# House passes Gun Bill **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 7, 2017, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826 "2017-12-07T20:06:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2017, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/81 "2017-12-09T00:09:23Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > But I don’t see how Congress could mandate than everyone must carry a gun, but if one advocates a line of argument in which the commerce clause lets Congress do anything with respect to an item in interstate commerce, then it follows that they should have the power to do so. The taxation power is different, because I do think it is a much broader power. Like I said, I don’t think congress can mandate that everyone carry. What I think they can do is mandate that everyone must have that choice (felons and other prohibited persons, sensitive places, etc. notwithstanding). They would essentially preempting or occupying all or some of the space with regard to permitting concealed weapons. > [@](#): > > But I think this law probably rests on an interpretation of the commerce clause that is far broader than you want, or current law provides. Yes it’s definitely broader than I would want. I’m not sure it’s broader than current law provides. However, my preference would be that congress simply say that this law is constitutional because the 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That would be on firmer grounds and then the court can deal with that issue head on. > [@](#): > > Let’s start with a fundamental question: can Congress can legislate on the carrying of concealed guns as an exercise of the commerce clause and preempt local laws in so doing? I don’t think the answer is certain. I think if the carrying of concealed weapons implicates the items mentioned in Lopez, then perhaps they can. The bill attempts to address this by only addressing those firearms that have moved through interstate commerce. I’m not sure that window dressing is enough, but by then it’d need to work its way through the courts. > [@](#): > > If the answer is yes, then Congress can regulate concealed carry permits. And if the answer is yes, then can Congress regulate the time and place of carrying a weapon? Like, no guns near schools? Well, I think that the school issue would be a no-brainer: if Congress can legislate on carrying guns, it can legislate on not carrying guns. > > But we know for a fact that gun free school zones are a step too far. Well, congress can legislate what types of guns are legal. They can legislate on the types of persons that can own and possess them - is it that much of a stretch to expand that to where those people can bring them? The courts have ruled on where people can possess them - certainly the courts aren’t creating that law but interpreting the law so the law is there. I just think it’s in the 2nd amendment - but if it takes arguing commerce to get there then you have to play the cards you’re dealt. I’d prefer a reduction of the commerce clause powers, but I’d sacrifice that willingly for this law. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2017, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/82 "2017-12-09T00:42:04Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Well, congress can legislate what types of guns are legal. They can legislate on the types of persons that can own and possess them - is it that much of a stretch to expand that to where those people can bring them? Oh yes, I think it is a huge difference. I’m struggling to think of any limitation on Federal powers if legislation like this is permissible. We can have Federal laws on jaywalking, because cars are part of interstate commerce. > [@](#): > > I’d prefer a reduction of the commerce clause powers, but I’d sacrifice that willingly for this law. I haven’t said it directly, but I’m strongly inclined to think that supporters of this bill are putting their support of guns far before any other principle. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone argued that “promote the general welfare” or some random line in the Declaration of Independence was sufficient authority for Congress to make this law. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2017, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/83 "2017-12-09T00:56:42Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Oh yes, I think it is a huge difference. I’m struggling to think of any limitation on Federal powers if legislation like this is permissible. We can have Federal laws on jaywalking, because cars are part of interstate commerce. Congress legislates the who, the what, and sometimes the why. I don’t see it all that different than the where. Can you walk me through the outlines on why you think it’s a huge difference? > [@](#): > > I haven’t said it directly, but I’m strongly inclined to think that supporters of this bill are putting their support of guns far before any other principle. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone argued that “promote the general welfare” or some random line in the Declaration of Independence was sufficient authority for Congress to make this law. I wouldn’t go that far myself. But yes, I am putting gun rights above other principles in that I’m willing to use grey areas as a means towards an ends. Keep in mind I do not believe this will pass in it’s current form. But a lot of avenues could be used to justify reciprocity beyond commerce clause. 2nd amendment is the first choice. Equal protection is possible. Could attach it as a condition of some kind of funding. Could offer a federal license…lots of fanciful ways to skin this cat. But HR 38 is what is on the table. ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2017, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/84 "2017-12-09T01:04:21Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Gatopescado. > > Obviously, given the right circumstances, you can shoot someone. That is not self defense. > > Crane You’re silly. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > The way I see it playing out is that you are just as startled as everyone else in the establishment by the car crashing in. You, along with everyone else think it is an accident, not an attack. He gets out, and starts shooting, you start to reach for your shoulder holster, and he shoots you in the head. Then picks up your gun, now he’s got 2 glocks. Did you see the link? That was a real event, in Texas. A survivor was interviewed, a lady. She said she has a gun, and is trained and practices. She said the crazy shooter stalked around the building, picking targets and executing them. She said she was hiding under a table, and he was standing not ten feet away, with his back to her. She said if she had her gun in her purse, she could have easily wasted him, saving many lives. Not the way you see it. The way it was. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2017, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/85 "2017-12-09T01:54:10Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Congress legislates the who, the what, and sometimes the why. I don’t see it all that different than the where. Can you walk me through the outlines on why you think it’s a huge difference? They legislate on the who, what, when, where and so on for things that are within the enumerated and implied powers. Those powers don’t include the what, who, and when for whatever strikes their fancy. If this were a question of legislating concealed carry in national parks, military bases, Washington DC, and other places in Federal jurisdiction, there’s no debate. Of course Congress can do that. But saying that Congress can make laws not only on matters that directly relate to interstate commerce, but also to subsume the police power exercised by states for any tenuous connection to an item that maybe once had traveled across a border? There’s literally no limits on congressional power to take precedence over all state laws, because for any state law we can find some flimsy link to interstate commerce. You keep saying you’re opposed to that, but generally fine if that argument helps you get what you want. How you don’t see how adopting that principle as a matter of convenience can lead to the principle backfiring on you is a mystery. Maybe the next time we have a unified government under Dems (could come as soon as 2020!) they can pass a law prohibiting constitutional carry in all states or shall-issue CCW policies in all states. Why not? You’re arguing today that’s within the power of the Federal government. > [@](#): > > 2nd amendment is the first choice. Equal protection is possible. Could attach it as a condition of some kind of funding. Could offer a federal license…lots of fanciful ways to skin this cat. But HR 38 is what is on the table. I totally disagree. I think those are all absurd suggestions, far more fanciful than this debate over the commerce clause and FFC. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2017, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/86 "2017-12-09T01:59:25Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Well, let’s put it this way: we’ve been in the current situation as regards reciprocity for many decades now. Tell us of the tragedies that have occurred that this legislation would have prevented, if it had been enacted years earlier. Here is one example: [Shaneen Allen, race and gun control](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/22/shaneen-allen-race-and-gun-control/) > [@](#): > > Last October, Shaneen Allen, 27, was pulled over in Atlantic County, N.J. The officer who pulled her over says she made an unsafe lane change. During the stop, Allen informed the officer that she was a resident of Pennsylvania and had a conceal carry permit in her home state. She also had a handgun in her car. Had she been in Pennsylvania, having the gun in the car would have been perfectly legal. But Allen was pulled over in New Jersey, home to some of the strictest gun control laws in the United States. > > Allen is a black single mother. She has two kids. She has no prior criminal record. Before her arrest, she worked as a phlebobotomist. After she was robbed two times in the span of about a year, she purchased the gun to protect herself and her family. There is zero evidence that Allen intended to use the gun for any other purpose. Yet Allen was arrested. She spent 40 days in jail before she was released on bail. She’s now facing a felony charge that, if convicted, would bring a three-year mandatory minimum prison term. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2017, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/87 "2017-12-09T02:02:30Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Hardly > > When faced by an armed aggressor reaching for a weapon will get you killed. Appearing to reach for a weapon will get you killed. > > Crane > [@Crane](#): > > I have asked avid concealed carriers how they imagine they will use their weapon. Most have no idea beyond ‘I will defend myself against a man with a gum’. That’s pure nonsense. If the other guy is holding a weapon, it’s too late to access yours. > > Please describe an engagement where a concealed weapon could be used defensively. > > Crane I submit, for your review, this story from earlier this week: [Texas father shoots, kills Popeye’s robbery suspect who threatened family, police say](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/08/texas-father-shoots-kills-popeyes-robbery-suspect-who-threatened-family-police-say.html) > [@](#): > > A father eating at a Popeye’s restaurant – and carrying his licensed handgun – shot a would-be robber dead Wednesday after the thief threatened the man’s family at gunpoint and demanded the dad’s belongings. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2017, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/88 "2017-12-09T02:06:45Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You keep saying you’re opposed to that, but generally fine if that argument helps you get what you want. How you don’t see how adopting that principle as a matter of convenience can lead to the principle backfiring on you is a mystery. > > Maybe the next time we have a unified government under Dems (could come as soon as 2020!) they can pass a law prohibiting constitutional carry in all states or shall-issue CCW policies in all states. Why not? You’re arguing today that’s within the power of the Federal government. Yes - I see the hazard. My ultimate preference would be for SCOTUS to rule on carry and make the country shall issue. Could this convenience be worth the risk - I think maybe so. If it comes to pass I won’t be sad. But I do think there is a difference between restricting something and forcing the permissiveness of a thing. If not in law but in perception. Whether that leads to some backfire petard hoisting in the future, I don’t know. But I think the federal government has gained the power to force people to buy whatever product they want already via the ACA. > [@](#): > > I totally disagree. I think those are all absurd suggestions, far more fanciful than this debate over the commerce clause and FFC. To me, it is necessary that all states recognize other state’s CCW permits. That’s a tool, but it’s a tool to get carry in the 9 states that don’t generally allow it. If congress simply preempted those state’s carry schemes and adopted nationwide carry based on the 2nd amendment, I think that would pass constitutional muster. Something like, _pursuant to the 2nd amendment, congress, and the states through incorporation shall not infringe on the rights of people to bear arms._ Systems to provide licenses shall conform with XYZ. Yes, a bit fanciful given our current landscape, but it’s nice to dream. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2017, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/89 "2017-12-09T02:22:25Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > In light of this, why would Nancy Pelosi say that this bill would put guns in the hands of violent criminals, domestic abusers and convicted stalkers? Pelosi said it because she is an idiot who has little touch with reality. All you have to do is read her ravings over the last ten years of so (if you can stomach them) to see that she ain’t all that tightly wrapped. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2017, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/90 "2017-12-09T02:22:52Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … If he doesn’t hesitate, then I’m dead. … This might surprise you, but not all criminals are crack shots. Lots of things could happen: he could miss, he could hit you, but not cause a critical location, his gun could misfire, etc. Personally, if I felt confident that he’d just take my money and leave me unharmed, I’d give him my wallet. If I was under the impression that he might harm me or my family, I would do the best I could to eliminate the threat. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2017, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/91 "2017-12-09T02:31:02Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I’m gonna differentiate from crane a bit, and say that guns will hardly ever be able to defend you, outside the home. (Inside the home is different, you have options, you know the layout, and you have time to prepare, if you hear your door open or your dog barking.) Not never, but hardly ever. > > First, the scenario where you are in danger at all is pretty small, unless you are looking for dangerous situations to get into. People don’t get robbed or mugged all that often. > > Second, if it does happen, you are going to be caught unawares. You are not going to calmly pull out your glock and shoot someone’s head off. You not only need to carry your gun 24/7 in order for it to be an effective defense, but you also need to be 100% aware of your surroundings 24/7, as well as highly paranoid and suspicious of anyone around you. You have no idea whether that guy with a gun is going to pull it out and demand your money until he does. If you pull your gun out first, then you’re the bad guy. > > Third, bullets don’t always stop conveniently, whether you hit your target or not. If you pull out your gun, point it at your attacker, and note that there is a playground with children running around directly behind it, are you going to take the shot, knowing that if you miss (and maybe even if you hit) you stand a high chance of injuring or killing one of those kids? Or will you even be considering your backstop? In other words, you’re an advocate for disarming the police. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2017, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/92 "2017-12-09T03:10:37Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > … > To me, it is necessary that all states recognize other state’s CCW permits. This should read: …it **isn’t** necessary that all states… My bad. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2017, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/93 "2017-12-09T06:09:29Z")
Doesn’t the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution already cover this? I admit I have never been clear on the scope and reach of that clause so hopefully someone can help fight my ignorance here. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2017, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/94 "2017-12-09T13:38:52Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Here is one example: > > [Shaneen Allen, race and gun control](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/22/shaneen-allen-race-and-gun-control/) So there was once when existing law saved a racist cop the trouble of planting drugs on a random black motorist who he’d pulled over for making an unsafe lane change. Clearly the police and prosecutors were on their way to a miscarriage of justice here before Christie pardoned her. But the broad pattern that this case fits into is that of American law enforcement coming down much more heavily on blacks than whites. Many laws are applied much more harshly to blacks as part of this long-standing program of unequal enforcement of the laws. This one instance of the law coming down harder on blacks gives you heartburn for obvious reasons. You don’t pass sweeping laws because of one troublesome case. The appropriate response is a one-case remedy (like a gubernatorial pardon, as happened here). Yesterday, a cop was acquitted of any crime despite shooting a black man to death who was on the ground with his hands in the air. That’s one case, but it’s also one case out of a nationwide pattern of such cases. Daniel Shaver didn’t get the opportunity to spend three years in prison for being in that cop’s way; he’s dead forever. But those conservatives who were rallying to Shaneen Allen’s cause, where were they in cases like Daniel Shaver’s? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2017, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/95 "2017-12-09T14:02:37Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Doesn’t the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution already cover this? > > I admit I have never been clear on the scope and reach of that clause so hopefully someone can help fight my ignorance here. As I’ve mentioned, there’s a public policy exception to the clause. If something is legal is state A, it doesn’t necessarily override laws in state B. The example I’ve used in this thread is that some states issue driver licenses to 15 year olds, but if a state requires that drivers be at least 16, that state is not compelled to allow 15 year old drivers simply because a different state has a different law. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2017, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/96 "2017-12-09T15:21:17Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > … This one instance of the law coming down harder on blacks gives you heartburn for obvious reasons. You don’t pass sweeping laws because of one troublesome case. The appropriate response is a one-case remedy (like a gubernatorial pardon, as happened here). … This isn’t the only case of our patchwork of CCW reciprocity laws getting non-violent people in trouble. Like I said, “here is one example”. There are others, but if you’re just going to handwave them away like this and change the subject to something unrelated to the thread topic, I’m not sure I feel like taking the time to dig up the details of additional cases. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > … But those conservatives who were rallying to Shaneen Allen’s cause, where were they in cases like Daniel Shaver’s? If you really want to know, [here is a 30-page thread on AR15.com](https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Mesa-police-dept-shooting-of-Daniel-Shaver-Video/5-2059116/) that started yesterday discussing Daniel Shaver. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2017, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/97 "2017-12-09T15:34:10Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > … If the Gun control folks are concerned about Utah’s standards for obtaining a permit then they can create a federal standard and if is even remotely reasonable, people will jump on it. I won’t comment on the rest of your post, but I assume this sentence is intended as self-parody. Unless “remotely reasonable standard” is defined as “anyone, anywhere, any caliber, any time.” ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2017, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/98 "2017-12-09T16:23:37Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > This isn’t the only case of our patchwork of CCW reciprocity laws getting non-violent people in trouble. Like I said, “here is one example”. There are others, but if you’re just going to handwave them away like this and change the subject to something unrelated to the thread topic, I’m not sure I feel like taking the time to dig up the details of additional cases. What I mean is that us gun-control types want stricter gun laws because thousands of people get killed by guns every year. I’m kinda curious about the carnage that’s happened that the House bill would have prevented if it had become law years or decades ago. All you’ve got is zero deaths, and one unjust imprisonment where the guns really seemed to be a side-issue. Maybe you’ve got some more unjust imprisonments. Well then. > [@](#): > > If you really want to know, [here is a 30-page thread on AR15.com](https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Mesa-police-dept-shooting-of-Daniel-Shaver-Video/5-2059116/) that started yesterday discussing Daniel Shaver. OK, they’re discussing it at [AR15.com](http://AR15.com). Wow. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2017, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/99 "2017-12-11T03:49:37Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > DOMA is actually a terrible defense of concealed carry reciprocity, because DOMA just restated the well-accepted public policy exception for the full faith and credit clause. What concealed reciprocity does is OVERTURN the public policy exception for that clause. Why did they have to pass a law to restate the public policy exception? Oh yeah that’s right because the public policy exception may not apply to things like constitutional rights like the right to marry and the right to keep and bear arms. > [@](#): > > I’m not clear – you don’t think there’s a lot of topics that Congress cannot legislate on? Uhm, are you familiar with Art I sec 8? Yes, it includes this clause: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” Its called the commerce clause and I can’t think of a topic area in which the federal government cannot legislate. Can you name one? > [@](#): > > Oh, Congress’ intent here is crystal clear. Just like when Congress passed a flag burning law or a line item veto. Just because the intent is clear, doesn’t mean the authority exists. I think it probably exists. I don’t think there is a real threat of constitutional challenge. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2017, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/100 "2017-12-11T03:54:21Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I won’t comment on the rest of your post, but I assume this sentence is intended as self-parody. > > Unless “remotely reasonable standard” is defined as “anyone, anywhere, any caliber, any time.” No, its intended to point out that people aren’t really concerned about the loose standards. I would suggest that if the gun control folks got together and proposed a federal concealed carry license with Texas standards (remember, those are the guys who have lower rates of criminality than police officers), they could get past this issue. But they have a one way ratchet and then get all huffy about how gun rights activists have a one way ratchet to their proposals. There is nothing principled here. The gun rights side wants to get rid of the byzantine web of laws governing concealed carry and the gun control side like things to be af complicated as possible. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826.md?page=6)