HuskyCaucasian Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 CNN.com- The Senate is due to vote at "high noon" Wednesday on a controversial proposal to allow people to carry concealed weapons from state to state. The measure, which has split Democrats, would require each of the 48 states that currently allow concealed firearms to honor permits issued in other states. Supporters of the measure argue it would help deter criminals; opponents claim it would endanger innocent people by effectively forcing most of the country to conform to regulations in states with the loosest gun ownership standards. Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican who is a co-sponsor of the amendment, argued Wednesday that gun licenses should apply across state lines, like driver's licenses. "People travel," he said on CNN's "American Morning." "We have truck drivers on our roads, people traveling for vacation in their vehicles, and if you have a license… you should be able to use that license in other states. It should apply like a driver's license," he said. He argued that concealed weapons deter crime. "Carrying a concealed weapon is a sign of self-defense, self-protection, and I think it lowers crime," he said. And he said people carrying guns would still have to obey laws where they are. "The law of the state where that person happens to be at the time are the laws that apply if terms of if you're allowed to carry a gun into a bar or restaurant… State rights continue to apply there." But Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City and an opponent of the law, said the proposed amendment tramples on states' rights. "Wyoming shouldn't be subject to New York state laws, and we're going in that direction," he said. "What's right for the people of Wyoming isn't necessarily right for the people of New York and vice versa." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I'm all about concealed carry but this is flagrantly taking a s*** on states' rights. If, for a relatively extreme example, I choose to live in a state with liberal laws that include more gun control measures, why should Texas or Arizona be able to override my state's laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Next step, a national standard for concealed weapon training and one license. Be careful what you wish for NRA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Voted down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 22, 2009 -> 12:14 PM) I'm all about concealed carry but this is flagrantly taking a s*** on states' rights. If, for a relatively extreme example, I choose to live in a state with liberal laws that include more gun control measures, why should Texas or Arizona be able to override my state's laws? Ding ding ding! I fully support the right to own rifles and handguns. Always will. I don't like the idea of carry/conceal permits but I can live with them. But, this really would have bothered me. I'm glad it was voted down. To my knowledge, everyone in Vermont who gets a handgun permit automatically get's a carry/conceal, Illinois doesnt even allow handguns (right?) and some states don't allow carry/conceals. Also, most states don't honor permits from others. And that's the way it should be, IMO. Each state should make their own rules and should not be told by the federal government what they should and should not have to do here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Cook County/ Chicago doesn't allow handguns but most of the rest of the state does. No CCL, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 There are some things that can be decided on a state by state basis, others it just is not practical. Ask anyone who has travelled with guns, keeping up with each state's laws is a pain in the ass. Same with motorcycle helmets. The RV example was perfect. Crossing seven or eight states and being in compliance in all states must be a pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Just see post #1 in the "State Your Unpopular Opinions" thread for a solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 22, 2009 -> 11:14 AM) I'm all about concealed carry but this is flagrantly taking a s*** on states' rights. If, for a relatively extreme example, I choose to live in a state with liberal laws that include more gun control measures, why should Texas or Arizona be able to override my state's laws? I'm all about allowing teenagers to drive but this is flagrantly taking a s*** on states' rights. If, for a relatively extreme example, I choose to live in a state with strict laws that include more driver's education and probation periods, why should Illinois or Ohio be able to override my state's laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 QUOTE (Tex @ Jul 22, 2009 -> 01:11 PM) I'm all about allowing teenagers to drive but this is flagrantly taking a s*** on states' rights. If, for a relatively extreme example, I choose to live in a state with strict laws that include more driver's education and probation periods, why should Illinois or Ohio be able to override my state's laws? It's always nice to compare apples to scientific calculators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 QUOTE (Tex @ Jul 22, 2009 -> 02:11 PM) I'm all about allowing teenagers to drive but this is flagrantly taking a s*** on states' rights. If, for a relatively extreme example, I choose to live in a state with strict laws that include more driver's education and probation periods, why should Illinois or Ohio be able to override my state's laws? Driving ≠ guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 22, 2009 -> 01:14 PM) It's always nice to compare apples to scientific calculators. The point I was trying to make is there are some things where there just has to be a national reciprocal agreement. As a society we are too mobile. Plus, would anyone really support a cash strapped state implementing a special driver's permit for visitors? That would be ridiculous. But in other things we do accept a state by state difference. We buy fishing and hunting licenses by state. So a blanket statement that a state can make laws for everything and not be forced to honor another states laws is unworkable and a detriment to the national picture. We are supposedly *united* states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 QUOTE (Tex @ Jul 22, 2009 -> 02:08 PM) There are some things that can be decided on a state by state basis, others it just is not practical. Ask anyone who has travelled with guns, keeping up with each state's laws is a pain in the ass. Same with motorcycle helmets. The RV example was perfect. Crossing seven or eight states and being in compliance in all states must be a pain. Simple solution, then don't bring your gun(s) with you. If you still want to, do your research/homework and do what you gotta do to prepare for it. Certain countries require tourist visas, some don't let you in at all. Wouldn't it be a lot easier if there was just one set of guidelines to international travel? It must be a pain in the ass if you are going around the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 QUOTE (Tex @ Jul 22, 2009 -> 02:21 PM) The point I was trying to make is there are some things where there just has to be a national reciprocal agreement. As a society we are too mobile. Plus, would anyone really support a cash strapped state implementing a special driver's permit for visitors? That would be ridiculous. But in other things we do accept a state by state difference. We buy fishing and hunting licenses by state. So a blanket statement that a state can make laws for everything and not be forced to honor another states laws is unworkable and a detriment to the national picture. We are supposedly *united* states. So maybe we should get rid of the state system altogether then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 22, 2009 -> 02:14 PM) It's always nice to compare apples to scientific calculators. Heh, you're about as anti-gun as possible, I didn't expect you to go this route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 22, 2009 -> 01:34 PM) Heh, you're about as anti-gun as possible, I didn't expect you to go this route. Just pointing out an unfair comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jul 22, 2009 -> 01:28 PM) So maybe we should get rid of the state system altogether then. Or get rid of the federal government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 QUOTE (Tex @ Jul 22, 2009 -> 01:37 PM) Or get rid of the federal government You are truly the ultimate slippery slope guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nixon Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 It really is an unfair comparison, you're way more likely to be killed in or by a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 22, 2009 -> 11:14 AM) I'm all about concealed carry but this is flagrantly taking a s*** on states' rights. If, for a relatively extreme example, I choose to live in a state with liberal laws that include more gun control measures, why should Texas or Arizona be able to override my state's laws? All my posts focused on this comment. Would establishing a nationwide standard be s***ting on state's rights? The example used by the sponsors of the bill was a driver's license. Therefor, does every state being forced to accept the driver's license from other states s*** on state's rights? I do not think so. Later It was posted that we should just get rid of the state system. I offered or get rid of the federal system. Both are equally silly solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 23, 2009 -> 10:17 AM) You are truly the ultimate slippery slope guy. Seems like a fair response to getting rid of the state system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 QUOTE (Tex @ Jul 25, 2009 -> 01:43 PM) Seems like a fair response to getting rid of the state system. I have often slammed you for jumping many hundreds of steps further in your arguments than called for or feasible many times, But I kinda agree here. Your reply seemed about as fair as the statement you replied to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 25, 2009 -> 08:22 PM) I have often slammed you for jumping many hundreds of steps further in your arguments than called for or feasible many times, But I kinda agree here. Your reply seemed about as fair as the statement you replied to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts