Editorial: Oppose federal effort to force gun laws on states

Apr 1, 2012 Full story: Denver Post 101

We urge Colorado's Democratic Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet to redeem themselves and oppose the measure this go-round. The core of the problem is this: The measures - and there are two of them - would mandate that any state issuing concealed-carry permits recognize all out-of-state permits, regardless of how easy it might be to get permits in ... (more)

Read more
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#1 Apr 1, 2012
This law should not be enacted because just like the healthcare bill, it creates a federal power where none exists, nor where none was intended.

Since: Nov 11

Salt Lake City, UT

#2 Apr 1, 2012
Richard_ wrote:
This law should not be enacted because just like the healthcare bill, it creates a federal power where none exists, nor where none was intended.
The healthcare bill forces you to buy health insurance. A national concealed carry license reciprocity bill doesn't require you to buy a firearm. It works well for driver's licenses and marriage licenses.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#3 Apr 1, 2012
duzitreallymatter wrote:
<quoted text>The healthcare bill forces you to buy health insurance. A national concealed carry license reciprocity bill doesn't require you to buy a firearm. It works well for driver's licenses and marriage licenses.
Then the states need to form a compact to agree on standards for licensing or the states will lose their right to regulate concealed carry, which will then become a federal power, one the president could quash by executive order. Is that what you want to see happen? LOL>

Since: Nov 11

Salt Lake City, UT

#4 Apr 1, 2012
Richard_ wrote:
<quoted text>Then the states need to form a compact to agree on standards for licensing or the states will lose their right to regulate concealed carry, which will then become a federal power, one the president could quash by executive order. Is that what you want to see happen? LOL>
Did they form a copact to agree on standards fro driving licenses? The law is pretty clear they can have their own standards with respect to concealed carry. It simply makes a concealed carry license like a driver's license. What is good in Kansas is good in Colorado, Arizona and California. Illinois would not have to honor ANY state concealed carry license becuase they are the ONLY state that doesn't permit concealed carry.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#5 Apr 1, 2012
duzitreallymatter wrote:
<quoted text>Did they form a copact to agree on standards fro driving licenses? The law is pretty clear they can have their own standards with respect to concealed carry. It simply makes a concealed carry license like a driver's license. What is good in Kansas is good in Colorado, Arizona and California. Illinois would not have to honor ANY state concealed carry license becuase they are the ONLY state that doesn't permit concealed carry.
Basically, usurping the rights of the states, an elimination of state soverignty. You'll find out what this means when x number of states allow gay marriages and the feds come along and mandate (no pun intended) gay marriages on the rest of the states.

Since: Nov 11

Salt Lake City, UT

#6 Apr 1, 2012
I'm sure in the near future nation wide gay marriages will permitted due to a court case. Probably, because a same sex marriage couple from WA, IA etc. will move to a state that doesn't have same sex marriage. The state in question won't honor the marriage and viola! The feds will mandate it. But we aren't here to discuss gay marriages.

But again, if states can honor all other state driving licenses they should certainly honor all other states firearm carry licenses. Same with marriage licenses.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#7 Apr 1, 2012
duzitreallymatter wrote:
But again, if states can honor all other state driving licenses they should certainly honor all other states firearm carry licenses.
That's for the states to decide, not the feds. I don't have a problem with the states getting together, coming up with a standard and forming a compact, the feds have no right to supercede state's rights and make them do that.

In Wisconsin, there was a shooting of a robbery suspect by a man from Arkansas in a gas station south of Milwaukee. At the time, our governor was an anti-gun democrat and we had no concealed carry law. The man from Arkansas had a concealed carry permit from his state, the state of Wisconsin refused to charge in the case, the shooter was white, the robbery suspectt was black. No feds needed.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#8 Apr 2, 2012
Richard will tell you public gun possession is a privilege and driving a car is a right.
Richard_ wrote:
That's for the states to decide, not the feds. I don't have a problem with the states getting together, coming up with a standard and forming a compact, the feds have no right to supercede state's rights and make them do that.
A Slavery compact ?

Obamacare ?
Richard_ wrote:

In Wisconsin, there was a shooting of a robbery suspect by a man from Arkansas in a gas station south of Milwaukee. At the time, our governor was an anti-gun democrat and we had no concealed carry law. The man from Arkansas had a concealed carry permit from his state, the state of Wisconsin refused to charge in the case, the shooter was white, the robbery suspectt was black. No feds needed.
Two ignorant southerners were arrested in New York city for gun possession.

We have thousands of antigun laws; what harm will come fron one gun law that protects all gun owners from all States ?

You sound like a traitor.

Since: Nov 11

Salt Lake City, UT

#9 Apr 2, 2012
Richard_ wrote:
<quoted text> The man from Arkansas had a concealed carry permit from his state, the state of Wisconsin refused to charge in the case, the shooter was white, the robbery suspectt was black. No feds needed.
Yet people with firearms properly secured in luggage are getting arrested at airports. That is what the patchwork of local laws has done. And these laws are hard to figure out.

Speed linmits are a combination of federal, state and local laws(rules). Imagine driving across the US and there being absolutely NO speed limit signs, warnings, indicators. The laws(rules) are in books but finding them is nearly, if not completely, impossible. How could a reasonable person be expected to drive in a reasonable amount of time without getting a into trouble for violating the unknown limit. That is exactly what concealed carry traveling is like.

The states accept each other's driving licenses without forming a committee to study the possibilities of having driver's training and licensing identical. They can do the same thing with concealed carry options.

“'We The People'”

Since: Dec 06

Yeadon, PA

#10 Apr 2, 2012
I believe that a person who has a weapons permit in his/her state should be able to carry in other states. And if you don't you should still be allowed to keep the weapon in your car when traveling. It's there for protection.
Old Coastie

Tulsa, OK

#11 Apr 2, 2012
Tory II wrote:
Richard will tell you public gun possession is a privilege and driving a car is a right.
<quoted text>
A Slavery compact ?
Obamacare ?
<quoted text>Two ignorant southerners were arrested in New York city for gun possession.
We have thousands of antigun laws; what harm will come fron one gun law that protects all gun owners from all States ?
You sound like a traitor.
I have found this entire thread very well thought out and informative. I would like to add, although I feel like my paster, you let the government step it to your church on a tinny thing like inspections you let government in forever.
I see nothing different between a gun or drivers perment. But some fail to see, states had to unify rules on drivers. The same souls be true on gun permits.
A state should not beforced to admit a permit issued under different guidelines other than their own.

Just my thought.
Meaningless

San Diego, CA

#12 Apr 2, 2012
It doesn't really matter anymore. There are new devices in development that will allow police (or anyone) to detect if you are carrying a firearm from a distance of almost 100 yards! The authorities are going to have a field day.

Since: Nov 11

Salt Lake City, UT

#13 Apr 2, 2012
Meaningless wrote:
It doesn't really matter anymore. There are new devices in development that will allow police (or anyone) to detect if you are carrying a firearm from a distance of almost 100 yards! The authorities are going to have a field day.
Good! Then they can remove them from the criminal's hands. But the ACLU will probably step in.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#14 Apr 2, 2012
The federal govt should force all States to respect the 2nd amendment.

Guns are in the Constitution, cars or healthcare are not.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#15 Apr 3, 2012
Tory II wrote:
The federal govt should force all States to respect the 2nd amendment.
Guns are in the Constitution, cars or healthcare are not.
actually, guns are not in the constitution.

“'We The People'”

Since: Dec 06

Yeadon, PA

#16 Apr 3, 2012
Tory II wrote:
The federal govt should force all States to respect the 2nd amendment.
Guns are in the Constitution, cars or healthcare are not.
The 'Bill of Rights' were put there by representatives from the 'States', not by the federal gov't. The federal gov't was created by these States, hence that's where our founding fathers wanted the power to lie. And the 'people' have these rights that can not be taken away.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#17 Apr 4, 2012
Richard_ wrote:
actually, guns are not in the constitution.
"actually", Richard doesn't exist.

Obama says if the SCOTUS declares his healthcare unConstitutional, it will be judicial activism.

Obama = Richard

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#18 Apr 4, 2012
rojopa wrote:
The 'Bill of Rights' were put there by representatives from the 'States', not by the federal gov't. The federal gov't was created by these States, hence that's where our founding fathers wanted the power to lie. And the 'people' have these rights that can not be taken away.
Alabama can't force Illinois to respect the 2nd amendment. Duh. That's where the feds come in, they should compel Illinois to respect the rights of Illinoisans.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#19 Apr 5, 2012
Tory II wrote:
<quoted text>Alabama can't force Illinois to respect the 2nd amendment. Duh. That's where the feds come in, they should compel Illinois to respect the rights of Illinoisans.
No, Illinois residents should vote politicians to change their laws. There's no law prohibiting able persons from purchasing, baring and keeping arms in Illinois.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#20 Apr 5, 2012
Richard_ wrote:
<quoted text>actually, guns are not in the constitution.
That's correct.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Senator Michael Bennet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News McConnell's Dreams of New Senate Dashed for Now Mar 18 Le Duped 1
News Colorado senators urge reinstatement of H-2B pr... Mar 13 Elise 3
News The Worst Political Calculation the Democrats M... Nov '14 ronnie 2
News Flat Tops Wilderness Area was first of the grea... Oct '14 Say What 1
News George Will: GOP needs better candidates (Mar '14) Oct '14 Swedenforever 3
News Plagiarism scandal overshadows Sen. John Walsh'... (Jul '14) Jul '14 barefoot2626 42
News How badly is GOP damaging itself among Latinos ... (Jul '14) Jul '14 Amigo 7
More from around the web