Posted on 03/03/2012 5:27:15 PM PST by DTogo
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Attended a CT 5th Distrcit Candidate "meet-n-greet" in Woodbury today sponsored by the Minortown Firearms Enthusiasts. At the end a Q&A was afforded with 4 of the 5 candidates: Lisa Wilson-Foley, Mark Greenberg, Andrew Roraback, Mike Clark, and Justin Bernier (who had to bug out early). They are looking to replace Liberal Democrat Chris Murphy (running for Lieberman's Senate seat - God help us).
My first question was a simple yes/no on HR 822, the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act, "As a Congressmen would you vote to supprot such an act?" Lisa raised her hand "yes" and had to leave, Mark Greenberg confused the issue with a national data base on conceal carry holders and said "No," retired FBI Agent Mike Clark said "Yes" and had earlier showed the audience his own CT Pistol Permit, and then CT State Senator Andrew Roraback (who "strongly supports the 2nd Amendment") said "No."
Why? Roraback said he didn't want people from other states conceal carrying in CT without knowing the permitting standards they have at home. I replied that this was a Constitutional Right of all Americans, and we don't "permit" women to vote or non-whites to be free in different states. Roraback responded that some people could have psychological problems preventing them from carrying a gun by CT standards, to which both Mike Clark and a man in the audience replied "Those people will carry a gun anyway!"
Roraback then doubled-down and tried to compare state pistol permitting standards to a driver's license, to which I quickly retorted that a driver's license is not a Right in the Consititution (eliciting some strong applause). He soon gave up saying we simply disagree on this issue, and continued to stare at me for the rest of the Q&A.
Conclusion: Andrew Roraback seems to view the 2nd Amendment as a priviledge and/or States Rights issue rather than an inalienable Right of all Americans to keep and bear arms.
What gives me pause about a national reciprocity statute would be that statute would likely give to the federal government cause to push a licensing scheme into place for all states, thus ending Constitutional Carry (and likely even Open Carry) much as it did with drinking ages.
If anything national reciprocity should act as a spring board for Constitutional Carry, as hopefully some of the recent cases in NYC could (should) if taken to the SCOTUS. There is no national licensing scheme for drivers, which is not even in the Constitution.
Sadly, while it seems it should work that way, it is entirely possible (and IMO probable) that it would be twisted into a form of control. For example it could be enacted such that it covers only those who are licensed, thereby cutting out all of those who live in a Constitutional Carry or Open Carry state; and indeed in order to gain licenses so that act would apply the State could very well try to add some restrictions in its licensing. (The restrictions would, of course, only grow over time; and likely would be seen as a valid signing away rights in the courts.)
In NM, the State Constitution flatly prohibits counties and municipalities from "regulating, in any way an incident to keep and bear arms" yet I see State and County Courthouses with "Weapons Prohibited, violators will be prosecuted" signs. Also, there is no State law that would allow such prohibitions. And any time I ask about such unconstitutionalities I am redirected, or brushed-off.
Looks like talking out of both sides of mouth.
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.