States Right This Time, But Not Next Time.

Politics & Current Events

On Wednesday, the Senate votes on an amendment to the Military Funding Bill that will force States to recognize concealed-carry permits from other States. This means that Illinois and Wisconsin (the only States that do not issue concealed-carry permits) would be forced to accept them from Texas (where you are issued one at birth.) It would sweep under the Federal rug, multiple instances of States regulating who can and cannot have these permits. Some States refuse them to felons, some States require at least a minimum of training and some States pretty much merely require that you are breathing. None of that would matter with this amendment.

Put aside the obvious concerns that various States have about expanding the concealed-carry exemptions and look only at the Constitutional argument. In an Olympic level gymnastics move, the State's right crowd is (for this issue only) arguing that the "Jackbooted thugs" know best. Of course, we cannot trust the judgement of the individual States. Surely mother government knows best. What is wrong with the picture when Wayne LaPierre and John Thune are so anxious for Federal action. It demonstrates the utter hypocrisy of most of their arguments.

Imagine the outrage if Dianne Feinstein proposed an amendment that suggested that this reciprocity be recognized for gay marriage, or abortion? Of course, when it comes to those issues, only the States can truly decide.

It feels weird to be on the State's rights side of the argument for once, but here's hoping the Senate does the right thing and strikes this amendment. Of course, thanks to the Blue Dog Democrats I would not be surprised to see it pass.

Last 5 posts by Ezra

13 Comments

13 Comments

  1. Mike  •  Jul 21, 2009 @1:10 pm

    "It feels weird to be on the State’s rights side of the argument for once"

    LOL. This is a concession that you are just as much of a hack/hypocrite as your ideological opponents.

  2. Linus  •  Jul 21, 2009 @1:12 pm

    I agree. Even though it's a pain in the butt to have a CCL and travel and wonder whether it will help you or not, well, them's the breaks in our federal system. If it bothers me too much that my neighboring state doesn't recognize my CCL, I'll either not carry, or I won't go there.

  3. Ken  •  Jul 21, 2009 @2:55 pm

    Patrick previously previously blogged about Ron Paul's constitutionally inconsistent position on this very issue.

  4. Ezra  •  Jul 21, 2009 @4:31 pm

    And, might I add, Patrick's post brought a lot more to the party than my non-lawyer one.

  5. Brian Dunbar  •  Jul 21, 2009 @6:56 pm

    So … I could jaunt over to Minnesota for the weekend, take the class, get the permit and .. I'd be good to go in Wisconsin? A quick google seems to indicate that I as long as the Sheriff is cool with it I'm good to go.

    Fascinating.

    I gotta say that I am no way itching to carry a shooting iron. I never applied when I lived in Texas. I carried guns around in the Marines for a living: they hold no fascination for me.

    But it would be nice to have the option, you know?

  6. Lee Poteet  •  Jul 22, 2009 @7:39 am

    It is no surprise that you don't read English. Quite a few federal judges are equally functionally illiterate, but the Second still says what it says. I would be much happier with this country if those who can't or won't read were also not allowed to vote.

  7. Ezra  •  Jul 22, 2009 @9:41 am

    In fact, Brian, I believe Patrick linked to an amazingly designed website that suggested people do just that. Head to Minnesota to get your permit before Obama takes your guns away. It really was a masterclass in web design.

    Lee, I gather that I am illiterate because I disagree with you? Not to pat myself on the back, but I consider myself a pretty informed voter (and I spend a good chunk of time at this very site discussing how & why I vote before each election..)

    The good news is that the Thune amendment lost 58 to 39.

  8. Ken  •  Jul 22, 2009 @9:46 am

    I'm not clear how reading the Second Amendment would necessarily lead one to conclude that a bill requiring concealed-carry reciprocity must pass. Maybe there are hidden words that I can't see.

    I guess you could read the Second Amendment so broadly that there should be no limitation on concealed firearms in the first place. But in that case passing the bill about permit reciprocity would be perpetuating and cooperating with an unconstitutional scheme, wouldn't it?

  9. Brian Dunbar  •  Jul 22, 2009 @10:05 am

    Head to Minnesota to get your permit before Obama takes your guns away.

    I'm not worried about the man's ability to 'take my guns away' – too many guns, too many gun owners. Come back in two or three generations, the answer may change.

    I believe the cost of lawfully purchasing, owning, and operating a gun may increase. I'm a cheap SOB so this bothers me a bit.

  10. Madrocketscientist  •  Jul 22, 2009 @2:04 pm

    Wait a sec, I missed something here. I thought that a state only had to honor an out of state CCL if that state issued a CCL to it's own citizens? Ergo, WI & IL would remain unaffected since neither have any form of CCL?

  11. Ezra  •  Jul 22, 2009 @3:44 pm

    According to Thune, you are right. However a reading of the amendment makes that less clear, which was part of the problem. And, in any event, the impact on states like California or New York with more stringent controls (and vastly larger populations) than say Vermont or Texas would be disastrous.

  12. PatrickKelley  •  Jul 22, 2009 @6:43 pm

    I don't think it would apply to states that don't issue concealed carry, only to those states that do. Moot point, it failed. This was a dumb thing to bring up now anyway, and illustrates the wisdom of that old saying "pick your battles wisely".

  13. bw  •  Jul 22, 2009 @7:00 pm

    Since the entire states' rights movement is largely motivated by the desire to limit government's power by dividing it, there's not really an inconsistency here. The federal government is restricting state governments in favor of individual liberty. Most modern states' rights activists oppose those instances where Washington imposes its will to the diminishment of individual liberty.

    As a libertarian, I see this instance as no different from the government preventing states from establishing official religions.