Should Gun Rights be Reciprocal Among States? Tenn. Women Arrested in NYC for Carrying Legal Gun

The New York Post (founded by Alexander Hamilton, but don't hold that against the current version) reports on the strange case of Meredith Graves, a 39-year-old medical student and nurse from Tennessee who was arrested for illegally carrying - and voluntarily surrendering - a gun at Manhattan's 9/11 Memorial. Graves is licensed to carry in Tennessee and was in New York for a job interview, reports the Post, when she and her husband visited the memorial. Upon seeing a sign saying no weapons allowed, says the Post, she realized she was carrying a .32 caliber pistol and inquired about how to declare it:

When she got to that section, she asked another cop, “We have this gun — can we check it in here? We [my husband and I] are not law-enforcement.”
That’s when she was arrested.
Graves, who has a full legal carry permit in Tennessee, was locked up on a weapons-possession charge and held on $2,000 bond that she posted yesterday. She is due in court on March 19.
She’ll soon find out exactly how serious New York City is about illegal guns. The Manhattan DA’s Office is pursuing a conviction on felony gun possession — carrying a minimum sentence of 3 1/2 years....

The Post quotes her mother making the case that gun rights should not be subject to state infringements:

“You’d think states would reciprocate with the Second Amendment. She has a license to carry in Tennessee,” said her mother-in-law, who lives in Manchester, NJ.

Bonus anonymous Volunteer State voice whose opinion of New York probably couldn't have gotten any lower anyhow:

“Everyone down there carries, and she just forgot,” said the woman, who would not give her name. “She was being honest, and this is the treatment they give innocent people.”

The Post notes that Mayor Mike Bloomberg has made a huge push against illegal guns in the city.

Whole story here.

So what do you think, kind readers? While I think most reasonable people would agree that prosecuting such a case is a monumental waste of law enforcement resources, what about the case for reciprocity in gun laws? Assuming New York's and the city's laws pass constitutional muster, isn't this just one more case of respecting local differences (ironically, that sort of federalist-localist claim is more typically associated with the South than New Yawk City)?

If every place in America is forced to be just like every other place when it comes all laws and regulation and taxes and collective bargaining and trans fat and this and that (including gay marriage, come to think of it), isn't that supposed to be a bad thing? Or should the standard for gun rights and many other things (free speech, religious liberty, not having to quarter soldiers, etc.) ultimately be set at the highest level possible? What do you think is the way to decide which rights get special protection and which ones don't?

KrisKrinkle said: "It springs from society or the state. It’s not something that is natural."

Again I disagree. I understand what you are saying, but I view the protections accorded to society by means of a criminal trial as the artificial creation. The right to a speedy trial is what remains of the inalienable right to liberty.

What is your view of the right to purchase firearms? Anti-gunners would contend that the state has authority to control this aspect of commerce without limit. If I make a firearm and wish to sell it to you, is that act a "creation of society" or is it simply the most primitive form of barter needed to supply one of us with arms?

I view your thinking as being quite similar to that of the rabid environmentalists who view every action of man as artificial and not deserving of the protection accorded to blind fish or spotted salamanders.

I believe that our Founders viewed the Bill of Rights as an enumeration of a minimal set of protections of natural rights that should accompany a compact establishing government. I don't view the Bill of Rights as being part of the compact.

Procedures for criminal trials may be created by Congress. Congress has no authority to deny speedy trials. To deny a speedy trial is a violation of rights which pre-existed the Constitution, much as the right to self-defense protected by the Second Amendment pre-existed the Constitution.

I’m as pro 2nd Amendment as anyone walking the land. When I was a police officer, I did everything in my power to not be a hypocrite when it came to gun ownership and the right to protect oneself. However.....

Having lived in Georgia for 16 years, prior to that I lived in the communist Northeast region of the country, I’ve been exposed to people from all walks of life. As a cop and firearms instructor I witnessed police officers who shouldn’t have been issued a water pistol. As someone that competes in IPSC/USPSA matches regularly, I’ve witnessed men and women that could outshoot any members of our elite military units.

I think folks get so wrapped around the axle about being able to carry, but forget about the responsibility that comes with it. There are some states, like Georgia, that don’t require people to prove some sort of proficiency, while others, like Tennessee, do. It would be a hard argument as to which state is more gun friendly.

I’m all for having reciprocity throughout the country, the same way my drivers license is recognized. I’ve rolled the dice many times, driving up north, with a pistol in my truck. And I would put my training, experience, skill and familiarity with the law, against any cop or trooper that could have pulled me over. Especially, the members of NJ law enforcement. However, the folks that disagree with having to prove your proficiency or having to take a class, lose the argument for me every time its brought up. They talk of driving a car is a privilege but carrying a gun is a right. Maybe they’re right, but the last time I checked a car can be stopped if its headed in the wrong direction. A bullet, once in flight, cannot. Just sayin’

Let's get this out of the way first:

I'm thinking in terms of philosophy and "State of Nature" versus "State of Society", the hypothetical wherein the "State of Nature" exists before the "State of Society" and government and so forth. I'm thinking that way to try to get to first principles.

I'm not thinking in the terms of the "rabid enviromentalists", who I think are mostly nuts. I don't say entirely nuts only because I'm not acquainted with all of them. I think a dam built by beavers and a dam built by humans are comparable in principle and that the human built dam is not to be disparaged just because it is human built.

Now as to the rest:

Again I disagree.

I'm not clear on the disagreement.

I understand what you are saying, but I view the protections accorded to society by means of a criminal trial as the artificial creation.

I agree that the protections are the artificial creation, but again, “artificial” is the key word. The protections spring from society or the state. I don't see how they could be found absent an organized society, that is in a State of Nature. I don't see how the term "inalienable" applies.

The right to a speedy trial is what remains of the inalienable right to liberty.

Maybe, maybe not. But what I wrote was 'The "...right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..." is not an inalienable right.' There's more there than just the "speedy trial".

What is your view of the right to purchase firearms?

Well, as stated it's too dependent to be an inalienable natural right. Among other things, it depends on the willingness of someone who has the right or authority to do so to offer a firearm for purchase.

Anti-gunners would contend that the state has authority to control this aspect of commerce without limit.

That would depend on whether or not the people who live under the authority of the particular state have ceded that authority to the state. So far as I know, we have not done that in any of the United States, but it may have happened in other states around the world, currently or historically.

If I make a firearm and wish to sell it to you, is that act a "creation of society" or is it simply the most primitive form of barter needed to supply one of us with arms?

I don't follow the question.

We already disagree about the natural rights part, but what is the compact of which you write?

To deny a speedy trial is a violation of rights which pre-existed the Constitution, much as the right to self-defense protected by the Second Amendment pre-existed the Constitution.

That the right to a speedy trial pre-existed the Constitution does not mean it is a natural or inalienable right. The right to self-defense tracks back to the right to life. The Second Amendment doesn't mention self-defense.

Finally, how badly do you want the "speedy trial" you write of with no qualifiers?

If my companions and I find you with my horse, that I believe was stolen from me, we can give you a speedy trial right then and there and a neck tie party to follow. The trial will be so speedy you won't have time to call witnesses to testify that you found the horse running loose and were returning it, or that they saw you "buy" it from the person who really stole it.

You'll get a speedy trial, but not necessarily a fair one.

KrisKrinkle said: I don't see how they [the protections accorded to society by criminal trials] could be found absent an organized society, that is in a State of Nature. I don't see how the term "inalienable" applies."

The "inalienable" part is the right to a SPEEDY trial. We have an inalienable right to liberty. Infringement of that right carries with it a considerable burden on "society".

I believe that your division of rights into "natural" and otherwise is very difficult and perhaps misleading as to the consequences of the distinction.

Ants demonstrate a division of labor which contributes to the welfare of their society with no apparent consideration of the "rights" of a particular ant.

Humans are "endowed by their Creator" [a phrase which must trouble Obama greatly] with inalienable rights which are a consequence of our special place. [I'm not a religious person but I believe that I understand what our Founders were thinking.]

Back to my example of bartering to obtain a gun made by another person. This example could be simplified to include the act of sharpening a stone into a useful cutting tool and trading it for a handful of berries.

At what point do the acts of two or more people somehow morph into "society"? Division of labor for mutual benefit is simply too primitive to believe that such actions somehow lose the character of "natural rights".

That’s what the rest of the peasants always said when the fascist authorities picked up another “lawbreaker”.

You are trying to portray something in my remark that isn’t there - or you just stopped at that part of my response.

I choose NOT to obey that law and if caught, I will have to pay for my actions.

Whether it is a just law or not is moot, the fact remains it is the law, as written.

For example - you seem to imply if the speed limit is 65 and you feel safe at doing 85 there should be no reprecussion if you are caught.

And, like I said earlier, the fact her mother is in NJ makes the woman’s excuse almost laughable, because NJ is as draconian as NY when it comes to carrying, especially towards out of staters.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.