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

A lot of the problems with America's government (like D.C. having no representation in Congress, or things like gun control happening on the state level) are the result of how the country was created. Originally people viewed the United States as being more like the modern-day European Union: a close-knit coalition of countries rather than a single nation. We've more or less moved beyond that view, but a lot of legislative leftovers from that era are still cluttering up our legal code.

@USAF: Rural areas getting ignored wouldn't be just as bad. Nothing but socially conservative fundies and spendulous aggies comes out of rural American policies, and the overwhelming majority of the population could do without either Fed puritanism or agricultural subsidies (that favor the rich anyway).

There have been some hollers that this topic has jumped the tracks and is now free ranging it across the countryside. Do we corral this sucker or just lock it down? I'll check in later.

"now free ranging it across the countryside."

I see what you did there.

Were still talking about gun laws. it's pretty much the topic. Not preciesly, but there has to be some give to it.

Have you actually read the last three pages, Joselo? Only one post actualy remotely relevant to guns.

Given the fact that this topic isn't only about guns, but about how some states and territories(specifically DC) may have their ability to control guns in their area completely hindered due to a possible national law forcing all states to recognize, and adhere to, the permits from other states... I think the last three pages have been in the realm of "on topic" as well...

I mean, incorporating DC into Maryland/Virginia would solve that "issue" in the OP(albeit the overall issue of the rights of states would still be present)...

They should just have states work together to standardize the permits, that could help. Even if it wasn't universal, if there were a few groupings of states that had inter working permit systems, that could help.

There are, though granted, there aren't a lot... Virgina gun permits are valid in Florida(and vice versa), for example. But every state is different and has different restrictions. Idaho recognizes Oregon permits(but not vice-versa).

A national standard could help, but the whole state's rights issue is a problem. At the very least, the carry permit in general(the permit you need to just own a gun in a state) should at least be valid in every state, regardless of where you got it... Concealed-carry, I can see varying depending on which state issued it, and where you are going to...

edited 19th Nov '11 12:37:21 PM by Swish

Yea. Open carry should be universal, but conceled is way more tricky.

Concealed carry of weapons is something that I think should be controlled on a state by state level, CCW should be something states have the power to authorize and regulate, the need for a CCW is going to vary on the social environment he's living in, and a states need to regulate CCW authorization is going to vary based on similar factors, were it might be common place it'll be rare elsewhere, and the national legislation doing this is going to undermine State's personal authority negatively.

The topic isn't just guns, but also DC's right to home rule, which has definitely been covered by the past three pages, as we've been discussing whether or not DC should have the right to demand its own representation in Congress.

Man, severely ninja'd. But yeah, I think gun laws should be state-by-state. Most people don't need a gun to go about their daily business, so if a state doesn't want your gun in their borders, live with it.

edited 19th Nov '11 1:00:29 PM by Jeysie

Who make all your food. While the farm subsidies are stupid, there's lots of things—like infrastructure building, etc.—that need to be done out there, and they're entitled to the same education and healthcare and such that the urban population enjoys, as well.

I don't know why I bother. Your "everyone should have equal protection" conceptualization ends immediately at the point where it's "someone I don't like."

Did this bill even get passed?

It got through the House. It won't get through the Senate...

Ah.

You know, there's one reason above all else why I would never stand for the abolition of the Second Amendment (even if it was to be done properly through the constitutional amendment process):

It makes the United States really difficult to invade...

@USAF 713

The US would be pretty damn difficult to invade even without civilian guns, all things considered.

Plus I would think that gun ownership would be most common in the Midwest or South, so unless Mexico's doing the invading, they'd have to go a ways before they hit people with guns as opposed to people beating the crap out of them with fists and office chairs.

Oh, I imagine there's tons of gun owners out on the West Coast. I don't know about the East Coast, but...

I'm not saying invasion is likely, nor that we shouldn't have a standing army to deal with such a thing, but really, the Second Amendment is basically a free deterrence. Invading the United States is literally one of the most hellish propositions in the modern age, as you'd be facing a gun in every window (they'd start passing them out in the event if invasion), and it wouldn't just be "oh, haha, useless civilians," because ours would shoot back.

edited 19th Nov '11 2:20:40 PM by USAF713

Well, if we were actually being invaded and they gave me a gun, I would use it, as I'd actually have a real reason to.

Though beating someone over the head with a heavy blunt object is so much more satisfying in its own way.

edited 19th Nov '11 2:15:19 PM by Jeysie

Yes, it is. but that only works in close-quarters ambush scenarios. It's nice being able to shoot back at range.

Theres a fair number of gun owners of the east coast. Not as many as other areas, but there is a decent number. All I've got is a BB gun, though my dad's mentioned a hunting rifle is in the garage somewhere.

@USAF

Except what I'm saying is that they get their investment, and then they turn around and deny it to the urban populations, and ESPECIALLY DC. They almost yanked federal funding for repairing the Metro in order to pass the goddamned debt ceiling! Not only would that have gotten rid of the federal funding, since Virginia and Maryland provide matching funds for that project, the state funding would have gone as well! All in the name of so-called capitalism! But just try and touch their stinking farm subsidies...

Yes, yes, American politics are broken, we know.

@USAF

And I'm saying that this is possible because Wyoming & Montana, which have more cows than people, each have their own voting representatives and two senators. Meanwhile, the District has? One representative who doesn't even vote. So it gets tossed around like a political football. We need senators too.

Yes—by joining one of the two States around you.

A single city, no matter how populous, shouldn't get overrepresented like that. Unless you happen to be a city the size of the smallest State to join the union after the original thirteen, which, to my knowledge, DC is not...

We have more people than Wyoming. Yank their senators then.

ADDED: Land doesn't vote for Senators and Congresspeople - people do. Congresspeople and Senators don't represent land - they represent people.

edited 19th Nov '11 8:43:07 PM by Clevomon

You would probably become your own district, given your size, and then you'd have your own Representatives. If you chose to go with Virgina, you'd also apparently make the State blue (holy damn that's weird to think about), so there's that, too.

If DC gets special treatment we have to give every major city in the country their own representatives, because they're so special in their gigantic metro areas.

Not.

@Clevomon

It's been like that for ~220 years. It's not changing any time soon...

Yeah... no. The reason Senators exist is because they represent land. They represent the land in their state(and that's why there's only two per state)...