• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Carry on

Thank goodness cooler heads prevailed, leading the Senate to defeat a national reciprocity measure allowing gun owners with permits to carry their concealed weapons across state lines. Otherwise, I might have had to fight my way to work through crowds of armed, angry Buckeyes just itching to cause trouble in the state they love to hate. As Sen. Chuck Schumer noted, the measure would have incited "the dangerous race to the bottom in our nation's gun laws." And he has been quoted elsewhere as saying there is no doubt the measure's defeat would save lives.

("Defeat" can be a tricky concept. This measure lost by getting 58 votes out of 100, which many people would call a majority. But it needed 60 votes to be able to survive a filibuster.)

Evan Bayh was one of the 20 Democrats who voted for the measure, the fourth time this year he has sided with gun rights advocates. Richard Lugar was one of only two Republicans who voted against it. (And Buckeye George Voinovich was the other.) If I were a cynic, I'd say this issue illustrates pretty clearly which one of them is up for re-election next year and which one isn't.

The funniest part of the vote was how the Democrats, who usually want to nationalize everything from which light bulbs we can use to how much water our toilet flushes consume, were all hot for "states' rights."

. . . the liberal Democrats noted that 36 states have specific laws regarding these gun permits. Some bar conceal-carry permits for alcohol abusers and prohibit misdemeanor criminals from carrying weapons.

"The states already have laws. Under the Thune amendment, those laws could be ignored. So if the Thune amendment becomes law, people who are currently prohibited from carrying concealed guns in those 36 states are free to do so. It is absurd that we are considering this," said Durbin, the majority whip.

They have kind of a point, actually. Some states, as noted, forbid even misdemeanor criminals from having the permits, while others forbid only felons. Ohio requires permit seekers to complete a safety course, and Indiana does not. Why shouldn't states be able to set their own conditions? A federal reciprocity law would trample on states' desires. Or do we like federalism only when it brings the results we desire?

I have to confess I was just kidding about those crazed Buckeyes. They can already bring their concealed weapons to Indiana. Many states already practice one form of reciprocity or another. Indiana's concealed-carry permits, for example, are recognized by about half the other states (Ohio not being one of them), while Indiana recognizes the concealed-carry laws of all the other states. So, if anything, it's the Buckeyes who ought to be relieved this morning that they won't have to fear deranged Hoosiers.

(In case you're planning a cross-country drive, here's a nifty map that shows which states homor which other states' concealed-carry laws.)


Kevin Knuth
Thu, 07/23/2009 - 11:05am

And I am happy to see how many people flip-flop about "states rights" on both sides of the aisle!

tim zank
Thu, 07/23/2009 - 7:00pm

This is a classic "no answer is right" scenario. While most folks would agree that states, towns and municipalities need some degree of control, the majority of "clear thinking" Americans can interpret the 2nd ammendment without a great deal of ambiguity.

Those of us that have PP Permits in Indiana know and understand they are not valid in say, Toledo, however, most of us would rather suffer the consequences of a state gun violation than be, oh, like dead.

The real red-herring is, that by and large, licensed handgun owners don't hold up liquor stores or banks, criminals do. Not exactly rocket science.

As for the likes of Chuck Schumer, he is, and always has been nothing more than another one of the many pandering sh&t for brains public leeches that thrives on the adulation of the downtrodden by appearing to really give a sh&t. Spineless, whining pondscum that lives off the public dole.

Thu, 07/23/2009 - 9:48pm

Gosh Tim:

Why don't you tell us how you really feel about Chuck U Shumer?

tim zank
Fri, 07/24/2009 - 5:26am

I know, I know Gadfly, I've gotta stop holding back!

Andrew J.
Fri, 07/24/2009 - 10:29am

"Suffer the consequences of a state gun violation." Is that a euphemism for you are willing to break the law?

Bob G.
Fri, 07/24/2009 - 11:12am

...Yeah, what Tim said!
(he does tend to repress his true emotions...must be that streak of Vulcan logic in him...lol)

tim zank
Fri, 07/24/2009 - 5:18pm

Andrew J...That is PRECISELY what it means. Every now and again, a state or local legislator has made it perfectly clear, if not perilous, that their (see Shumer) ridiculous quest to be loved and/or respected/paid attention too has jeopardized the lives of normal folks.

I will gladly, without resignation, break the law to protect my life and/or my family's life. If you are not willing to do so, you become one of the mindless "soylent green" eating sheep Der Leader so wants to breed.......

You guys thought George Bush took away civil rights?, heh heh heh....

You ain't seen nothin yet.

Andrew J.
Fri, 07/24/2009 - 10:43pm

How would toting a .44 magnum to Toledo protect your life, or better yet, the life of your family?
And if you break the law, which is what you are advocating, how much protection of your life or your families life are you risking if you lose the ability to carry a gun, or worse yet, wind up in the pokey?

Arthur Lewis
Sat, 07/25/2009 - 11:32am

Knuth has a good point. Everybody claims to be an advocate for states rights in the abstract, but when it comes to concrete issues their positions are pretty fluid.

tim zank
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 10:07am

Andrew, if I had to, I would pull out my .380 (a .44 is waaay to cumbersome) at a stoplight in Toledo to prevent a carjacker from beating me senseless, raping wife and taking off with my kids in car, and shoot the aforementioned moron carjacker in the forehead I would. IN A HEARTBEAT.

I may have to go to jail in Toledo for a while, but my wife & kids would be alive, and there would be one less bag of sh&t on the face of the earth.

Works for me, anybody else?

Kevin Knuth
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 12:47pm

So if you regulate guns, only criminals will have guns.

But in this case, even if you DO regulate guns, those that use the above excuse are willing to be criminals and carry a gun even though it is against the law....interesting.

Bob G.
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 3:39pm

Works for me as well.

How's about we regulate CRIMINALS instead???
Like tattoo a Surgeon General's warning ACROSS THEIR FOREHEADS:

"Warning - THIS moron might be hazardous to SOCIETY. Feel free to demonstrate YOUR Constitutional RIGHT to decrease our surplus population by wasting this bag of worthless protoplasm".

What...too strong?
Not enough?


Kevin Knuth
Tue, 07/28/2009 - 8:19am

I am only pointing out that the argument that guns rights activists use falls flat on its face in the above scenario.