Sandy Hook

Sandy Hook

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Don't Take Your Guns To Town, Boys

An amendment to a defense spending bill, sponsored by Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, would have allowed persons to carry guns across state lines. This means that if you live in Ten-uh-see where there are essentially no gun laws, you cannot carry a concealed weapon to a state like California which has very stringent laws.

The vote was 58-39 against. That the amendment was supported by the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America should come as no surprise.

This was a small victory for gun control advocates in a year when Congress voted to allow people to carry loaded weapons into national parks and the Senate voted to basically wipe out the tough gun control laws in the nation's capital.

I make no bones about being violently against guns, except for hunting and recreation which doesn't include carrying them into parks and bars. I don't see that a law permitting concealed weapons makes any sense whatever. I don't think you'll find many of our finest who are too crazy about them.

Finally, where do these right wing Republicans and Democrats, who are always spouting states' rights, states' rights, states' rights, get off supporting a piece of legislation that ignores the rights of states?

1 comment:

  1. Because of my opposition to the state's monopoly of violence, I tend to support gun ownership for self defense. And I suppose some people in law enforcement would look at me funny when I told them my views about self defense.

    That said, I believe in reasonable gun control. Assault weapons bans are fine with me, and I don't like unrestricted concealed carry rights. I think someone carrying a gun should be licensed like the driver of a car and that more education and testing should be required than is currently the case.

    What I don't like is law deliberately written for the purpose of applying the laws of the least regulated states to the most regulated states. California has gun control laws that were passed legally, by constitutionally elected representatives, for reasons that apply in California and may or may not apply here or in Texas. Someone from here or in Texas should not have the unlimited ability to scoff at the laws of more regulated states because they don't like those laws.

    'States rights' is a very tricky concept and it would do us all good if our government were to give it some meaningful consideration, but it's been a de facto dead letter (as far as any meaningful policy goes) since 1865. Anyone in serious politics talking about 'states rights' today is simply leaning on a convenient political excuse which they themselves will ignore as soon as they want THEIR federal law passed. People want something 'left up to the states' when they don't like the idea and they always want a federal mandate when they do like it.

    When the states do make decisions that conservatives don't like (for instance, recognizing the natural rights of gays), then the states are flayed alive in print.