WHAT say you? Should concealed carry permits be treated the same way we treat drivers licenses? In other words, should all states be forced to recognize the permit you received from your home state while you travel? This is 10th Amendment (states rights) vs. 2nd Amendment (gun rights).
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68441.html  www.politico.com A bill would make it easier to carry concealed weapons - but what about states' rights? WHAT say you? Should concealed carry permits be treated the same way we treat drivers licenses? In other words, should all states be forced to recognize the permit you received from your home state while you travel? This is 10th Amendment (states rights) vs. 2nd Amendment (gun rights).
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68441.html www.politico.com A bill would make it easier to carry concealed weapons - but what about states' rights? - - MY COMMENT (to be posted by someone with an FB account hopefully): In the interest of full disclosure, I am a pro-Second Amendment concealed-carry permit holder who obtained the permit in large part to facilitate my interstate travel. That said, in my honest assessment, the current social and political climate makes this more complicated than a simple Yes or No. - The "Second vs Tenth" assessment holds a lot of the story here. In a technical approach, it could be seen as a 10th Amendment issue on a par with motor vehicle operator's licenses. (And yes, I have to agree with some about the irony of the issue.) However, bearing arms is a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, as well as pertaining to the fundamental human right of self-defense. In that stream of thought, the 14th Amendment might come into play, restricting the individual states. - Looking at it from another angle, local communities have traditionally been allowed to institute restrictions on weapons carry (witness the famous restrictions in Tombstone, AZ often related in accounts to the "Shootout at the OK Corral"). From that perspective, the 10th Amendment takes a prominence (though the statewide nature of these laws opens an issue on this point). However, that allowance for regulation was in the context of a society where a general right to arms (and arms-bearing while traveling) was much more a given, and where the presumption was that a person was relatively safe in settled communities ("Townsfolk is good folk," one might say). Today the opposite is more true--the general right to arms is more restricted in the majority's eyes (though this has improved with Y2K, 9/11, and BHO), and frankly one is often safer on roadways doing 80mph than walking down big-city streets. As much as I am leery of situational ethics, in that context, these state and local restrictions can seem less a mere "local regulation," and more and more a clear infringement. - All that said, above all there is the national security factor. The Second Amendment points not to individual protection so much as it does for COMMUNITY protection. Indeed, at least one fo the early English colonies required that those traveling be "well armed"--not so they could protect themselves, but rather so that they could protect others and contribute to the security of the community. And this has been the factor which for me has resolved the matter in favor of the proposed legislation. I very much appreciate the 10th Amendment argument, and indeed have noted this to supporters of the bill in question. However, national security is a domain of federal authority, and thus, whatever one says about concealed-carry being a "right," privilege," or whatever, if our Congress and President in their infinite wisdom *pauses for laughs* elects to do this, it can be justified as an element of securing the country against threats such as terrorism, regardless of any other constitutional issue. Perhaps concealed-carry is part of the Second Amendment. Perhaps concealed-carry is merely a "privilege." But either way, this bill can be justified. - Now, to resolve the concerns of some, this line of argument would in no way justify a general federal disarming of private citizens "in the name of national security," since doing so would violate the Second, Ninth, and probably Tenth Amendments. In the line of thought I present, the bill is less about "rights" or "privileges," than it is about empowering legally and practically the people of the United States in contributing to the national security. Article 1, Sections 15-16 of the Constitution might come into play here tangentially by its authorization of Congress to "arm... the militia"--it is enabling the "unorganized militia" (an actual legal term) to be "armed" when needed for private or public action. - Hope this helps. |
