Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Reciporical Conceal & Carry Defeated

Well, this would have been nice. But it was apparently defeated by strong-arming some blue-dog supporters. Lost by two votes.

Here's what gets me...

Schumer, who led the effort to kill the amendment, issued a statement saying its defeat means "lives have been saved."

"The passage of this amendment would have done more to threaten the safety of New Yorkers than anything since the repeal of the assault-weapons ban," Schumer said. "If this had passed, it would have created havoc for law enforcement and endangered the safety of millions of New Yorkers. We will remain vigilant to prevent any legislation like this from passing in the future.”
I'd like to see where Chucky gets his numbers. I wonder just how, backed up with hard numbers, the repeal of the "assault-weapons" ban threatened ... or more accurately, how has it affected the actual safety of New Yorkers. Have violent crimes involving "assault weapons" gone up in New York since the repeal of the ban?

I'd bet Bucks to Bagels there's been no discernible negative impact, and that there may very well have been a positive impact.

I hit this article linked from the NRA-ILA website. There were only two comments out there, both against. And I felt the need to respond.

Commenter #1: Conservatives argue state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution – and now 36 other states have resolutions affirming their sovereignty.

This conservative sponsored law is an attack on state sovereignty.

Commenter #2: The gun permit argument is not one of law abiding citizens vs outlaws; it is one of temperament. I have a ccp and I know how easy it is to get one. In utah, the permits are passed out like candy. There are many citizens who do not possess the temperament to handle themselves, their auto, much less carry a loaded weapon. I believe a state should be able to determine who carries a concealed weapon within their borders.

Me: Yes we do argue state soveriegnty under the 10th ammendment. But state soveriegnty does not negate the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights. State soveriegnty is subject to the Constitution -- the rights that we already have that are guaranteed by the Constitution (they are not *granted* by it, they are guaranteed to be protected. In all the states.)

The Constitution doesn't specify that the right only applies to those who somebody else deems fit to "handle themselves". You follow the law, you're fine. You don't follow the law, you're not -- just like anything else.
I might add that the 13 colonies refused to ratify the constitution without this Bill of Rights, guaranteeing their citizens that these specifically layed out rights could not be taken away.

No comments: