Senator Tom Udall, a good friend, wants people who have concealed weapon permits from all over the United States to be able to carry them in New Mexico without meeting our own laws for doing so. WTF!
So now instead of just your fellow New Mexican packing a 9 mm Glock in the movie theater as he sits next to your child, you can also have itchy trigger fingers from Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Texas...etc. etc. too!
Will someone explain to me his reasoning here? Is his Senate seat vulnerable? I didn't think so. Would it be if he had voted as Senator Bingaman to not allow this? I don't think so. Is he just being paranoid about the gun lobby? Probably.
At least the measure is not law yet. I will be watching his vote when it comes up again.
4 comments:
http://unrepentantoldhippie.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/head_up_ass.jpg
Baca as usually misses the point.
You child sitting in a movie theater is in no danger from the person who law abidingly gets a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I have never heard of murder perpetrated through the use of person licensed to carry a concealed firearm. None of the major shootings in this country we done by people with concealed carry permits. The danger comes Mr. Baca to your child from the little thug who does not follow any laws does not have a permit and knows that you as law abiding citizen are probably not carrying a gun because it is such a hassle to get a permit. So when he decides your wallet is worth more than your kids life and easy to take since the next people with guns to arrive on the scene probably have a response time of over 20 minutes if you are lucky. Don't be surprised when he shoots your non-carrying pansy self and pray he doesn't shoot your kid too. Because there will be no law abiding citizens carrying their firearms to save you.
The only legitimate argument that could made for not upholding the 2nd Amendment in this manner is that the law probably violated State Sovereignty because it dictates to the states the manner in which individuals may bear concealed weapons which is a decision best left to the States as long as the States are not violating the 2nd Amendment.
The reason for voting or not voting for this have absolutely nothing to do with law abiding citizens sitting in movie theaters with their concealed firearms.
You should check the first comment on NMI (who linked to this post in their roundup)which crazily tries to deduce your reasoning on why this isn't needed and fails miserably.
Udall is afraid of the NRA even though the wingnuts that support the Supreme Court's interpretation of it didn't vote for him.
The 2nd Amendment says the militia can carry arms. Too bad the Supremes didn't want to read that part. The Founders never heard of assault rifles, machine guns or "street sweepers" or any weapon that can carry a mile. Whatever "right" they had in mind certainly didn't include those then non-existent weapons, and had they been able to read the future they would have been smart enough to rule them out.
And the only Founder that I can recall that died violently was Hamilton, who was killed by a single shot pistol in the hands of the traitor, Aaron Burr.
Post a Comment