Conservative values collide in feud over firearms bill

JS Online ^ | CRAIG GILBERT

[wcbtinman]

Just more effort to complete the process of turning a natural, God given right into a govt granted priveledge.

I guess Sensenbrenner can't read, and also swore an empty oath.

[wcbtinman]

"What's the solution?"

You and I both know what the "solution" is.

If I posted it however, it would be quickly deleted. We really can't talk about the ultimate implementation of the Second amendment.

[toddst]

How about we let citizens in good standing carry their firearms anywhere in the country, giving antsy Americans a new, no-cost layer of protection. Oh, we can't do that!

We can and we should. Perhaaps a benefit of the whole anti-terror push will be a national reciprocity concealed carry agreement that does parallel driver's licenses. The national conversation is going this direction - over the protests of anti-gun groups!

[Redbob]

James Sensenbrenner is a "States' Rights" supporter? He'd have to be the first such to come from Wisconsin.
Suspend disbelief all ye who enter here!

Here's why I oppose this idea: Why give cops any more special privileges that the citizens can't have?

[cruiserman]

We basically have 50 different state laws that regulate police officers and concealment when we cross state lines, and we simply don't know them all. We don't have a clue."

Now you know how us regular citizen types feel, you maroon.

[Maelstrom]

bingo.

[Rifleman]

I don't much care for this "special privilages for the rulers" business either, but in this case, it breaks through a barrier that I want broken. In Missouri, I could then point to this law and say "why can some ex chicago cop who is probably as corrupt as little dick daly be able to carry and I can"t get a CCW permit under any circumstances?"

[Maelstrom]

bump

[Ohioan]

The Police power is a State power. It is outside the Federal sphere--Bill Clinton's posturing on the subject notwithstanding. We need to be consistent.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[steve-b]

"If I were a Wisconsin police officer, I wouldn't want to have somebody I was suspecting of carrying a gun fumbling around in his pockets (for an ID)," Sensenbrenner said.

What a bunch of crap. The only legitimate reason for the cops to demand someone's ID is if they're dealing with someone who appears to be up to no good. In that case, they should assume that the suspect might be armed, and stay alert accordingly, whether ordinary law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry or not.

[fire_eye]

I don't much care for this "special privilages for the rulers" business either, but in this case, it breaks through a barrier that I want broken. In Missouri, I could then point to this law and say "why can some ex chicago cop who is probably as corrupt as little dick daly be able to carry and I can"t get a CCW permit under any circumstances?"

yeah... it's an interesting debate, between the two positions you mention.

I tend toward the conclusion that *any* relaxation of firearms laws for *any* group of people is desirable "on balance" as a further erosion of the anti-gun laws, despite my distaste for treating cops as a special class of extralegally-privileged citizens.

However, that said, laws of all sorts have a way of producing "unintended consequences" - for instance, would this open the door, by way of legal precedent, for further restriction of those of us mere mortals who were *not* thus Federally privileged to carry weapons? I'd be interested to hear what a firearms lawyer would have to say about this, in terms of its potential implications as a legal precedent...