As Seen From DC: Concealed Guns Over State Lines & Right of Home-Rule

The House just tried to pass a bill to say that all states must accept all concealed-carry licenses from all other states. Yay! ...Forgive me if I'm less than enthusiastic about this. I live in DC. We get the worst of all worlds, due to location and jurisdiction. Although the District's gun laws are very strict (For good reason!), right across the border, Virginia has some of the loosest gun laws in the country. So anyone who wants a gun can just hop right over the border to Virginia, get their license, and do whatever the heck they want.

If that's not bad enough, the District's been fighting for years to get a voting representative in Congress. Want to know why? Here's a good example. Not defending what Gray did, but people in the District hate being used as a bargaining chip by Congress. And yet in the scuttling of one of the more recent attempts by the District to get a proper vote, Republicans decided to add insult to injury by adding a rider to a proposal to get those rights that would repeal all of DC's gun laws. As if it is so hard for them to get that people in the District want the same rights as all the other states, and that includes ability to regulate the firearms within their territory. The Republicans are supposedly for each jurisdiction deciding its own laws, right?

This entire situation has me a little pissed off, but well, I'll submit it over to anyone else who wants to chime in now.

Theres alot of democrats in washington. The republicans don't want them to be able to have any power nationally.

I don't like the idea of making it a state, but they should let it and each of the territries have at least one rep. in the house. Maybe even amend the constitution so each get 1 senator. I mean, if rhode island has two, surely D.C. can have one.

I can understand supporters of this sort of thing in the sense that it can be problematic for legitimate gun owners to transport weapons between two states where it's legal but the state between the two has strict gun control laws. But I agree this bill seems really excessive. D.C. is small and easy to divert around, so restricting local authorities to this degree seems unnecessary.

edited 17th Nov '11 5:07:08 PM by FrodoGoofballCoTV

Yeah, I'm not happy about this either. Considering some of the cities in my state (well, OK, two cities that I lived in/near) already have issues with people deciding to shoot each other in public places or shoot at buses in broad daylight, and that's even though we're an anti-gun state, we don't need to make it even easier for nutjobs to shoot up everybody.

"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state; the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What part of the Second Amendment just posted don't you anti-gun folks understand? I'm not trying to be insulting, just inquisitive.

Yeah, Tom, we all know that you're stuck in the 18th century. Even the Supreme Court has accepted that some limits on gun rights are constitutional.

edited 17th Nov '11 5:26:56 PM by Clevomon

@Major Tom: Problem there: we don't need a militia, at least not these days.

edited 17th Nov '11 5:28:56 PM by RocketDude

Actually, the consititution is stuck back there. he's just reading it literaly. They should just amened it to the affect of regulating military-grade weapons, while preserving the right to self-deffense and hunting rifles.

Yeah, I can agree with wanting to keep a small pistol in a holster and a rifle or two or more in your house, but you do not need a bloody assault rifle or machinegun unless you are FPSRussia.

@Joesolo

Agreed. But even under current circumstances, the Supreme Court did already rule during the Chicago case that there were limits on gun laws. The handgun ban wasn't within them, but they acknowledged that those limits exist.

edited 17th Nov '11 5:39:34 PM by Clevomon

^^^^ Heller and Mac Donald say otherwise. (They leave no room for bans of any kind utilizing their precedent. Meaning there's not a gun ban in the country that stands up to legal scrutiny.)

^ In the sense of things unrelated to possession such as background checks, taxes, and such. The ruling otherwise was clear, you can't ban someone from buying or having a weapon.

edited 17th Nov '11 5:40:10 PM by MajorTom

Im saying we should amend the constituion. You don't need a fricking machine gun. I will say that Ar-15s and other semi-autos are acceptable. Everything smaller is fine. But no one needs a full-auto machine gun.

edited 17th Nov '11 5:41:24 PM by Joesolo

@Tom

District v. Heller: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..."

edited 17th Nov '11 5:45:37 PM by Clevomon

^^ Then try to amend the Constitution, the Constitution allows itself to be amended. (I personally wouldn't mind owning a machine gun. I could find a need for it.)

But trying to subvert it or disregard via feel-good laws like is done across the country (mostly in liberal areas) is not the answer.

^ It's the closest thing we got to an unlimited right.

edited 17th Nov '11 5:45:52 PM by MajorTom

The Heller case makes clear there are limits. Chicago keeps to the same principles.

^^Yes, not many people NEED them, but is there any reason not to allow people to have them?

@uber

Yeah, because those guns can kill people. And there are plenty of insane people who can get gun licences. I'd say that's a pretty good reason.

Cars kill more people than guns by a wide margin, should we ban cars?

It's harder to conceal a car in your briefs.

But it's easier to kill somebody with one. Easier to kill many somebodies with one.

It's too bad that non-criminals are the ones really being punished by this, like DRM in a way. If a robber wants to carry a gun, I doubt he'll care that it's against the law.

I personally don't like bans on weapons, and support this simply in the sense that I think people should in fact have the right to carry concealed firearms (with a license).

That said, if I were the Democrats, I'd trade the Republicans this for national standards on licensing and the acknowledgement of same-sex marriage licenses between States, and I wouldn't budge a fucking centimeter until they gave me that or gave up.

@USAF

See, I hate the idea of national standards on gun licenses. I don't care if someone in Utah wants to shoot squirrels all day as long as he's sane. I do care if idle unemployed people (and in the wrong part of town, the percentage can get pretty high) decide to go shoot at some pedestrians for fun. I understand different requirements for different situations. I just wish the Reps would.

Well, see, this is a beautifully gray area for me, for several reasons:

• I am anti-gun banning, but pro-gun regulation, so I think concealed carry should be allowed in certain contexts (i.e. in public areas; and no, I don't consider courthouses or hospitals or whatever to be "public areas") and with a license.
• I do not believe States have rights. I believe the people within the States have rights. To me, States are merely a vehicle for the organization of democracy, and have no special status on their own past that.
• I do not think DC should be a State.
• I do think DC should be allowed to make its own ordinances as a normal city would be able to, within the constraint that I do not think they may ban conventional small arms (and by "conventional" I mean "any bullet-firing weapon that is using normal, non-explosive, non-armor piercing ammunition").
• I think the Republicans are fucking hypocrites for demanding that these licenses be honored nationally despite being State licenses, while refusing to have gay marriage even be allowed, technically, via the utter bullshit that is the DOMA.

Ergo, I would demand the following for this to go through:

• Some national standard on gun licensing and regulation, which amounts to the following:
  • Competency/proficiency tests.
  • Mandatory background tests.
  • Licenses at least up to the same standards as what we have drivers follow.
• The redefining of what is DC (whatever land is Federally-owned) and what should be returned to Virginia (that which is simply metro area).
• The restriction of explosive weaponry (rocket launchers, incendiary ammunition) and armor-piercing ammunition, both of which pose unnecessary and unacceptable collateral risk outside the scope of what is reasonable within the Second Amendment (because legal does not mean unregulated, and regulation does not equal infringement).
• The recognition of State marriage licenses, regardless of the gender of the persons involved, being recognized nationally by Federal mandate.

If they won't bite, then too bad, I'd stonewall them as the Democrats, even if I would agree with some of the sentiment on principle.

^^ Why should the Republicans change? They are actually the ones sticking up for people's rights in this case! Your side is the one wanting to tear that right down!

edited 17th Nov '11 6:37:23 PM by MajorTom