Skip to comments.Senate overcomes filibuster, votes to open debate on gun bill
Posted on 04/11/2013 8:54:36 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
click here to read article
These will hardly be my last words on any subject. :-)
Re-read this carefully. It says “Notwithstanding any provision of any law (including a rule or regulation) of a State or any political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by this chapter from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm or ammunition shall be entitled to- “(1) transport a firearm for any lawful purpose ...”, and spells out the conditions under which a state must allow an owner to transport a firearm.
If you still don't understand it, find a good lawyer who can explain the provision.
(btw, Ohio requires that you have a license (permit) if you want to carry a loaded firearm holstered. If you are a non-resident, you must have a license from a state which Ohio recognizes for reciprocity. The good news is that North Carolina is one of those states. So, if you have a North Carolina permit, you can continue to drive through Ohio with your loaded firearm in your holster. If you don't have a recognized license, Ohio requires that you carry the firearm unloaded and either in an enclosed case or in plain view with the action open.)
Sorry, that’s not a good trade. I understand what you are saying, but a state might as well ban traveling with a gun if I can’t have it loaded. “Any lawful purpose provided... the firearm is unloaded”. “Definition of Travel includes overnight lodging”. I’m better off with a baseball bat than an unloaded gun. I have a concealed permit, and understand the reciprocity laws of the states I travel in. But I see no provisions that preserve those rights. And when legislation like this is whip banged through the process like this one is, there is no chance for public feedback or proper analysis of the impact. Which is just what the traitors to the constitution want.
None of this should be open to debate. Otherwise, why not open up the 13th and 14th amendments to find reasonable restrictions? Maybe we can let Mexicans gain US citizenship with 3 years indentured servitude? That’s ridiculous of course, so why is tinkering with the 2nd Amendment tolerated?
I would much prefer that when a State passes an unconstitutional law, that the Feds use their power under the commerce clause as intended to make such laws unenforceable.
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.