns…. The people who need this bill are the ones that the gang members might be threatening,” countered Sen. James Webb (D-Va.), a supporter of the Second Amendment.
It’s interesting this is portrayed as a “state’s rights” issue. It is that, of course. But as usual it’s not that simple.
States rights is an important principle, but it’s not the only one. Fundamental constitutional rights are another, and trump any states rights claim, if one believes that carrying a weapon concealed is a fundamental constitutional right (and I’m not quite willing to go there as of yet; I’ll take some convincing).
But reciprocity is something usually taken for granted. We drive on our driver’s licenses in any state, understanding that we are responsible for following the traffic laws of the state we’re in nonetheless. Legal decrees of states are routinely recoginized in other states; in my business, a conviction in any state is a conviction in all. The constitution expects this principle to be normal. See Art. IV, Sec. I: 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.
So this bill is not out of the realm of usual matters. It’s remarkable only because of the highly political nature of the subject. What’s equally remarkable is the games played on the vote, and that’s what this vote was, in effect: a test vote, offered for political effect. See this –
–
After a morning of angry speeches, a vote was called at high noon. Toward the end of the vote, Pryor entered the chamber through the back door, took a few steps inside, flashed a thumbs-down to the clerk, and retreated as fast and furtively as somebody dodging gunfire.
Several minutes later, the Democrats had racked up more than enough votes to block the proposal. “Are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote?” the presiding officer inquired.
Pryor burst back in, this time through a side door. “Mr. President!” he called out. “Mr. President!” He stopped in the well to consult with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a gun-control advocate who was keeping the whip sheet. Schumer gave Pryor a nod, and the Arkansan — reassured that his vote was not needed to defeat the proposal — changed his vote to an “aye.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072203282.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
—-
What would the vote have been without the cowardice and posturing?
And there is, of course, the irony of those who routinely care nothing about states rights – who regularly assert the self-invented fiction that “states’ rights” is “code” – cynically invoking the cause of state’s rights. In other words, in many ways it’s not really about states’ rights at all. It’s about guns, and the inordinate and entirely irrational fear of those citizens who submit themselves to their local law enforcement to legally carry the means to protect themselves or their families.
And for those who support such legislation, they’ll tell you that it’s not really about guns, it’s about freedom. It’s about the relationship of the state to its citizens, and who is servant, who is master. Many are convinced (see Cynical above) that the very act of having to get a permit to carry a weapon is an infringement in itself (as I said, I’m not quite willing to go there).
As I said – I’m not all that sorry to see this piece of legislation die; seeing the principles of the 2nd Am incorporated as against the States is the cause that needs to be advocated right now, and the cases to be the vehicle for that are in the process of coming to the SCOTUS. What is really interesting is, for those old enough to remember “gun rights” in the 70s and 80s, in those days, when the 2nd Am was routinely written off as a dead letter: who’d have thought we’d be here? Setbacks aside, the gun banners are losing the war. Decisively. And that’s a very good thing.
At this point, the really interesting – and fun – part is watching Chas attempt to come up with a way for the SCOTUS to do what he has said will likely happen: strike down a law that wasn’t passed.
Having any luck, Chas?
This propsed law is just common sense. In addition to long haul truckers, many retired people (who are often preyed upon) do have CCW permits and carry weapons in their motorhomes as they enjoy their retirement travels. This lack of reciprocity is silly.
States already do a limited amount of reciprocity. For example, South Dakota and California require 2 license plates on cars registered in those states. Police can and do stop people displaying only one plate–except for cars from states like Kansas and Florida that only require one. This reciprocity example is a simple thing, but proves it can be done.
Since Vermont and Alaska are the only states that follow the constitution regarding guns, would the people in those states be allowed carry guns in other states? I agree US Constitution trumps state law the way I see it every state gun law is unconstitutional
At LAST a setback for the paranoid and their pop guns.
NOW we need to get them back out of the National parks before they ruin them. Guns aint but one thing, bad.
And I wonder if means when I ride my motorcycle in Nebraska I don’t have to wear a helmet since here in Kansas we don’t have helmet laws
BlueJay
Posted July 23, 2009 at 9:12 am | Permalink
At LAST a setback for the paranoid and their pop guns.
==========================================
How is it a setback?
Nothing changed, nothing was ‘moved back’.
The line for me was when they wouldn’t leave the National parks alone.
It becomes obvious to me that the gun nuts will not be satisfied until it is legal for them to walk about brandishing their weapons.
until it is legal for them to walk about brandishing their weapons.
====================================
CC is not ‘brandishing’, that’s kinda the point.
“I’m a Federalist. But basic civil rights trump any States rights as far as I’m concerned.”–Heckler
You bet, individual basic civil rights trump both.
“Guns aint but one thing, bad.”—BlueJay
When you’re irresponsible and stupid you may be right BlueJay, you know yourself.
‘Life’s tough……it’s even tougher if you’re stupid.’ — John Wayne
#
ANTI
Posted July 23, 2009 at 9:32 am | Permalink
until it is legal for them to walk about brandishing their weapons.
====================================
CC is not ‘brandishing’, that’s kinda the point.
============
heh heh
GMC70
Posted July 23, 2009 at 8:59 am | Permalink
At this point, the really interesting – and fun – part is watching Chas attempt to come up with a way for the SCOTUS to do what he has said will likely happen: strike down a law that wasn’t passed.
Having any luck, Chas?
===============================================
ONE MORE TIME — JUST FOR GMC….
The vote AGAINST thelaw that WASNT passed, in my opinion, is unconstitutional… Cant you GET MY POINT??? Or are you just Snarking, as usual???
Go back, and READ what I posted… IDIOT!!
I don’t know why it is that the gun nuts are so concerned about their right to cross state lines and ruin National parks. I should think most of them are the type that would not like to be too far from their bunker and store of thousands of rounds of ammunition. They aren’t completely naked with a pop gun and a few rounds they can carry. But they must still feel like a fat guy wearing nothing but a speedo.
BlueJay, your ignorance is in full display.
I suggest laying your plumage down.
Anti
Let Grasseater bleat on. It’s kind of fun to watch.
“But basic civil rights trump any States rights as far as I’m concerned.” [Heckler]
GMC — Heckler provides the legal issue on this anti-gun vote by the Senate…
Try dealing with that issue
GMC
“As I said – I’m not all that sorry to see this piece of legislation die; seeing the principles of the 2nd Am incorporated as against the States is the cause that needs to be advocated right now, and the cases to be the vehicle for that are in the process of coming to the SCOTUS.”
I agree. Buts it’s fun to see a bill like this used to make the haters of the Constitution sweat.
So, Chas – you’re saying that voting AGAINST reciprocity is the unconsititutional act? Really? It’s unconstitutional to vote against a bill?
That’s not what you origiinally wrote, of course, but I can accept an evolving position. Even you can learn something; I know you think you know everything, but that would also mean that you know that you don’t know some things. You know?
Anyway – Even if so, how exactly would the SCOTUS review that?
I don’t hate the constitution nor the 2nd amendment. I do strongly advocate State’s rights and in saying as much, I’d have to agree that the Federal Government forcing a state to accept another state’s right to CC would go against State’s rights.
A few comments and back outta here
1)I believe the second amendment applies to indiduals
2)I believe that concealed carry is to be promoted and nothing to be afraid of
3) I believe the states have a right to limit concealed carry, and not recognize the CC license of another state unless some sort of compact is formed and should not be forced upon by the Federal government
4) I believe that that same right of states rights
applies to MANY other “requirements” mandated by the Federal government, including the “rights” of states to define their own healthcare programs, whom they define as “married couples” drivers liscense applicabilities, Educational goals and programs, etc and etc and etc. Much has been forced down the throats of states governments, in the name of Article 4, Section 2 of the US CONSTITUTION. However, if all the above is valid under said article, the CC permits should be valid also. Much more has been forced down the throats of the states governments by extortion or bribery (the threatening of withholding federal money). that’s on the state governments. THey should know better than to take the money if there are strings attached to which they disagree.
” until it is legal for them to walk about brandishing their weapons.”
I believe in Kansas we can walk down the street wearing our six shooter in holster on display today.
Legally, I can brandish my guns even today.
The bad thing about individual states rights is that it tends to promote a “patchwork” effect.
Just sayin…
XXX uniformity is a good thing?
Just like in the service? Everyone wear the same uniform? March the same way.
I always thought the fifty states could have their differences – unique laws. We are no longer 50 individual states united under a protecting federal government.
The flipside, of course, is national gun regulations, which are perfectly possible under the Supreme Court’s Heller decision.
Gun lovers, be careful what you wish for.
P.S. Shouldn’t “full faith and credit” also apply to something like marriage? Just sayin’. Even if most states maintain their Neanderthal prohibitions against civil rights for gay people, they certainly must recognize civil contracts between two parties that were drawn up in another state.
And that’s certainly a more compelling circumstance than optional regulations on firearms, which are permitted under Heller, and are not inherently a constitutional violation.
American_Way
Posted July 23, 2009 at 10:35 am | Permalink
XXX uniformity is a good thing?
Just like in the service? Everyone wear the same uniform? March the same way.
_______________________
Amway, it worked for you for 20-odd years, LOL!
I believe that if the issue exists only within the boundaries of the state, it’s a state issue. Beyond that (commerce, transportation, etc), it should be FED.
Just my humble opinion.
“Rage” notes –
“Even if most states maintain their Neanderthal prohibitions against civil rights for gay people, they certainly must recognize civil contracts between two parties that were drawn up in another state.”
Yup.
It kinda speaks to my favorite professor in college who encouraged us to think like geographers.
We’ve got this hodgepodge of states shaped by their times, the landscape, the politics of the era, and a Constitution which imbues these disparate patches of real estate a certain amount of abstract sovereignty.
In all ways but an artificial border the Beautiful People of Overland Park (B-POOPs, for short) aren’t all that different from the folks living on Wornall Road over there on the Missouri side. Omaha isn’t that much different from Council Bluffs now that there are bridges. The only-est reason El Paso isn’t Juarez (or vice versa) is than handy little river that shaped a state.
It reminds me of my favorite unwinnable and lost cause: Professor Pearcy’s 38 State Map.
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2006/09/10/5-the-38-state-union/
It’s based on population, the economic base (industrial, agricultural, etc.), media dominance, cost of living, etc.
So Seattle and Portland are in the same state and San Francisco and LA aren’t. It gets rid of those tiny postage-stamp-sized states from the 1700s and makes ‘em into a couple of new New Englands.
Check it out.
The flipside, of course, is national gun regulations, which are perfectly possible under the Supreme Court’s Heller decision.
Gun lovers, be careful what you wish for.
—
Exactly, Rage. That’s in large part why I’m not sorry to see this particular bill die.
It’s clear that Democrats defeated the Nationwide Concealed Carry Bill. 37 of 39 No votes were DemoRats.
As Chas said, I suppose the SCOTUS will challenge this. :)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00237#state
NAYs —39 Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
believe in Kansas we can walk down the street wearing our six shooter in holster on display today.
Legally, I can brandish my guns even today.
-Amway
—-
Correct. Unless there is a local ordinance against same. Wichita has one, El Dorado does not. Check your local laws before strapping on that iron!
Gosh, I am so surprised!
The WE Blog linked this topic to Politico.com!!!
I know the 2nd has not yet been incorporated to the States, but surely that assumption was made by those truly supporting the Thune Bill?
If the SCOTUS does not incorporate the 2nd, that pretty much nails the coffin on the 2nd.
Those ‘living document’ types I’m sure could find some way to rule that the 2nd is somehow different then the rest of the Bill of Rights which have been incorporated.
If the personal Freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights and other Amendments do NOT apply to the States, then I suppose Slavery could return, if say Robert KKK Byrd’s State wanted to bring it back.
Cynical
Posted July 23, 2009 at 7:37 am | \l “comment-623598″
The Constitution already guarantees this right; no one should have to have a permit to carry.
Cynical not it does not, you are reaching, you have a right to have a firearm, the Government can not take that or your weapon away without real cause. But the right goes only to you owning the weapon it does not grant you the right to carry it.
Funny, you gun haters out there probably don’t know that the KS gun carry permit is accepted in 22 other states besides KS.
And KS recognized gun carry permits from 47 other states! (Only IL and WI people can’t carry in KS)
writerdog
Posted July 23, 2009 at 12:24 pm | Permalink
Cynical
Posted July 23, 2009 at 7:37 am | \l “comment-623598?
The Constitution already guarantees this right; no one should have to have a permit to carry.
Cynical not it does not, you are reaching, you have a right to have a firearm, the Government can not take that or your weapon away without real cause. But the right goes only to you owning the weapon it does not grant you the right to carry it.
==============================
What does “bear” mean?
Maybe the authors were talking about the animal.
American way I know the son of the once was chief of Police of Salina, they in fact had that happened.
At least once a week the Police would get a call most times from the local Dillon’s. There was a guy who would wear his holster and carry a Dragoon in the holster. A large western style six shooter, he would routinely walk the streets and shop at Dillon’s.
You are right it was not illegal as it was not concealed, they could ask him please to not carry it while shopping as it would cause people to become upset. But they could not force him not to.
The Police started a different tactic, the Guy was sighted for spitting on the sidewalk once and the finally insult was when he was caught in a Motel room with a woman other then his wife. Adultery at least at the time was illegal in Kansas. He was formally charge and fined from the court. It made the news as it had been the first time in several years since anyone had been charged with Adultery.
The guy finally agreed to quite carrying his six shooter.
” the finally insult was when he was caught in a Motel room with a woman other then his wife. Adultery at least at the time was illegal in Kansas. He was formally charge and fined from the court. It made the news as it had been the first time in several years since anyone had been charged with Adultery. ”
Subjective enforcement of the law. Nice.
” the finally insult was when he was caught in a Motel room with a woman other then his wife. Adultery at least at the time was illegal in Kansas. He was formally charge and fined from the court. It made the news as it had been the first time in several years since anyone had been charged with Adultery. ”
Subjective enforcement of the law. Nice.
sorry for the double post.
What it means is to bear arms in defense of the country and home or as a citizen soldier in a irregular army.
The concern was against the confiscation of personal weapons, the 2nd amendment is against the disarming of the citizenry by the Government. A state can grant you the privilege of carrying a weapon every state has that ability. But the point that is being confused and misstated is that the 2nd amendment is solely concerning federal laws and Federal Governmental actions concerning limitations and confiscation.
State rights and personal rights is a different ball game.
Subjective enforcement of the law. Nice.
Littlejohn actually there is quite a bit about law enforcement is just that!
Subjective enforcement to archive the desired outcome in the masses.
You have to admit if you are having an affair and read that someone had just been arrested for having an affair. Would that not make you reconsider making the next meeting? But of course that was not the intent in this. The man was causing a social disruption within the community, one that the act itself was not illegal.
The man did get the point though as he quit causing that social disruption.
I am not into “states rights”. States do not have “rights”. People have rights. And the right to bear arms and protect yourself and you property is clear under the 2nd Amendment. It does not stop at a state line. I have no problem and in fact fully support some restrictions on who can carry arms. You should have to prove you can safely handle them and hit what you are shooting at. But once you do that and get a permit, you ought to be allowed to carry it anywhere at anytime of your choosing with few exceptions.
States do not have “rights”.
Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
“States do not have “rights”.
Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”
States do not have “rights”. And the 10th has been largely replaced by the Commerce Clause which, as the country has become more modern, has come more and more into play. Back then the 10th was written, the country was largely a collection of farms and people rode horses. No TV, no radio, no phones. It simply is not valid for most things today when you can fly from NYC to LA in 4 hours.
Adultery at least at the time was illegal in Kansas.
Still is. KSA 21-3507.
And yes, law enforcement is somewhat subjective. with only two exceptions, officers have discretion as to whether to arrest. And prosecutors, with only one exception, have complete discretion as to whether to prosecute. It’s not mechanical, it takes judgement calls, all along the line.
In this case, LEOs obtained the desired result. And did so legally, at least as far as it appears. He could have refused to agree to leave the shooting iron at home, and faced the other potential consequences . . .
“Littlejohn actually there is quite a bit about law enforcement is just that!”
Being true and/or being factual, doesn;t make it correct. Just makes it true. I have major problems with law enforcement and civil authorities in general that bust the chops of people they don;t like, and let others get by with the same thing.
I guess the outcome was worth the loss of, in my mind, credibility.
writerdog
Posted July 23, 2009 at 12:46 pm | Permalink
What it means is to bear arms in defense of the country and home or as a citizen soldier in a irregular army.
————————————
This is your opinion, of course.
It doesn’t read this way in the 2nd Amendment.
You say “bear” means to defend your country or home, but you can’t defend your Self?
It’s ok to defend country and property, but not yourself?
Right.
I’m not against guns per se, I’m just against morons and crazies with guns. When they include an IQ test and an MMPI in the application for a CC permit, and only those who score fairly high on both get permits, then I’ll support CC. The problem of course is that it’s the morons and crazies who want guns the most, and want the most guns, and so will immediately form a Morons Rights Movement. And it’ll be pretty big!
I suppose the 1st Amendment could mean (in a truly LIVING document) that you have Freedom of Speech only while in your home.
Jed
Posted July 23, 2009 at 2:46 pm | Permalink
I’m not against guns per se, I’m just against morons and crazies with guns. When they include an IQ test and an MMPI in the application for a CC permit, and only those who score fairly high on both get permits, then I’ll support CC.
————————–
There should also be a reasonable restriction on the Freedom of Speech, to include a competency test, to prevent the truly crazy people from saying whatever they want to say.
Some foolish people actually believe the Constitution means what it says.
Go figure!
Kev
Posted July 23, 2009 at 1:41 pm | Permalink
Back then the 10th was written, the country was largely a collection of farms and people rode horses. No TV, no radio, no phones. It simply is not valid for most things today when you can fly from NYC to LA in 4 hours.
——————————
Yes! Another opinion saying the old Constitution is obsolete.
It must be a living document that means whatever we want it to mean today.
Because, you know, we have evolved.
“JimJohnson” asks –
“What does “bear” mean?
Maybe the authors were talking about the animal.”
That’s it!
You have the right to carry your gun anywhere as long as you’re accompanied by a bear.
That’s the solid constitutional law interpretation we’ve come to expect from you CONs.
“You have the right to carry your gun anywhere as long as you’re accompanied by a bear.”
Better get your bear quick. According to some Global Warming experts we are killing bears every time we turn on our IPOD’s.
According to some Global Warming experts we are killing bears every time we turn on our IPOD’s.
===============================================
Yeah, but using a 45-70 is more exhilarating.
When seconds count the police are minutes away
If you call 911, how long will it take?
Wichita police records show that response times last year varied from just over seven minutes in downtown Wichita to more than 15 minutes on the fringes of the city.
http://www.kansas.com/news/crime-courts/story/896946.html
(See this link for police response times in YOUR neck of the woods.)
Chas –
How’s that legal research going?
Why would the founders write “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”?
-One, you have the right to keep them. They are your property.
-Two, you have the right to bear arms, which is to CARRY them.
What would be the purpose to Keep arms, if your right to carry such arms is infringed? None. There can be no other reason to keep arms, if you have no right to Carry and Use them.
The pre-existing right of the people to keep and carry arms, is what is being protected by the 2nd Amendment.
“There should also be a reasonable restriction on the Freedom of Speech, to include a competency test, to prevent the truly crazy people from saying whatever they want to say.” [Johnson]
So Johnson, that would exclude you and other crazy people from saying whatever you want to say…. Hey, YOU said it… not me!!
GMC70
Posted July 23, 2009 at 4:46 pm | Permalink
Chas –
How’s that legal research going?
==============================================
What EXACTLY is your effing problem??? You’re the attorney… So, why dont you explain what your major problem is, especially, when I am SUPPORTING you and other CC proponents….
If you’re so smucking fart, what is it that you are all hot to trot about???
Damn, you’re dumb for a lawyer….
Say Chas, try Article III.
That’s where you should be able to find the SCOTUS power you mentioned yesterday, you know, when you said the SCOTUS would reverse the Senate’s failure to vote the National Carry Bill into law.
——————————————–
Chas
Posted July 22, 2009 at 10:44 pm | Permalink
Senate failed to pass a CC gun law…
I also suspect that the SCOTUS will reverse the Senate… based on their previous 2nd Amendment rulings…
Chas, did you forget this one?
Don’t let GMC bull ya over. I know you can find the appropriate language somewhere in Article III, of the US Constitution.
————————————–
Chas
Posted July 22, 2009 at 2:03 pm | Permalink
Just what in the HE!! are you ragging on me about now?? I mean, I just SAID that I suspect the SCOTUS would reject the “control” law passed by the Senate…
You’re the attorney… So, why dont you explain what your major problem is, especially, when I am SUPPORTING you and other CC proponents…. – Chas at 5:06
========
Nope. You don’t get to dump this one on me, Chas. This is your baby, all the way.
You made the assertion, that the SCOTUS would “reject the “control” law passed by the Senate.” Your assertion, your burden to support.
It’s just me, ya know, and, well, unlike you I don’t know everything and I’m wrong from time to time, but – - – I’m having a difficult time figuring out how the SCOTUS would “reject” a law that was not passed, but then I suppose you’ve got it all figured out and all.
We went through this earlier, after you claimed, well, just to remind you:
–
The vote AGAINST thelaw that WASNT passed, in my opinion, is unconstitutional… Cant you GET MY POINT??? Or are you just Snarking, as usual???
Go back, and READ what I posted… IDIOT!!
- Chas at 9:51
–
And the response:
So, Chas – you’re saying that voting AGAINST reciprocity is the unconsititutional act? Really? It’s unconstitutional to vote against a bill?
That’s not what you origiinally wrote, of course, but I can accept an evolving position. Even you can learn something; I know you think you know everything, but that would also mean that you know that you don’t know some things. You know?
Anyway – Even if so, how exactly would the SCOTUS review that?
——
Remember that little exchange? I’m sure you do, with your superhuman memory and all. So clue us in. I’m sure you’ve got it all figured out.
So – how’s that legal research going?
(I know, this is too much fun; it probably ought to be illegal. But sometimes one just can’t help himself . . . . )
Con/Republicans are ALL in favor of states rights/federalism for CC from state to state, but they want to deny the people of DC the opportunity to spend their own tax dollars to support abortion rights within the city.
What up with that?
I thought KS. law on CC was only on your person, not in your car
“You made the assertion, that the SCOTUS would “reject the “control” law passed by the Senate.” Your assertion, your burden to support.” [GMC]
1) I didnt make ANY assertions….
2) I said: I suspect some gun group(e.g., NRA or one like it) would take it to Court, as a violation of 2nd Amendment…
3) I ALSO said: I suspect that the SCOTUS would rule the Senate vote unconstitutional, due to their other votes on 2nd Amendment issues…
I WISH you would get it straight for a change… Cause, man, you are looking BAD, considering I am siding with the CC folks on this one…
Please also note that voting NO on this Bill has the effect of voting to CONTROL the “gun rights” people… IF you recall, the lead article specifically stated that Gun Control PROPONENTS won a RARE victory… because the Senate voted 58-39… The Bill needed 60 votes to pass…
Please note again… On THIS issue I am siding with the “gun rights” folks… And yet you keep ragging on this thing ad infinitum, ad nauseum…
So, why dont you just DROP IT… I thought as a lawyer, you would have figured out that I am siding AGAINST the way the vote went… After all, the 2nd Amendment is about Civil Rights… not about National laws…
Chas trips over his feet again:
2) I said: I suspect some gun group(e.g., NRA or one like it) would take it to Court, as a violation of 2nd Amendment…
lmao…
One of you Libs take Chas to the side and explain this to him.
GMC70
Posted July 23, 2009 at 6:05 pm | Permalink
(I know, this is too much fun; it probably ought to be illegal. But sometimes one just can’t help himself . . . . )
————————————–
I held back nine fingers and pecked with just one, hoping Chas might catch up.
I even pointed him to Article III, which should help him a lot! ;)
(He ck, there are three Chas posts I haven’t responded to yet on this! Holding in reserve)
BTW Chas, I know what happened, an honest mistake on your part, but you are so unable to admit it!
bones1958
Posted July 23, 2009 at 8:47 pm | Permalink
I thought KS. law on CC was only on your person, not in your car
———————-
Ok, so you walk everywhere, or leave your gun at home?
What’s the point of having the permit?
Sorta like being able to KEEP, but not BEAR arms.
You can have your Free Speech too, as long as you stay OFF the Internet, don’t write to your newspaper, and keep your mouth shut.
You know,
I seem to recall a few other times when the Supreme Court over turned the Senate or the House, when they failed to pass a Bill that was Constitutional.
Let’s see, now let me think a minute…..
Jim you are your home, being that home is made of your family and you. If a burglar enters your home it is not the structure that you can defend it is the health and well-being of you and your family if it is in immediate and unavoidable danger. You can not find out someone has broken into your house and having left then shoot them. In fact the very incident of them being in your house is not justifiable in shooting them.
what has to be driving the troops nuts in Iraq is that every household in Iraq is allowed to have one Ak47 in their house for defense and protection. They are not allowed to carry them on the street though, I guess that would make it easier to tell the citizens from the insurgents.
I am for the most part a federalist too, it kind of keep some of the loonies in Congress and the senate from
enacting some goofy laws that effect me. At least the way it is if Kansas passes a law that effects me that I do not like I can move to an other State. Don’t expect me to wave bye to Kansas if I did!
The 2nd is there primarily to safeguard the people against a oppressive United States government.
Yes so if the need arose the people can take up arms against the Government. Also in the case of a foreign invasion we could defend ourselves and the country. As it happens we can also defend ourselves against each other if the need comes. But it does not grant that you can walk around with a weapon!
As GMC pointed to that local Government can pass law that forbids you from carrying in public.
Failing that you can carry legally in a open manner in Kansas. As a former Law enforcement officer I do not recommended it though. It does make a cop kind of nervous when seeing an armed person. “Better judged by 12 then carried by six”.
Johnson, you sorry SOB… just what mistake do you think I made??? Hmmmm???? IDIOT!!!
Say Chas, it was the Stimulus Bill! That’s it!
Obama threatened the entire Congress with the Supreme Court, if they failed to pass that Simulus Bill fast enough.
No matter that nobody had time to READ the Bill.
Chas
Posted July 23, 2009 at 10:54 pm | Permalink
Johnson, you sorry SOB… just what mistake do you think I made??? Hmmmm???? IDIOT!!!
——————-
Oh, it’s plain for all to see,
Article III.
Suprised Chas you didn’t point that out.
Chas
Posted July 22, 2009 at 2:33 pm | Permalink
Chas
Posted July 22, 2009 at 12:12 pm | Permalink
“WASHINGTON — Gun control proponents scored a rare victory as the Senate rejected the carrying of concealed weapons across state lines.” [posted by Johnson]
First, I would highly suspect that the gun people will challenge this in Court…
Second, given the SCOTUS’ position on gun rights, I highly suspect the Senate will be over-ruled.
===========================================
OK GMC(Jackass) —- Just what is it you are disagreeing with me on here??? I?F I have said anything about the 2nd Amendment, it is only that SCOTUS would uphold it with passage of this Bill in the Senate….
So, WHAT ARE YOU CARPING AT ME FOR???
I wasnt looking for any arguments, but with your post above, I cant help myself…
I AGREE with your gun rights position, and STILL you bi*ch that I am wrong about something!!! Good Grief!!!
Must be a s l o w day at the Courthouse, eh??
——————–
Here Chas, you said the Senate would be over-ruled.
How would the Supreme Court do this?
The Constitution according to Chas:
1. Senate fails to pass the National Carry Bill.
2. Supreme Court over-rules thme.
Jimbo,
“There should also be a reasonable restriction on the Freedom of Speech, to include a competency test, to prevent the truly crazy people from saying whatever they want to say.”
When truly crazy people shoot guns, people die, sometimes lots of them; when they talk, not so much so. So how ’bout this- a law against religions proselytizing crazy people and talking them into shooting doctors the religion disagrees with, thus saving both the doctors and the crazy people. Reasonable compromise?
Jimbo,
“Some foolish people actually believe the Constitution means what it says.
Go figure!”
Actually, if you take a strict constructionist view, what our Founding Fathers allowed in the 2nd Amendment was single-shot flintlock rifles and muskets. they said nothing at all about automatic and semi-automatic weapons. You seem to want a considerably broader interpretation of that particular amendment than it’s original signers expressed. Go figure!
By that standard, Jed, you are entitled to freedom of the press, As long as you use a hand operated press with hand-set type, or write with a quill pen. You are entitled to freedom of speech, but no telephone, or telegraph, or television or cable broadcase, or technological enhancement of any kind.
Is that silly? Of course. And your 12:01 assertion is equally silly.
On the other subject: It’s probably time to put down the stick and stop poking poor, poor Chas. For now. Until he steps in it again, of course.
It’s said that the first step up in knowledge is to know enough to know that you don’t know; in other words, to be smart enough to understand that one is ignorant.
Chas isn’t there yet, at least as to so many things he posts on.
Chas – you’ve been taken apart. Again. You’re just not bright enough to know it. Would one of the bright boys on Chas’ side of the ideological fence please take Chas aside and explain to him just how the process works?
Likely last word from me. It was said before, but it bears repeating:
What is really interesting is, for those old enough to remember “gun rights” in the 70s and 80s, in those days, when the 2nd Am was routinely written off as a dead letter: who’d have thought we’d be here? Setbacks aside, the gun banners are losing the war. Decisively. And that’s a very good thing.
The flip side of your printing press analogy, “GMC70″ is this –
When the 2nd Amendment was written the arms referred to state-of-the-art military fire power.
Does that mean everyone should own an M-16?
Sure looks like it to me.
“Setbacks aside, the gun banners are losing the war. Decisively. ”
Oh, in a way.
The hillbillies, cranks, and paranoids with an interest in guns have more freedom, too MUCH freedom.
But their numbers don’t increase. My son for instance has never even seen a real gun. In estate sales that I am a part of, we turn in the guns we find for destruction.
Gun interest is being marginalized.
Gun interest is being marginalized.
=======================================
That’s odd, because gun sales have been through the roof for many months.
People who already have guns buying more guns.
BlueJay, there have been record ‘new buyers’ in the market for guns.
But go on believing your fantasies.
BTW BlueJay,
Obama created the gun run.
I bought my first gun in January. A shotgun for upland bird hunting.
However the more I tune into the likes of MSNBC to see how the other half thinks, I’m likely to buy more.
GMC,
“By that standard, Jed, you are entitled to freedom of the press, As long as you use a hand operated press with hand-set type, or write with a quill pen. You are entitled to freedom of speech, but no telephone, or telegraph, or television or cable broadcase, or technological enhancement of any kind.”
According to the Bush ‘publicans, our telephones and e-mails can be (and have been) tapped at will, just in case we might be terrierists. They also managed to exclude or manage quite a bit of the press coverage of their various wars, massacres and tortures. And when their friends and contributors own pretty much all of the media, our freedom of information has been pretty much undercut. Your guys gave the executive branch an awful lot of power they shouldn’t have ever had over our various freedoms. Now we have a new administration, but it isn’t clear yet whether we’ll ever regain our former liberties.
My father had an interest in guns and hunting.
His kids talked him out of it. None of their kids has ever even handled a real gun.
Guns had their time and place. But among the evolved, they are no longer necessary.
Honestly BJ the evolved (unless they are vegans) would be healthier if they harvested their own meats.
“But among the evolved, they are no longer necessary.”
True, they hire someone else to do their killing
By the way, as much as I’d like to stay and argue, I’m off to spend the weekend listening to Catfish and shooting buzzards. Bye!
shooting buzzards
============================
Don’t get caught, I believe that is a felony.
When the 2nd Amendment was written the arms referred to state-of-the-art military fire power.
Does that mean everyone should own an M-16?
Sure looks like it to me.
—-
Interesting, MH, and a valid point. As I’ve previously noted, I am not a 2nd Am. absolutist; no rights are absolute. However, given the rationale behind the 2nd in the first place, and the current technology as MH points out, that’s not a bad call.
I do think that “reasonable regulation” means that any individual who is not otherwise barred by prior offenses should be able to buy, legally and without any special licenses, the same weapons that the police in his jurisdiction possess. If that means police get full auto assault rifles, well then so should the public be able to buy the same.
“If that means police get full auto assault rifles, well then so should the public be able to buy the same.”
GMC, that is usually the other way around.
It is the public that gets all the firepower first before law enforcement.
“”Yes! Another opinion saying the old Constitution is obsolete.
It must be a living document that means whatever we want it to mean today.
Because, you know, we have evolved.”"
It is not obsolete but it is a living document that has to be adopted to fit in modern technologicaly advanced America. You have to know that we are not even close to the USA that was here when the document was wrote. Everything has changed. The Constitution has to change with the times.
Do any of you remember Michael Soles? People over 50 ought to remember him. I will never forget him because if my grandmother had been about 30 seconds ahead, she probably would have been one of that fool’s victims. Maybe if somebody in the Holiday Inn had a GUN they could have stopped that idiot and ended his bloody rampage on the streets of Wichita.
“Maybe if somebody in the Holiday Inn had a GUN they could have stopped that idiot and ended his bloody rampage on the streets of Wichita.”
Kev, somebody did have guns but it did no good.
That is why Michael Sole had chosen the Holiday Inn, highest place in Kansas.