Fears of Interstate Handgun Laws Soon Forgotten?

Fox News ^ | July 21, 2009 | John R. Lott, Jr.

[ThomasHart]

Tomorrow morning the US Senate will vote on whether to allow concealed handgun permit holders to carry handguns across state lines. The legislation sponsored by Senator John Thune (R, SD) would only allow reciprocity in permitting, as anybody would still be required to obey the laws of the states that they travel in. This is the same way driver's licenses work.

Yet, gun control advocates are predicting the worst. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D, NJ) warns it is an "attempt by the gun lobby to put its radical agenda ahead of safety and security in our communities." Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D, NY) calls it a "harmful measure" that will put the public at risk. Senator Chuck Schumer (D, NY) says: "It could reverse the dramatic success we've had in reducing crime in most all parts of America."

The claims echo those made when concealed-handgun laws were originally passed, when gun control advocates warned that permit holders would lose their tempers and there would be blood in the streets.

Obviously that never happened. . . . .

[freekitty]

Don’t let Congress get anywhere near interstate or intrastate.

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

Already shot down....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2298354/posts

[Daveinyork]

I don’t know what part of “shall not be infringed” is not clear. It does not limit the prohibition against infringement to the Federal Government.

[Pistolshot]

Thankfully, this has been defeated.

If you let the Feds control how and what, the Feds can control the who and when.

[Durus]

All it did was enforce “full faith and credit” for state issued licenses. The 2nd amendment should not be allowed to be infringed by the states.

[buccaneer81]

So I should not be able to defend myself and my family if I drive through Massachusetts on the way to Maine?

Second Amendment = Federal = All States.

This is not a states rights issue.

[Pistolshot]

If you let the Feds define equal qualification under the law, you give them the opportunity to define the parameters under which that law can be used. Regardless of what the 2nd Amendment says.

Gun control in this country was instituted incrementally, it will not be eliminated in one swift blow, but incrementally.

The 2nd amendment should not be allowed to be infringed by the states

You can wish this as hard as you want, but the law of the land is the law of the land until we elect officials that understand what the Constitution actually means.

[School of Rational Thought]

Thankfully, this has been defeated. If you let the Feds control how and what, the Feds can control the who and when.

The Feds would be in no more control the they are issuing drivers licenses. Resisting urge for sarcasm. Oh, I can't resist. Are you a Congressman, voting nay on something you have not read. Could not help myself. ;-)

[Pistolshot]

Let me answer your sarcasm with a little of my own.

Are you an idiot not to know what allowing the Feds to have anything to do with a states issue can bring?

So let's think a moment. I know it might be hard for you, but try.

Say this amendment did pass....hooray!!!!! We can carry anywhere we want if the law in that state has a CCW provision!!! YAY!!!!!

Congress then comes along and says...."You know, there are too many variation among the states for CCW....we can do better. And since we are going to write the uniform laws for the nation, maybe we should have the records of those who have permits now and determine by OUR standards if they should be allowed to carry. Maybe we should know what they are carrying and have some way to track that weapon and ammunition."

Now, you MIGHT think I'm being a little paranoid. If history has taught us anything, and you seemed to have missed Civics in the public school you went to, but government that wants to 'help', usually wants control.

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

+1

Excellent.