My first introduction to the Constitution included the information that I would have been 3/5's of a person if no amendments had been made. I guess I fall into the group viewing the Constitution as a living, breathing instrument that should change over time. The state's rights portion of the document always gives rise to concern on my part. When I hear state's rights, I automatically think of segregation and George Wallace at the door at the University of Alabama. I do believe the US Constitution is a great, if not perfect document, but I tend to approach it's intent and results with caution.

I notice that John Thune (R-SD), the man who defeated Tom Daschle, is offering a provision that would allow gun owners to carry weapons across state lines. The provision would supersede laws in certain cities and states. 400 mayors oppose the provision including the mayors of NYC and Boston. At least 31 states prohibit alcohol abusers from obtaining concealed-carry permits; at least 35 states bar people convicted of certain misdemeanors from becoming gun owners; and at least 31 states require people to complete gun-safety programs before securing a weapons permit. Thune's provision would make those restrictions mute. State's rights are not so important in Thune's eyes.

Thune described his amendment as a crime-prevention tool. "Since criminals are unable to tell who is and who is not carrying a firearm just by looking at a potential victim, they are less likely to commit crimes when they fear that they may come in direct contact with an individual who is armed," he said in the statement.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has pledged to filibuster the amendment, called it a breach of states' rights. "Each state has carefully crafted its concealed-carry laws in the way that makes the most sense to protect its citizens," he said. "Clearly, large, urban areas merit a different standard than rural areas," he said. "To gut the ability of local police and sheriffs to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense. It could reverse the dramatic success we've had in reducing crime in most all parts of America."

For a minority party with little influence on Capitol Hill, the gun votes represent a rare opportunity to divide a filibuster-proof Senate Democratic majority. In May, the GOP lured 27 Senate Democrats to support looser rules on firearms in national parks; the measure passed the House and was signed by President Obama as part of an unrelated credit-card bill.

In February, 22 Senate Democrats joined Republicans to stall the District's quest for House voting rights by demanding that the legislation also ease D.C. gun restrictions. Result, DC voters remain disenfranchised. I do believe that voting restriction for DC residents is outmoded and needs to go away.

Each state is sovereign, but they are not free to discriminate against individuals based on ethnicity or skin color. If Sen. Thune has his way, states will not be capable of determining who is allowed to carry weapons within their borders. The national parks have already gone the Wild West route.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/20/AR2009072002938.html?nav=rss_email/components