The philosophical fraud of the ‘Thune amendment’
Right now, the U.S. Senate is debating an amendment proposed by John Thune of South Dakota — and co-sponsored by Georgia’s Johnny Isakson — that would require states to recognize concealed-weapons permits issued by other states, even if the laws in those other states might be considerably weaker.
For example, New York, a state that has chosen to enact very strict concealed-carry laws, would be forced to honor permits issued by Georgia, a state with very lax laws in that regard.
Philosophically, that seems a strange position for a states’-rights Republican like Thune, don’t you think? As a matter of principle, shouldn’t states have the right to set their own laws on such matters of public safety, without mandates from the federal government that interfere with their sovereignty?
As Brian Montopoli reports at a CBS News blog:
“In response to the introduction of the amendment, families of the victims of the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings placed a full-page ad in the Richmond Times-Dispatch urging Virginia’s two senators, Jim Webb and John Warner, to oppose it.
The ad says the amendment would make some of the gun laws the families have been fighting for “meaningless by forcing our law enforcement to honor permits from states with weaker rules.”
It notes, among other examples, that Virginia will not issue a concealed weapons permit to those who have received residential mental health or substance abuse treatment in the past five years, unlike some other states.”
The move is particularly interesting given that in Thune’s state of South Dakota, both chambers of the state Legislature recently passed resolutions reasserting state sovereignty and reminding the federal government that under the Tenth Amendment, “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution … are reserved to the states.”
Here in Georgia, the state Senate where Isakson once served passed a similar resolution, even threatening to absolve the Union if its demands for sovereignty are not honored. The Georgia resolution warned that any federal action “which assumes a power not delegated to the government of the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America,” and thus an end to the United States itself.
Isn’t the Thune amendment exactly the kind of federal overreach that such resolutions are meant to protest? If it passes, aren’t the states of South Dakota and Georgia honor-bound to secede in defense of their sovereignty?
Probably not, I suspect.
The contrast to the debate over gay marriage is telling. On that issue, conservatives insist that each state has the right to decide the matter for itself, and should not be forced to recognize marriages performed legally in other states. Yet surely a marriage license should be more portable from state to state, and more durable, than a permit to carry a concealed weapon. A marriage is a contract; surely a contract validated in one state should be valid in another, right?
Once again, I suspect probably not.
And then there’s the matter of abortion. Many pro-life advocates have argued that overturning the constitutional right to choose would merely return the issue to the states, where legislators would be free to decide for themselves whether to keep abortion legal.
I never bought it. That scenario requires you to believe that once freed of Roe, conservatives wouldn’t try to enlist the power of the federal government to outlaw abortion everywhere. It would require you to believe that pro-life advocates in Georgia or South Dakota would sit back while “child-murdering” continued in Illinois or Massachusetts.
The Thune amendment proves otherwise. Claims of “states’ rights,” like claims of “local control,” are philosophical frauds that conservatives wave around to oppose things they dislike, but conveniently ignore when pursuing goals they desire.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
117 comments Add your comment
JR
July 21st, 2009
9:19 am
No the point is to re-assert the fact that the right to bear arms is an individual right, it’s not a state’s right. Having said that, state’s try to make it their right to control (not to be confused with regulate) an individual’s right to bear arms. In places like DC and Chicago, an individual’s right to bear arms is virtually non-existent, which is un-constitutional. The right to bear arms is a hallowed right, just as the right to free speech is. There are regulations in place so that one’s reputation is not wrongfully harmed by means of slander and libel, and understandably there are regulations in place so that you don’t walk around pointing firearms at people. However, if the DC and Chicago local governments are allowed to ban guns, what would stop a city from banning free speech? I too am a proponent of proportional rights, and that those not enumerated by the federal constitution of the United States should be left up to individual states to determine. However, these local units of government are over-stepping their boundaries when they ban firearms completely – essentially barring an individual’s second amendment right. And if that’s the case, they could just as easily block any individual’s rights. That is the purpose of this amendment, to close these local loopholes.
A Republican
July 21st, 2009
9:28 am
I have never understood the concept of punishing or limiting the Constitutional rights of honest citizens just because of a few knuckleheads. It appears to me that the proposed bill leaves the State’s sovereignty in place by forcing the carrier to comply with the host state’s laws but provides for the general citizenry to exercise their right. If a Georgian must comply with New York’s laws while he/she is there than what is the harm? I don’t believe it is fair to tell an honest citizen, seeking to defend themselves, especially in crime ridden areas, such as New York, Los Angeles, etc., that they can’t because “We don’t think you can handle your gun well enough”, or whatever other ridiculous argument there is. Remember, the Constitution provides for the individual’s right to keep and BEAR arms. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that the rights of the nation’s people are not trampled on by the state. After all, that was the basic concept of abolishing slavery in the south. Each citizen has the right to life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. Anyway, that is my take on it. I’m sure most of you won’t agree but it doesn’t hurt to my two cents in.
A Republican
July 21st, 2009
9:59 am
JR
The proposed ammendment does not close loopholes like those in Illinois or Wisconsin. A Florida CCW holder, such as myself, still cannot carry in those states or any other local area that prohibits the carrying of concealed weapons. This bill does not grant the right to carry anywhere you please. All the bill, apparently, ammends is that the individual states must recognize another state’s requirements to carry as adequate; so long as the carrier abides by the host state’s laws. In short, Michigan (I just pulled that state out of the hat) cannot tell a CCW holder from Iowa that they can’t carry in Michigan just because they haven’t taken a Michigan approved safety course instead of an Iowa approved training course. It’s, more or less, symantics.
TxDrifter
July 21st, 2009
10:52 am
States Right’s are not being infringed in this case. What they are saying is that your concealed carry permit is valid to carry in the state you are visiting, but you must abide by their carry laws. If the state issues a license, or like Alaska allows concealed carry without one, then you can carry in that state. If they do not issue a concealed carry permit at all and their state constitution does not allow it, then you cannot carry there.
Driver’s licenses work the same way. Some states have a valid minimum age for a drivers license at 15, but this license is invalid while driving in a state with a minimum age of 17. That state’s rights have therefore been satisfied.
California, New York and others issue concealed carry permits, but you are required to give what they consider a VALID reason for it. Personal protection is not a valid reason to most of them. After the Supreme Court decision saying that the police are not required to protect you, this becomes an option to take that responsibility into your own hands.
Republicans Try to Get Another Gun Rights Vote Out of the Dems | linkthe.com
July 21st, 2009
2:30 pm
[...] The philosophical fraud of the ‘Thune amendment (Atlanta Journal Constitution). [...]
Kevin B
July 21st, 2009
3:21 pm
Purchasing a firearm is already a federal issue because the dealer you buy it from has an FFL and you have to be run through NICS. Considering these states are regulating a right differently, i don’t see why this isn’t a federal issue. You all want so much for gay marriage to be legal all over, but not gun rights? I don’t see gay marriage as a right in the constitution, I do see owning a gun. This liberal BS that all of the sudden puts the issue as a states right, yet disagrees with states being able to make their own guns and buy them in state for state use…. you all show your true colors. You can’t have it both ways, if you want national rights, then that includes gay marriage, gun rights, health care rights, and anything else like that. If you want states rights, then you better get off your national health care and national gay marriage kicks. You are hypocrites of the worst kind!
Al
July 21st, 2009
3:52 pm
Would John Thune allow people with California Marijuana Prescriptions to obtain pot legally in SD. The fact is that SD could become a victim of its own Gun Laws.
Farms are installing steel gates and electronic surveilance right now because they are afraid of crime. Do we want car loads of out-of-staters rolling through SD with a bunch of Guns. Dont we have enough problems with organized crime?
The people of this state have an abundance of guns already. The Old West was a long time ago, and having people carry guns just added to the violence. We want tourism without firearms.
Bud Wiser
July 21st, 2009
4:25 pm
TG, you are right about the Soviets, and us aiding the Afghans.
DB, well, you’re just off in your little 94%er world, as usual.
Come back when you grow a brain.
The decider
July 21st, 2009
5:07 pm
If I have a driver’s license issued in California does that mean I have to get another one to drive in Arizona? And are the driving and written tests of all 50 states identical? Do all 50 states even have a written test? Even though my license was issued in California, I am inclined to believe that I have the right to drive throughout the country.
Why should the rules applied to carry conceal licenses be any different? it’s you “lib’ral folk” that have narrow justifications. You use shallow reasoning, a lack of statistics, and loophole logic to deny rights of gun owners.
For example, on bradycampaign.org there is a pdf document that lists about 180 incidents where a CCW licensee committed a gun crime over the span of 14 years. However if you average 180 out over the span of 14 years (the document sites examples from 1996 to 2009) you get an average of 2. 2 Licensees out of all the CCW licensee population kill somebody each year.
Compare that to 41,611 deaths in traffic related incidents in 1999 (ntsb.gov)
Compare that to abortion statistics where in 1996 1.37 million babies are killed each year (abortionno.org).
if you look at gun related deaths in general, the Center of Disease Control recorded about 30,000 firearm related deaths in 2006 (table 18). The suicide to homicide ratio was 5:4
Homicide and suicide is ranked 15th in leading causes of death and superceded by heart disease, stroke, chronic lower respiratory diseases, car accidents, and diabetes as well as 9 other causes of death that can be found in the center of disease control mortality report.
But I know none of you dumbasses knew any of this. None of you guys nor these politicians bother to do research which is widely available over the internet. Instead you jump to conclusions charged by emotion through personal experience as if that should be the deciding factor on policy.
Give me a break. I don’t have a CCW license, but I can definitely see a right being infringed. Nowhere in the second amendment or in any other federal document does it say that our right to bear arms and protect ourselves in self defense be limited to our home states only.
The decider
July 21st, 2009
5:30 pm
“However if you average 180 out over the span of 14 years (the document sites examples from 1996 to 2009) you get an average of 2. 2 Licensees out of all the CCW licensee population kill somebody each year.”
Just needed to note I made a mistake on the math. Its actually an average of 13 incidents each year.
TxDrifter
July 21st, 2009
8:57 pm
If I had a penny for every time I’ve heard that “Wild West” reference.
In his book, Frontier Violence: Another Look, author W. Eugene Hollon, provides us with these astonishing facts:
* In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
* In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.
Zooming forward over a century to 2007, a quick look at Uniform Crime Report statistics shows us the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east:
* DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
* New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
* Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
* Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)
It doesn’t take an advanced degree in statistics to see that a return to “wild west” levels of violent crime would be a huge improvement for the residents of these cities.
The truth of the matter is that the “wild west” wasn’t wild at all … not compared to a Saturday night in Newark.
Referenced from here: http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m2d17-Dispelling-the-myth-of-The-Wild-West
Austin
July 22nd, 2009
12:37 am
The right of self defense does not end at a states border. Concealed pistol permit holders are not the problem guys.
Haus - Indiana
July 22nd, 2009
2:25 am
This issue is not as black and white as some on both sides have tried to make it. There are states rights issues, but there are also the constitutional rights of American citizens to be considered as well. As others have said, this is the same thing as a drivers license. Each state has different requirements for obtaining a drivers license, but your drivers license from your state is recognized by the state you are visiting. It is however, understood that you abide by the rules of the state you are currently in. I am a states rights guy, but this is not telling states what rules to have as far as licensing, it is simply saying that those from other states who have licenses should be recognized as well. Some may ask how a “states rights” guy would be so approving of the federal government telling the states what to do. The answer is quite simple. This issue is a constitutional issue. We have a constitutional right to “keep and bear arms.” The states must follow the constitution. Just because I live in Indiana and not Ohio doesn’t mean that my constitutional right to carry a weapon while in Ohio should be voided. This bill gives clarity and protection to law abiding American citizens.
Jacob
July 22nd, 2009
9:02 am
I’m sorry, but your understanding of states rights and the constitution is a little skewed. Conservatives don’t claim that states rights allow them to to do things like declare war or legalize slavery because the constitution prohibits it. In the same way, the constitution requires every state to give full faith and credit to the acts of another. Otherwise drivers licenses from one state would be invalid in others. The right to bear arms and protect ones-self are among the most important and protected by the second amendment. They don’t end at state lines and neither should the ability to exercise them. It’s kind of funny that liberals don’t mind imposing federal laws that restrict gun rights on states but oppose imposing ones that protect them. Sounds like a double standard to me.
Random Nuclear Strikes » Point, but not yet match
July 22nd, 2009
3:02 pm
[...] and dripping-with-integrity GOP and Blue Dog Dems once again. Tomorrow at noon, we get the Thune Amendment–as in John Thune from South Dakota–which assaults both the federalism they cherish in [...]
Walt
July 22nd, 2009
4:45 pm
Really, if anyone is against this, why are you against driver’s license reciprocity? This would not violate that State’s rules and rights. It would simply say that since (for example) FL issues a permit to it’s citizen, NY, you must recognize that as a valid permit. That’s all. As for where to carry, that’s a different issue. You must follow local laws. You can try creating a whole bunch of banned zones, but that would be simply challenged as a ban on guns. Remember, these laws are not for the criminals who will break all other laws anyway. They like these restrictive laws because they know you are defenseless.
Greg Camp
April 27th, 2010
1:21 am
This article uses states rights to challenge the idea of national reciprocity for handgun carry permits, but perhaps we need to read the Bill of Rights again. The Tenth Amendment covers matters not dealt with by the first nine, to be sure, but the Second Amendment specifically deals with the right to keep and bear arms. That right was not left to the states; it was reserved for the people.