Funny thing how some times one has to choose between two cherished "rights."
Yesterday, the Senate defeated the amendment to the appropriations bill that would have allowed people with a permit to carry a concealed weapon in one state to carry them over state lines into a state whose laws do not allow it.
This really pitted guns against states' rights, and it seemed that the gun addicts were willing to give up the old shibboleth of the anti-civil-rights crowd who screamed "States' Rights" as a response to federal civil rights laws.
What gives this an even bigger touch of wry is that -- had the gun law passed, thus trashing states' rights -- it could have set a precedent that would have made it difficult to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act that supports, among other things, the right of individual states not to recognize marriages of same-sex couples performed in other states where it is legal.
See the parallel: your right to carry your gun would supersede the laws of the state you visit; so why wouldn't your legal marriage also supersede the laws of the state you visit or move to?
Be careful what you wish for. Guns could lead to gay marriage.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
OMG! Color me biased -- in favor of gun control.
ReplyDeleteIt didn't dawn on me until later that this thing cuts both ways.
If you oppose the "gun rights" amendment on states' rights grounds, how can you say that marriage rights should supersede states' rights?
Well, there is a difference. Most people opposed the gun law, not on states' rights but on being opposed to allowing concealed weapons, period. Or at least not forcing states with stricter laws to be forced to allow dangerous weapons, not subject to their laws.
ReplyDeleteBut then would the anti-gay folks claim that gay marriage is a dangerous weapon? Maybe. Yea, they probably would.