Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

So Much For Small Government (New York Times Masthead Editorial)
New York Times ^ | 10/26.2011 | New York Times Masthead Editorial

Posted on 10/29/2011 8:16:20 AM PDT by goldstategop

This extreme legislation, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, would obliterate state and local eligibility rules for concealed weapons and the state’s discretion to decide whether to honor another’s permits.

At least 36 states now set a minimum age of 21 for carrying concealed guns, and 35 states require some sort of gun-safety training. Thirty-eight states prohibit people convicted of certain violent crimes like misdemeanor assault or sex crimes from carrying concealed weapons.

The act would override those rules, requiring states with tight restrictions, like New York and California, to allow people with permits from states with lax laws to tote concealed and loaded guns in their jurisdiction. Wording added by the committee exempts people with a concealed-carry permit from one state from having to meet eligibility standards set by the state they are visiting.

The measure, pushed by the National Rifle Association, would undermine legitimate states’ rights by nationalizing lenient gun rules most states have rejected for themselves. It would increase the chance for gun violence and make it harder to combat illegal gun trafficking.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012election; banglist; concealedcarry; nationalreciprocity; newyorktimes; righttocarry; secondamendment; sliming4tyranny
Its hilarious! You would think a bill that would expand individual rights would be endorsed by the New York Times, right? Not when you're a gun owner. Suddenly, states' rights take precedence. When it comes to the Second Amendment, hardcore liberals discover their inner conservative.

Go figure.

1 posted on 10/29/2011 8:16:24 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I wonder what they would say if we citizens here in Arizona decided to NOT RECOGNIZE any DRIVER’S License from people from California using the sole reason that their standards are too lax and allow ANYONE to get a license regardless of their competence. Same Argument. Or maybe we should go 1 step further:

No License or permit issued from another State for any reason shall be Valid or recognized in the State of Arizona unless that State recognizes ALL Arizona permits and licenses.

Tit for Tat


2 posted on 10/29/2011 8:25:57 AM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

This is not a states rights issue, but a Constitutional issue. The Second Amendment applies to ALL states and citizens. What part of “Shall not be infringed” do they not understand?


3 posted on 10/29/2011 8:27:18 AM PDT by Crazy ole coot (Mr. obama (the squatter in the Whitehouse) is NOT a Natural Born Citizen!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

A license is a privilege, not a right. The RKBA is enshrined in the Constitution. It may not be popular with media liberals but the Second Amendment is there in black and white. If they don’t like it, they can work to repeal it.


4 posted on 10/29/2011 8:28:41 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Does this mean that state and local governments should be allowed to set their own rules on abortions too?


5 posted on 10/29/2011 8:29:34 AM PDT by hometoroost (Frodo lives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crazy ole coot
The 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to pass federal laws to protect the rights of American citizens. They are not disputing Congress has that power. They're simply saying certain states should be entitled to deny law-abiding Americans a fundamental constitutional right because they don't approve of its exercise. Pure and simple. The Supreme Court's holding in Heller has made no lasting impression on our media elites.
6 posted on 10/29/2011 8:32:42 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hometoroost

Liberals say no state should be allowed to infringe abortion rights. Then again, it perfectly illustrates liberal hypocrisy about states’ rights.


7 posted on 10/29/2011 8:34:28 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I agree, however by taking this approach it would force the Marxist Gun Grabbers to make that EXACT ARGUMENT. That IT IS A RIGHT not a Privilege. I say force the issue.


8 posted on 10/29/2011 8:34:39 AM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I love how the Times always write their anti gun tripe while hiding behind metal detectors and ARMED security guards.


9 posted on 10/29/2011 8:36:04 AM PDT by BookmanTheJanitor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Boo hoo NEw York Slimes, individual freedom gains, equal NYT loss.
10 posted on 10/29/2011 8:37:14 AM PDT by Sea Parrot (Democrats creation of the entitlement class will prove out to be their very own Frankenstein monster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
It would increase the chance for gun violence and make it harder to combat illegal gun trafficking.

The first part of the statement has been disproved so many times only a fool would use it. The second part doesn't even apply

11 posted on 10/29/2011 8:37:47 AM PDT by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

Your plan sounds good to me.


12 posted on 10/29/2011 8:38:31 AM PDT by Sea Parrot (Democrats creation of the entitlement class will prove out to be their very own Frankenstein monster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BookmanTheJanitor

I love how they invoke the small government meme on a completely irrelevant subject.


13 posted on 10/29/2011 8:38:47 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: paul51
Every state with right to carry laws has seen a decrease in crime and in black market trafficking. But the facts don't help the New York Times, so it plain has to make it up. More guns equal a more a safe and a more polite society.
14 posted on 10/29/2011 8:41:08 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

NYT is all for state’s rights, doncha know.


15 posted on 10/29/2011 8:42:44 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
That is RIGTHT, here in AZ no permit or license is required for CC. If one can legally purchase a firearm, then one can carry it concealed unhindered,
16 posted on 10/29/2011 8:44:04 AM PDT by Sea Parrot (Democrats creation of the entitlement class will prove out to be their very own Frankenstein monster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sea Parrot

In my opinion, this legislation doesn’t go nearly far enough. It needs to legalize Vermont-style carry nationwide. Then let the liberals go into paroxysms! :)


17 posted on 10/29/2011 8:47:04 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; wku man; SLB; ...
Where to start?

Typical leftist hypocrisy: All for Big Government when it forces the homosexual agenda, the welfare state, more suicidal environemental legislation, etc. down our collective (no pun intended) throats. But something that actually is mentioned in the Constitution -- nyet, comrade!

They're all for states' rights, until it threatens one of their golden calves. Double-plus ungood!

Of course, it's not hypocrisy when they do it.

Doom on these smug, arrogant, lying, manipulative cretins.

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

18 posted on 10/29/2011 8:58:20 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

The New York Times has given us the perfect gift in this editorial. For this logic is also applicable to the gay marriage issue.

States should not have to recognize the (insert license name here) of other states. The NYT goes for gun licenses... but there are marriage licenses, too.


19 posted on 10/29/2011 9:17:42 AM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Do You Want FR To Survive?


Click The Starving Forum Skeleton To Donate

Then Support Your Forum

20 posted on 10/29/2011 9:19:37 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sea Parrot
Yankee hypocrites
21 posted on 10/29/2011 9:23:57 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

“A double-minded man is unstable in ALL his ways.”
James 1:8

Looks like that applies to the New York Fishwrapper as well.


22 posted on 10/29/2011 10:48:20 AM PDT by Dick Bachert (And we all move a step closer to the One World Utopia -- where all but a few will be slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

Sounds good to me. If a license is a statement of standards then incompatibility different standards could indeed be grounds for denying a comparison.


23 posted on 10/29/2011 12:24:50 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Crazy ole coot

The 2nd amendment to what Constitution? If it is to the Federal Constitution then the 2nd amendment most clearly does not apply to the States.

We have nether the right nor the prudence to interfere in the Yankees attempts to disarm themselves. I’d rather the Marxist populations that dominate their states be disarmed. If they are willing to do that to themselves I’m not going to stand in the way. Better we have the military advantage to defend liberty and property from their aggression.


24 posted on 10/29/2011 12:31:11 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Were it me introducing legislation I would go for something simple:

WHEREAS the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the GCA (The Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618) is hereby repealed in its entirety.

Any court, state or federal, citing precedent cases which assume or assert the validity of the GCA in any way shall be charged with violating US Code Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 242 -- "Deprivation of rights under color of law." Further, if it is applicable, the court will be charged with violating US Code Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 241 -- "Conspiracy against rights." This section shall be binding to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.


25 posted on 10/29/2011 12:40:01 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

The equal protection clause only applies to gay marriage.


26 posted on 10/29/2011 2:37:46 PM PDT by outofsalt ("If History teaches us anything it's that history rarely teaches us anything")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

Each state upon acceptance into the Union agrees to abide by the U.S.Constitution. That includes the God given rights listed in the Bill of Rights. So, yes the states HAVE to abide by the U.S. Constitution.

The States Rights issue does not include any of the Bill Of Rights!


27 posted on 10/29/2011 5:41:59 PM PDT by Crazy ole coot (Mr. obama (the squatter in the Whitehouse) is NOT a Natural Born Citizen!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Crazy ole coot

“Each state upon acceptance into the Union agrees to abide by the U.S.Constitution. That includes the God given rights listed in the Bill of Rights. So, yes the states HAVE to abide by the U.S. Constitution.

The States Rights issue does not include any of the Bill Of Rights!”

Read the preamble of the so called “bill of rights” they were instituted to protect the people and their States from the Federal Goverment not the people and their states from themselves.

To assume otherwise is not only historic blasphemy its dangerously develing into the domain of Federal imposition which of course never end. You should know from our own history the minute the Feds started seeing the BOR as imposition on the States that opened the door for every evil from banning religion to roe vs. wade.

No, if the people of New York want to be disarmed pawns of their goverment that is their business. It makes no sense for any people any where to ratify a federal Constitution to protect to restrict their domestic freedom.

We have separate State Constitutions which are just as good & binding to protect us from our State, and we don’t have to compromise that with people living a 1000 miles away. Best of all if something does goes horribly wrong we can vote as individuals with our feet.

There is no rational, nor benefit to having the Federal Goverment dictate to our States anything beyond letting us leave to other states.


28 posted on 10/31/2011 1:05:06 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

Sorry that you are so confused, but the Bill of Rights are just acknowledging our God Given Rights and are not being conferred upon the people or states. What God has given us, the states or Feds cannot restrict.

Thanks for playing, but you are wrong. The Bill Of Rights applies to the States as well as the Federal Government!!

I have a God given right to bear arms and the states nor the Federal govenment are not allowed to infringe on that right.


29 posted on 10/31/2011 8:46:29 AM PDT by Crazy ole coot (Mr. obama (the squatter in the Whitehouse) just where were you really born??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Crazy ole coot

“Sorry that you are so confused, but the Bill of Rights are just acknowledging our God Given Rights and are not being conferred upon the people or states. What God has given us, the states or Feds cannot restrict.”

In that case I would like to assert my God Given right to not pay taxes, or my God given right take whatever I want.

God is no-doubt the origin of all of right, but in our constitution we cede a small & defined portion of them rights to the state for the protection of our remaining God given rights.

We do this by means of a Constitution for each respective Goverment Federal and State.

We did not cede our right to form state Governments as we see fit to the Federal Goverment in the “bill of right”. Nor did we attempt to define all of our God Given rights in the federal Constitution this is why we have the 9th amendments.

Such an enumeration would be imposable and would still not preclude us from ceding them same rights in anther Constitution to our State Governments.


“Thanks for playing, but you are wrong. The Bill Of Rights applies to the States as well as the Federal Government!!”

You know I find it annoying when liberals issue this arrogant line declaring victory out of thin air, I wonder if that’s why they do it? They cant possibly beleive they have defended their position with ridiculously easy to debunk falsehoods?


“I have a God given right to bear arms and the states nor the Federal govenment are not allowed to infringe on that right.”

They are if you so cede that right to them. Likewise you could also cede the same right to someone else via contract. A common example is private businesses where arms are forbidden.


30 posted on 10/31/2011 1:33:55 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

This will be my last response on this subject. I can read The Constitution and DO understand it. I have not ceded any of my Rights to the Government, state or fed. The Bill of Rights apply to the states as much as to the fed. I do not see an Amendment granting any government the authority to deny an American citizen the Right to keep and bear arms. The only thing I see is where it says that that right may not be infringed upon.

Im’ sorry if you libs cannot understand that or like it.


31 posted on 10/31/2011 1:46:03 PM PDT by Crazy ole coot (Mr. obama (the squatter in the White House) are you a Natural Born Citizen?? Prove it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson