Alert: Redneck Nation's Making a Power Play

This week those classical paragons of state's rights, the august senators of Utah, Oklahoma, Texas, etc, have all lined up behind something called the Thune Amendment, a bill which -- of course -- tramples all over state's rights.

Now why would they do such a hypocritical thing? Especially at a time they are fighting so hard to strengthen those very same god-given sovereign state's rights that protect them against gay marriage, the EPA, and a host of other pinko communist godless lesbian causes?

Well, because the Thune Amendment is a gun bill.

Introduced as an amendment to Defense Authorization bill (S. 1390,) the Thune amendment would allow the carrying of loaded, concealed firearms outside a person's home state, even by persons legally barred from possessing guns in the state where the carrying occurs.

So if they won't let you carry a gun in New York but they will in Wyoming, you just go get yourself a gun license in Wyoming then pick up your weapon, carefully conceal it, and head on back to uppity ol' New York. That'll show em!

This legislation would effectively allow the weaker concealed carry laws of one state to nullify the restrictions on gun carrying of other states. And it is expected to be voted on tomorrow.

This is serious and it's part of a growing trend. According to a statement from Seattle Mayor Greg Nickles, the president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, "efforts to provide for the safety of their residents are actually losing ground in the face of an all-out, across-the-board assault on gun safety on Capitol Hill. Currently, the gun lobby is not just opposing common sense laws, it is pushing members of Congress to offer amendments to legislation that will make it easier for criminals and others who shouldn't have access to guns to acquire them and use them."

So instead of whiling away the day all curled up beneath your "Vote for Change" quilted comforter while blissfully staring at your "Yes We Can" bed-slippers, if you care anything about protecting your state from the likes of Senator Thune, it's time to kick it into gear and contact your Senator immediately.

The message is: "Please oppose the Thune Amendment." For more info, see: www.bradycampaign.org

To be connected to your Senator, call Congress.org: 202-224-3121. Or go to www.congress.org and type in your zip code (in the box on the right).

These guys won't stop so we can't either.

Comments

[USConstitution]

I see we cannot post the N word at all but your writers can post Redneck as a derogatory word.

Seems hypocritical.

[BlackJAC]

I'm suddenly reminded of those young children who justify their behavior in someone else's house with the phrase "In my house we do it this way."

[redstrat]

how paranoid and scared is this nation that we have to take conceald weapons on vacations?

[djkrlsn]

the licensed CCW holders are doing something urged by the Boy Scouts and FEMA--merely being prepared in case of criminal attack

[Ohio9]

Why not take them on vacations? How would that be different from taking them anywhere else?

[Ohio9]

That makes sense because your posts are childish. They completely ignore the fact that the law contradicts what you are saying.

"A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, IF THE INDIVIDUAL COMPLIES WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE." (emphisis added)

There is the text as clear as can be. Out of state permit holders would still have to comply with the laws of the state they are in.

[Ohio9]

States already respect each others Birth certificates, driver's licenses, and commercial truck driver permits. There is no reason why they should not respect each other's CCW permits too.

No state laws will be "nullified" by other states. All CCW holders will still have to comply with the law of whatever state law they are in. Like most opponents of the law, you have not cited the actual text of the law, which clearly contradicts your claim:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-845

"A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, IF THE INDIVIDUAL COMPLIES WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE." (emphisis added)

The example you gave shows total ignorance of state law, which is ironic for someone who claims to be standing up for it. In order to get a Wyoming CCW permit, you must be a Wyoming resident for at least 6 months. Do you honestly think anyone from New York is going to move to Wyoming and stay there for 6 months just so they can get a CCW permit and then move back? Who could afford that?

[BlackJAC]

Pedestrians have right of way in Massachusetts but not in Louisiana. By your logic, a Lousiana driver who accidentally hits a pedestrian with his car in Massachusetts should not be held liable. I believe this attitude is known in some circles as "political correctness."

[Ohio9]

Clearly you didn't read the text of the law. Here it is again:

"A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, IF THE INDIVIDUAL COMPLIES WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE." (emphisis added)

How many times do you have to see it? People with out of state permits would have to comply with the laws of the state they are in. So your example is false, because under a similar policy for driving, out of state drivers would still have to comply with the laws on driving in the current state they are in.

[redstrat]

this isn't about transportation, or being legitament citizens, this is about concealed weapons!

[djkrlsn]

and since the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to KEEP and BEAR arms--the Bradybots and other supporters of civilian disarmament are arguing from false premises

[Ohio9]

That doesn't matter. The point is that CCW is a common practice that is legal in nearly every state (48 of 50). There is no reason that states who allow CCW should not honor each other's CCW permits as they do with nearly every other form of state issued license and permit

[LindaCat]

This bill allows a person with a carry permit in one state to carry in another state provided the other state allows concealed carry and requires compliance with that state's laws. Similar to using a driver's license granted in one state to be used in another - provided one follows the traffic laws in the other state.

*****

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.845:

S. 845

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.

*****

Where do these distortions come from? Someone is just sitting around making stuff up.

[djkrlsn]

too bad that the gun control people don't want to hear that

[BlackJAC]

Which state's laws do they speak of in this matter: the one where the license was obtained or the one where the license holder in question is travelling to?

[djkrlsn]

Just like you have to obey the traffic laws when you cross a state border, you would have to obey the gun laws--although the laws in Chicago are decidedly unconstitutional

[Thirdpower]

So would the author have a problem w/ states restricting other issues? Should states have the ability to limit drivers licenses based on who can prove a 'need' for one to a judge? Can the states re-introduce voting tests?

The Chicago Handgun case is heading towards SCOTUS. It's looking likely that the 2A will be incorporated under the 14th. Will the discriminatory policies of states like NJ, NY, and CA where only the rich and politically connected can get permits hold up?

[onepotatotwopotato]

African-Americans sometimes use the "N" word among themselves but that does not make it acceptable for non-Africa­n-American­s to use that word in public.

Besides, what in the world is "redneck" about wanting to protect one's loved ones and self from violent criminals?

[redstrat]

if your so afraid to go somewhere without your gun why are you traveling there? how scary is this country to you? I dare you to travel abroad if your this scared at home

[gjdagis]

It's despicable the way you people decry racism and stereotyping (so you say) and then use the racist term redneck! Don't you have any shame? Anyway, the only "power grab" going on around here is employed by the GOVERNMENT, not by the individuals in society !

[slg]

There's a way around this endless fixation with gun rights. Leap ahead to the forgone conclusion. If only some people are armed, the unarmed are defenseless. Be true to the second amendment and make gun ownership mandatory for every adult citizen. Trained. Licensed. Armed.

[OdinsEye]

"Be true to the second amendment and make gun ownership mandatory for every adult citizen"

Except the small problem of that not being the intent of the Second. The Second protects the right for those who want to have arms, it does not advocate forcing people to have arms. Further, requiring people to be trained and licensed to have arms is a constitutional infringement known as "prior restraint".

[onepotatotwopotato]

I've already contacted my senators asking them to support the S. 1390 inter-state concealed carry act.

[djkrlsn]

OE--if most progressives actually accepted the fact that the 2nd amendment protected an individual right--it would be easier

[Karlitos]

Post 2 of 2

Third, and most importantly, the function of the government is, first and foremost, to protect the rights and liberties of the people who established those very governments. In other words, you have it backwards. You are arguing that Thune's measure denies the "right" of states to deny rights of the people ... but that is absurd. Another way of looking at it (the constitutionally correct way) is that Thune's measure is designed to protect the rights of the people from infringement by state governments.

I am a strong supporter of states' powers that come into play outside the scope of Congress' enumerated powers (Article 1, Section 8). That state power and autonomy is one of the factors that makes our Republic strong ... that makes us a constitutional Republic. But Thune's measure cannot be criticized as a measure that usurps states' powers ... simply because the powers to regulate the right at issue ... the bearing of arms ... don't exist. They are rights of the people, protected by the Bill of Rights.

That you even get traction with your arguments is testament to the pathetic level of understanding we Americans have about our very own law, and system of government, and how We the People relate to that law and government.

[Karlitos]

Post 1 of 2

Mr. Barlow:

Like yours, much of the criticism leveled against the Thune amendment has regarded the notion of usurpation of states "rights." I'd like to offer some additional information to consider.

First, a technicality, but one that points to a widespread misunderstanding of the people, the government, and inter-relations between them. People have rights, while states and other governments have powers. Often (as is the case in the US), the government's powers are established by the people. More specifically, the powers are delegated via written constitutions, which also outline certain rights of the people, the exercise of which is outside the scope of the government's powers. In other words, people are the ultimate sovereigns, not the government. So on that notion, you are arguing that the Thune amendment usurps states' power to regulate the people's right to bear arms, rather than states' "rights" to so regulate arms.

Second, and quite arguably, the government's power to regulate the right of the people to bear arms is very limited. It's limited by the constitution, wherein is guaranteed that the right shall not be infringed. Incorporation notwithstanding, states such as New York or New Jersey (who issue carry licenses on a discriminatory basis) are already treading thin ice by denying their citizens the right to bear arms. Based on this, states arguably have little power to infringe the right to bear arms. They certainly have no "right" to infringe the rights of the people.

[JillQ]

States such as New York or New Jersey do not deny their citizens the right to bear arms, they deny them the ability to bear said arms secretively (concealed guns).

[djkrlsn]

and arrest any civilian who would openly carry a firearm in the major cities

[OdinsEye]

"A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, IF THE INDIVIDUAL COMPLIES WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE."

[redstrat]

what about the restrictions of who can obtain the permit, such as those against sex ofenders in alaska vs. other states. How can this be enforced?

[djkrlsn]

since sex offenders are usually felons--they are usually disqualified from legally OWNING or CARRYING firearms

[OdinsEye]

"Introduced as an amendment to Defense Authorization bill (S. 1390,) the Thune amendment would allow the carrying of loaded, concealed firearms outside a person's home state, even by persons legally barred from possessing guns in the state where the carrying occurs."

WRONG! Read the darn bill. They can only carry in a state IF THEY MEET THE LAWS OF THE STATE!

[BlackJAC]

$20 says that the average gun freaker would be asking the occupying army's generalissimo for permission to start a guerilla resistance against said occupation despite all of the NRA rhetoric.

[djkrlsn]

For most of the proRKBA people here--self defense is a far higher priority than resisting an invading army--why your total disdain for the 2nd amendment