The Thune Amendent

David Codrea has an interesting article over at the National Gun Rights Examiner today entitled Does Thune Amendment Treat a Right like a Privilege? Go read the whole thing.

The reason I have not reported on the Thune Amendment are two. One is that I figured it was being offered as a poison pill to slow down, or stop legislation. This is not to say that Mr. Thune does not want it, but I don't know how realistic Thune believes it to be. The other reason is that I am of two minds about the issue, but believe David Codrea's is the more principled position.

Keeping and bearing arms is a natural right, an attribute of being human, that is recognized and enumerated by our Constitution, as not to be infringed. The right to arms naturally follows from the right to life. If you can not defend your life, it is hard to say you have a right to it. For an example of what happens when governments are not kept in check, see Stephen Holbrook's article Nazi Gun Control. The article is pretty graphic, and I expect his book will leave no calumny of these miserable leftists unreported. Unfortunately, governments in this country have seen fit to infringe on this right in spite of the Constitution. They have done this for various expedient reasons, all the while claiming that such expedience is required to solve some trumped up emergency or other, none of which should have been allowed to override the Constitution. As a result, the population has become habituated to going about unarmed, and police departments see nothing wrong with arresting those who seek to claim their natural rights. Such is the state of affairs in which we find ourselves.

So, finding ourselves here, what is wrong with extending full faith and credit to concealed carry permits? How are they different from drivers licenses or marriage licenses? I will hear, no doubt, that there are not uniform training requirements. But drivers' training isn't uniform either, and we are all imperiled more by the poor driving skills of others than we are from concealed carriers. Interestingly, many State constitutions claim the citizens enjoy a right to be armed, but they may not carry concealed. Now, I have heard arguments that while being armed is a right, concealing the fact is not. This idea is a relatively modern one born of romantic notions of the wild west published in Penney Horribles, and not particularly historic. During colonial days, a gentleman was not dressed unless he had a pistol in his coat pocket. Holsters were not widely available until after the civil war. But this line of argument would be rendered moot if most states simply followed their own constitutions and recognized open carry by its citizens. As I said, we find ourselves here now, so what to do?

Like Codrea, let your conscience be your guide. There is danger in allowing this to go through. Eventually, someone will propose to make the standards uniform, which, surprise, surprise, can only be done by applying all the gun control we have been fighting all these years. It will be seen as "reasonable" and the NRA will look like recalcitrant children if they fight against it. But you decide. For myself, I choose not to call my Senators on this one.