Second Amendment Reciprocity?

[coat4gun]

Someone finally gets it.... State's "Rights" do not trump the 2nd.

http://patriotpost.us/pdf/09-29a.pdf

Second Amendment Reciprocity?

"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." --Alexander Hamilton

As of this writing, Barack Hussein Obama's "fundamental transformation of the United States of America" has obligated taxpayers for an admitted $7 trillion in current and future debt for his so-called "economic recovery" act. Heaping insult upon near-fatal injury, Congress is now considering an additional $2 trillion in proposed tax increases for BO's CO2 folly, over $1 trillion for his nationalized healthcare experiment and untold trillions for another round of "economic recovery" programs. Furthermore, TARP Inspector General Neil Barofsky announced this week that total Federal exposure for all TARP "spending" had been leveraged to $23.7 trillion, equal to approximately one and one half times GDP.

All of this tax obligation comes amid the worst economic decline in decades, and is sure to test the limits of "Trickle-Up Poverty."

Of course, none of the aforementioned Obama initiatives, or the collection and redistribution of wealth to fund them, is authorized by our Constitution (unless of course you subscribe to the so-called "Living Constitution" as amended by judicial diktat).

Therefore, if these schemes are not authorized by our Constitution, then we have an outlaw government, and if we have an outlaw government, then by what authority does that government assess and collect taxes?

That question will be the subject of an upcoming essay, but I raise it here in order to highlight an expenditure that our Constitution does authorize Congress to enact -- defense appropriations.

The National Defense Authorization Act for 2010 (H.R. 2647) passed the House by a vote of 389 Ayes, 22 Nays (2 Republican) and 22 Present/Not Voting. It contained 69 amendments, mostly related to defense expenditures.

The Senate version of the NDAA (S.1390) with its 216 amendments is now being debated.

One of those amendments, a liberal effort to expand so-called "hate crimes" legislation, resulted in heated discourse on the Senate floor, including this scolding by John McCain (R-AZ) toward Harry Reid (D-NV): "The majority leader has made it clear that their highest priority ... is a hate crimes bill that has nothing to do whatsoever with defending this nation. While we have young Americans fighting and dying in two wars, we're going to take up the hate crimes bill because the majority leader thinks that's more important ... than legislation concerning the defense of this nation."

Indeed, McCain has this one exactly right.

However, I draw your attention to another amendment, this one added by Sen. John Thune (R-SD), authorizing interstate reciprocity of concealed-carry permit holders cross state lines with their weapons. Thune's amendment was stripped from the legislation even after mustering 58 votes for and 39 votes against.

Yes, that is a strong majority in favor, but still two votes short of the 60-vote threshold needed to block a promised filibuster by Chuck Schumer (D-NY). (In today's milquetoast Senate, just the threat of a filibuster is treated as an actual filibuster.)

Deplorably, two Republican senators voted against Thune's measure: Richard Lugar of Indiana and George Voinovich of neighboring Ohio.

For the record, I am not suggesting this measure would have passed had Lugar and Voinovich changed their votes -- the Democrats were not going to let this one through. These votes always come down to who cut the best backroom wink-and-nod deals on some other piece of legislation in return for a aye or nay on this one. But I do wonder what Lugar and Voinovich got in return...

Schumer protested, "This amendment is a bridge too far, and could endanger the safety of millions of Americans. Each state has carefully crafted its concealed-carry laws in the way that makes the most sense to protect its citizens. Clearly, large, urban areas merit a different standard than rural areas. To gut the ability of local police and sheriffs to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense. It could reverse the dramatic success we've had in reducing crime in most all parts of America. Whether you are pro-gun or pro-gun control, this measure deserves to be defeated. We will do everything we can to stop this poisonous amendment from being enacted."

There was a concerted effort by the Left to paint Thune's reciprocity amendment as having nothing to do with national defense -- a tit-for-tat in response to McCain's complaint about Reid's "hate crimes" amendment.

However, I subscribe to the notion that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That would be directly from the Second Amendment in our Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Sidebar: For those who don't know enough about American history to comprehend that "a well regulated Militia" refers to "the People," stop reading this essay and take Civics 101 at any accredited institution. Oh, wait, they don't teach Civics 101 any longer, which not only perpetuates but, in fact, institutionalizes ignorance of our Constitution.

The Second Amendment's assurance of the right, nay, the responsibility to own and carry firearms, with the attendant proscription against government infringement of that right, is our most essential reassurance of self defense, national defense and defense of our Constitution from "enemies, domestic and abroad."

Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison (our Constitution's principal author), wrote in his "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" (1833), "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

On that note, let's take a closer look at Schumer's complaint in an effort to discern what the Second Amendment really provides.

"Each state," says Schumer, "has carefully crafted its concealed-carry laws in the way that makes the most sense to protect its citizens. Clearly, large, urban areas merit a different standard than rural areas."

Schumer is asserting that the Second Amendment prohibits only federal government infringement of the right to keep and bear arms while that prohibition is not incorporated to prohibit state governments from infringing on the same right.

So, would Schumer likewise argue that states have authority to regulate First Amendment rights of religious freedom, or freedom of speech, or of the press? Of course not.

Ironically, the First Amendment notes, "Congress [emphasis added] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (Our Founders chose their words with great deliberation.)

Though the First Amendment is clearly a proscription on congressional legislation, not state legislation, the Second Amendment contains no such language and declares that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

However, the Left has errantly incorporated proscriptions of the First Amendment upon the states (while completely redefining "speech" to include even the most grotesque forms of expression but restricting political speech,) while arguing that the Second Amendment is a prohibition only upon the federal government.

Sidebar: When an über-leftist attempts to make an argument for federalism, beware. Though the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights defines federalism -- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." -- this does not suggest that the previous amendments apply only to the federal government.

In order to consider whether there is a constitutional basis for Thune's reciprocity amendment in the first place, we must first discern our Founders' original intent.

The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791 after great disagreement on whether the enumeration of such rights was even required. Alexander Hamilton aptly summed up the basis for this disagreement in Federalist No. 84: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. ... For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

Indeed, read in context, the Bill of Rights is an affirmation of innate individual rights, of Natural Rights as noted by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: "[All men] are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The Bill of Rights, then, is a clear delineation of constraints upon the central government in regard to infringement of those rights.

Further, it is ludicrous to argue that the enumeration of those rights was a prohibition on only the federal government since, in the words of Hamilton (and echoed in the writings of many other Founders), "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

These rights were enumerated, according to those who favored inclusion, in order to explicitly recount the rights of "the people," as noted in the Bill of Rights Preamble (yes, it has one): "The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..."

In other words, our Founders argued that they enumerated both "declaratory and restrictive clauses" in order to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of [central government] powers" that would infringe on the inherent rights of the people.

More than a century after the Bill of Rights was adopted, the Supreme Court (of Jefferson's "Despotic Branch") began incorporating the provisions in the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states. This, in and of itself, implied that somehow the inalienable rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights might not already extend to all people in all jurisdictions.

The High Court construed the 14th Amendment's Section 1 as support for incorporation: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It is notable that the 14th Amendment makes direct reference to the Bill of Rights' Fifth Amendment prohibition against depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property."

In the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court increasingly used the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause to make portions of the Bill of Rights binding upon the states. The consequence of this interpretation was and remains that the inalienable rights enumerated by our Founders are now awarded at the discretion of the judiciary, not endowed by our Creator.

However, given the fact that our Founders' intent with the Bill of Rights was to enumerate certain declaratory and restrictive clauses to ensure the Declaration's "unalienable rights" of all men, one must conclude by extension that those rights are inalienable by any government jurisdiction, irrespective of the 14th Amendment.

So, in regard to Sen. Thune's reciprocity amendment, I ask, "Reciprocity for what?" Are we so steeped in the errant notion that our rights are a gift from government that we no longer subscribe to the plain language of our Constitution based on the inalienable rights of man? Has the temperature been turned up so slowly over the last eight decades, so incrementally, that when we finally feel the heat, it will be too late for us to jump, like frogs, out of the pot?

With our Constitution now in exile, I can understand why Sen. Thune would forward an amendment to provide interstate reciprocity for law-abiding concealed weapon permit holders.

However, the Second Amendment still enumerates my right to carry.

When senators such as Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin declare, "We're able to breathe a sigh of relief," in regard to the defeat of Thune's amendment, let me suggest that you obtain a copy of our Constitution, and be prepared to educate anyone charged with enforcing the law, just what it is that they have sworn to "Support and Defend."

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

[PocketProtector]

Well Chuckie has HIS NYC LTCF...to hell with yours.....Royalty rules

[mrjam2jab]

Well Chuckie has HIS NYC LTCF...to hell with yours.....Royalty rules

Wonder if Chuck's "permit" carries him into DC.....???

[PocketProtector]

Chuck Schumer is better than you…
posted at 4:00 pm on July 22, 2009 by MadisonConservative
printer-friendly

…of course. After all, the illustrious senator from New York helped strike down the monstrous reciprocity attachment to the defense authorization bill. The piece of legislation would have applied across-the-board legitimacy for people with the right to carry a concealed firearm in their own state to do so in any other state that also allows citizens to carry a concealed weapon.

As it stands, the honoring of your permit varies from state to state, which requires you to keep a careful list of what states you can practice your second amendment rights in. This would have eliminated that, allowing anyone with a CCW to carry a concealed weapon to protect themselves, except in Illinois and Wisconsin where we know that guns are the devil.

Well…there is one minor detail about concealed carry. It’s difficult to get a permit in some states if you live in big cities, like, oh, New York City, where Chucky lives. You basically have to be rich or have connections to afford one. So, actually, this piece of legislation would have helped all of Chucky’s constituents to defend themselves since their city believes they’re too worthless to be trusted with constitutional rights. After all, who really needs to carry a gun and play cowboy? Oh…

At the same time, there are outspoken opponents of gun ownership, such as Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who are carrying concealed weapons [disputed re Feinstein; see update below -- Ed], according to WABC Radio’s Mark Levin. Levin, a recognized constitutional expert, heads the Landmark Legal Foundation. The LLF’s goal is to protect American’s from unreasonable and illegal government intrusions and violations of the US Constitution, including the Second Amendment.

…

Not only does Schumer carry a handgun, the New York City Police Department also provides armed escorts for the good senator. In fact, the Government Accounting Office — the investigative arm of the US Congress — slammed Schumer’s use of police resources for personal protection. It’s clear that Schumer believes he’s special. He wishes to ban private citizens’ ownership of firearms, while he enjoys layers of protection.

“No wonder Chuckie Schumer shoots his mouth off so much — he’s able to protect himself,” says a 25-year police veteran.

Hey Chucky? Thanks a bundle, you cowardly little bastard.

Edit: By the way, this quote just bugged the hell out of me.

“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.”

Hmmm…

NY SAFEST OF ALL BIG CITIES - June 3, 2009 headline

Just look at that. All because the assault weapons ban died. What a shame.

Update (Ed): I have received a statement from Senator Feinstein’s office:

“MadisonConservative’s” post about the failure of the Thune Amendment repeats the false claim that Senator Feinstein has a concealed weapons permit. This is completely untrue.

Edit: If Feinstein’s office denies that she currently holds a concealed weapons permit, then it may be true. However, according to a statement she made on April 27, 1995, she has carried concealed weapons in the past for her protection:

“And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I’d walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

Even the Daily Kos’s own personal wiki states this:

Feinstein is a strong proponent of gun control, yet is known to have carried concealed handguns herself with a normally nearly impossible to obtain California carry permit - few people, other than politicians and celebrities, are able to obtain California CCW permits. At one time, she was the only person in San Francisco to possess a concealed carry permit.

Given that she’s a true blue liberal, I’m not sure why one of the most prominent liberal voices on the internet would spread this bit of info if it wasn’t true(screenshot saved, by the way).

This is not meant to call into question the legitimacy of Feinstein’s fears at the time she chose to carry that concealed weapon. This is calling into question her judgment that no one else should have the ability to feel the same sense of security she felt by being able to defend herself.

Updated: Confirmation. She had the permit in the 1970s. She claims she destroyed the gun after the threat was over with, which would also make her permit likely to be long since expired, and doesn’t own firearms anymore.
Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot

[ThomasJ]

Someone finally gets it.... State's "Rights" do not trump the 2nd.

It's not an either-or. It's not even a 2nd amendment issue, no matter how it's tried to be framed that way. permits/licenses exist. This is indisputable. States are within their rights to reciprocate. They are within their rights NOT to reciprocate. This legislation is not 2nd amendment legislation, it is about forcing states to recognize permits from another state. It is nothing but a 10th amendment issue.

[coat4gun]

and under the 10th amendment, neither the Feds nor the States have the authority to infringe on the keeping and bearing of arms since the 2nd protected the right to the people.

[ThomasJ]

and under the 10th amendment, neither the Feds nor the States have the authority to infringe on the keeping and bearing of arms since the 2nd protected the right to the people.

the amendment voted on yesterday was not about the second amendment. you are still able to keep and bear arms. you are still able to get permits/licenses from other states to conceal carry. this is not what the amendment addressed. the amendment was to force a sovereign state into subjugating their sovereignty to recognize and accept permits from other sovereign states. it was bad legislation. i am thankful it was defeated.

[Warpt762x39]

the amendment voted on yesterday was not about the second amendment. you are still able to keep and bear arms. you are still able to get permits/licenses from other states to conceal carry. this is not what the amendment addressed. the amendment was to force a sovereign state into subjugating their sovereignty to recognize and accept permits from other sovereign states. it was bad legislation. i am thankful it was defeated.

How is it any different than a driver's license or a marriage license? Driver's license requirements aren't always exactly the same between states but each state has to recognize the others.

The whole carry permit thing was supposed to be included in the same group as both of those licenses/permits.

[MostlyHarmless]

It's not an either-or. It's not even a 2nd amendment issue, no matter how it's tried to be framed that way. permits/licenses exist. This is indisputable. States are within their rights to reciprocate. They are within their rights NOT to reciprocate. This legislation is not 2nd amendment legislation, it is about forcing states to recognize permits from another state. It is nothing but a 10th amendment issue.

The right to carry my gun in another state is not a 2A issue?

Well, how about PA enacting a law that non-residents don't have the right for peaceful assembly in PA? That wouldn't be a first amendment issue for you either, right?


Jan

[coat4gun]

the amendment voted on yesterday was not about the second amendment. you are still able to keep and bear arms. you are still able to get permits/licenses from other states to conceal carry. this is not what the amendment addressed. the amendment was to force a sovereign state into subjugating their sovereignty to recognize and accept permits from other sovereign states. it was bad legislation. i am thankful it was defeated.

Ok, I guess we are kinda arguing two different things here. I do agree that States are to be free from Federal control on all issues not denied to them by the Constitution, as clearly stated in the 10th... but the 2nd IS one of the issues that is denied to both Fed and State control. Unfortunately, this fact has been ignored by both Fed and State entities. The proposed law would make a week attempt to right some of this wrong. The better course would be for the SCOTUS to do its job and hold the Fed and the States to the clear standards of the Constitution. It was done when Roe v. Wade was passed (although in my view wrongly), it could be done again... wiping out most of the 20,000 Fed and State gun control laws.

I do agree that we should not need this law in the first place because if the 2nd was being enforced as is should be, States like NY NJ and MD would not be allowed to make laws that infringe on my right to keep and bear arms... and the 2nd and 10th are the amendments that codify that limit on both them and the feds.