it only lost by two votes. Come on NRA lets dig a little deeper and get this one passed. They give the "brady bunch'' much of the credit for spoiling it. There is an argument to be made and of course the anti's made it....CCW laws in a few states are very weak and need to be brought up to the same standards as say Ohio, Florida, etc. That one flaw lost us the vote.
The issue seems to be that some states (mine included) hand concealed weapons permits to anyone with no felony convictions and no training. Other states, which require a more rigorous application process, don't want to honor the permits from "easy" (my term) states. So, the solution seems to be that all states should require a level of application, training, and testing that is acceptable to all. I think that all civilians who carry should take serious training at a shooting institute, anyway, to be more full prepared to handle themselves and their weapon in a serious situation. Here comes the heresy: maybe this training should be required by law. I know, I know, another infringement on our 2nd Amendment rights. But it might go a long way in enhancing reciprocity between states and also to weaken the strident voices of the anti-gun lobby. Am I now kicked off this site for suggesting this?:fie:
we need to find out who voted against it , and return the favor come election time. there are a lot of gun owners and if we all got together we would be a formidable voting block. not just for gun ideas.
Sorry folks, I'm a states rights guy and I can't have it both ways. While I support the sentiment, I have to oppose the method. We should be working towards enforcing the 2nd amendment and working at the state level to promote our rights.
While we should work vigorously against any attempt to reduce our rights, this bill would have reduced states rights. And no, I do not believe Bloomberg when he claims states rights, I think he's full of it, and the people of New York ought to get rid of him, or abandon the city and state.
I believe in states rights also. The states have the power to regulate what is not provided for in the constitution. However as a US citizen I am covered by the 2nd amendment of the constitutuion. Which gaurantees my right to keep and bear arms. Read the writings of the framers and their concern was for the populace to be able to keep the government from becoming tyranical and for both personal defense and defense of the country. In CA my right to keep and bear arms is infringed by state law. I believe that the Ca approved handgun list is unconstitutional as well as the assualt weapon ban, which is no more than banning something because of looks, and the 10 round magazine law. I am also covered by artical 4 section 1 of the constitution that says that full faith and credit shall be given toeach state of public acts records and judicial procedings. As i read that when I cross a state line I should not instantly become a criminal.
Sometimes training isn't a bad idea. Even if it is just to educate individuals of some of the rules and regulations that go with CC.
We had a women in our class when asked why she wanted a CC licence she said, "So I can shoot the guy I see going into my garage all the time"
Our instructor said, "You can't just shoot him"
She said "why?"
That is when the instruction really started.
You are right, some training may be neccessary.
I always say if we don't Govern ourselves with common sense others will have to.
Except that this actually is not a state issue, if the Constitution is interpreted correctly.
The RKBA is a right that preexists and is not dependent on the Constitution. Heller reaffirmed this long-standing point clearly. However, the regulation of the RKBA is expressly restricted by the Second Amendment and, although SCOTUS has yet to directly rule that the Second Amendment extends against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, it is basically a foregone conclusion that SCOTUS will rule to that effect when the matter is directly before the court. Modern 14A jurisprudence virtually guarantees it, as Scalia suggested in his famous footnote in Heller.
Thus, regulation of the RKBA actually is not left to the states. Rather, the Constitution, through the 2A/14A, protects the RKBA at the federal level, on a nationwide basis (similar to how the 4A/14A protects us all on the federal/national level from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.).
Moreover, when read correctly in light of clear evidence in the legislative record and other contemporaneous indicia, the 2A prohibits virtually all regulation of the RKBA--the protection is at least on par with the protections established by the 1A regarding speech, which permits only narrowly tailored regulation that is necessary to a compelling governmental interest, and is the least restrictive option.
Thus, if read and applied correctly, the protections of the 2A/14A nullify the vast majority of regulations currently in place relating to the possession and carrying of arms--as it should be.
Our struggle is to bring practical reality into line with this legal fact.
A well regulated Militia, being neccessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What part "of not be infringed" do they not understand? Better explainations have been put forth than I can render, so I go with the simple one, it is my right to be able to defend myself and family as long as I have not "misbehaved'. 2010 is a voting year so be sure to follow the votes of your elected reps and return the favor. If you are not registered, get registered and vote. Be sure to join the NRA also.