search
top

A Push for National Right to Carry

From Chris Cox, in the Daily Caller. Because this uses Congress’ 14th Amendment powers, I’m in favor of this legislation, as I believe it’s within the federal government’s powers. It does also use the commerce power, but in cases like this, when people could be facing arrest, with states choosing to challenge rather than obey, you want to have all your bases covered.

It sets up an interesting conundrum for left-leaning judges too. Currently the “herpes theory” of the commerce clause is the power that enables federal felon-in-possession laws. It’s never been used the other way, that is to enable gun rights rather than remove them. While I’d like to see the herpes theory relegated to the dustbin of history, part of me doesn’t mind extending this legal middle finger to the people who created this power, using it in a way they are probably horrified over.

9 Responses to “A Push for National Right to Carry”

  1. Since this bill has been out there a while and has 242 co-sponsors in the House, do you think the Chris Cox article is meant to get movement on this bill?

    I note that no hearings have been held yet in the House Judiciary Committee or any of their subcommittees on this bill and no companion bill has been introduced in the Senate.

  2. Sebastian says:

    Probably, and to get people thinking about it, to get them to call when the time comes. But it’s going to be tough with Obama in the White House.

  3. Sebastian says:

    If I had to guess, the GOP won’t want to push it right now, since they would probably like it to be an election issue. Reid was relatively pro-gun during the Democratic reign from 2006-2010, but that’s not a guarantee he’ll take up a bill that will be helpful in defeating the Democratic incumbent in the White House. That wouldn’t be smart politics for the Dems.

  4. Dave Y says:

    Is it a push for passage?

    “Call your representative today and ask if he or she is a cosponsor of H.R. 822. If the answer is yes, please thank them and urge them do what they can to push this bill forward.”

    No more co-sponsors are needed, what’s needed are people to push for it’s successful vote out of committee, and yes votes on the House floor. It’s already more co-sponsors than are needed to pass the bill in the house.

    Asking to get more co-sponsors is a 2 edged sword. Fence sitters will use this as cover to tell their pro-gun constituents that “I cosponsored HR822!” The key here is getting them to actually do something in support of the bill. Get it passed out of committee to the floor, scheduled & passed.

    Now is a good time to get representatives & senators on the record so that gun owners will remember come election time. If it passes with a good enough margin, Obama might well look at the pragmatic side of letting this or some other pro-gun legislation slide through. His numbers are in the tank. Motivating gun owners against him further this close to an election would be like a thumb in the eye.

    Either way, what’s needed is high volume of calls from concerned gun owner constituents until passage.

  5. Ian Argent says:

    It needs 290 votes to be veto-proof. Also now that last session, in the senate, a similar bill got 59 yes votes, and all 59 are still in the senate, while we got at least 2 no votes replaced by pro 2A candidates

  6. Chas says:

    Markie Marxist sez: “How can we have national right to carry? We won’t be able to screw people out of their gun rights locally if they are allowed to have rights nationally. Gun restrictions are only supposed to work one way. We’re supposed to be able to take away people’s rights nationally that can’t be restored locally, and we’re supposed to be able to take rights away locally that can’t be restored nationally. So an ’03 Federal Firearms License is no defense against local restrictions, and a local firearms license is no defense against NFA restrictions. That way, the restrictions always win over rights, regardless of what level of government the restrictions come from. Funny how we’ve set things up so that a restrictive village law can trump federal rights, and vice versa, but only in the direction of restriction! Ha! Ha! All your restriction are belong to us! Besides, a national right to carry would be contrary to the right to keep not bear arms, so it’s just common communist sense not to have it! Ha! Ha! American doesn’t need to be the land of the free and the home of the brave anymore, it needs to be the land of the restricted and the home of the bureaucratically regulated. Like my commie compadres at the Batty, uh, Brady Campaign are always saying, it’s just common communist sense!”

  7. Carl from Chicago says:

    Markie Marxist.

    Chas, I gotta ask. How old are you?

  8. GMC70 says:

    Be careful what you wish for . . . . .

  9. Ian Argent says:

    What I really want to see is federally-mandated shall-issue/constitutional carry. Basically, if you can pass a NICS check, the states may not forbid that you carry in general. That leaves the licensing/permitting/&c at the states. This would of course go with the forced reciprocity.

    I’m willing to allow the states a permit on the way to constitutional carry rather than force a shaky majority on the SCOTUS to force Con Carry; given that we are seeing states with experience with shall-issue permits going that way themselves after some experience.

top