Better. You haven't given away the farm that I can see, with one possible exception. (see below)
There are some nits I could pick (why 3 inches for knives? Why not 3 1/2?) but that's not important. No bill like this will be perfect, and I'm NOT an absolutist in the sense that I will tolerate no bill that is not 100% perfect and restores the 2A to its original intent in one move. That ain't gonna happen. I've long seen - and preached - the power of doing things incrementally, and I think that's the
only way we will see progress. It's how the left got as far as they have, and it will work for us, too.
There are some things here that I don't like, but could let pass for now. For example, I don't see why we need ANY Federal definition of the miltia - that's for the states to decide at most. Better it be left open, IMO. And I don't like the reference to "environmentally friendly". It
almost implies that such concerns are the Fed.gov's business. But as I said, I can let some things like that go for now in the interest of incremental gains.
That said, I'm not clear on one section:
Section 300 – For protection of schools and citizens in States not yet allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, and to promote the privacy rights of law-abiding citizens.
(a) It is the intent of the Legislature to proscribe restrictions on lawful carry of weapons by law-abiding citizens, under the authority of the 2nd Amendment, by enjoining State laws prohibiting such carry as violative of the 2nd Amendment as incorporated under the 14th Amendment, and to draw additional authority from the interstate commerce and general welfare clauses of the Constitution.
(b) In section 922 of title 18, United States Code, subsection 922 (o) is added as follows. It is the intent of Congress that section (o) subsection (2) below specifically allow legislation such as 18 U.S.C. 930 (g), which allows possession of certain knives in federal buildings.
'(o) To eliminate confusing, contradictory, and unconstitutional weapons laws and to prevent confusion regarding weapon carry in the States and territories of the United States, which impedes inter-state commerce and makes criminals out of well-meaning travelers,
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any person not prohibited by federal law from purchasing a firearm in the State of his or her residence shall not be prohibited or required to obtain a license or permit in order to own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, loan, rent, otherwise transfer, or carry a firearm or other weapon in or affecting interstate commerce, on any public or private property which is open to the public and not secured effectively with a metal detector at each entrance, secured windows and roofs, and adequately trained, armed security guard(s), meeting standards that the United States Attorney General may through regulation prescribe.
(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit laws allowing certain weapons in buildings open to the public that do have metal detectors and secured windows and roofs.
(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to nullify the right of owners of private homes and buildings not open to the public from asking armed citizens to leave such private property.
I see three possible problems in this section:
1. Is this about FEDERAL buildings? If so, fine, I guess. But if that's not spelled out explicitly, it actually REMOVES some freedoms in some states. In Utah, for example, there's a fight going on about CCW in universities. State law allows it, but if your bill is left this way, it could trump that state law.
2. This DOES have the effect of recognizing the much-too-broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. That has been the cause of a TON of usurpation of authority by the Federal government, and I think we have to be very careful not to support its continued abuse.
3. The part in
bold is clear as mud to me. If you are saying that you are drawing on the interstate commerce clause and the "general welfare" clause for your authority for this, I have a big problem with it.
I've already mentioned the commerce clause, so I'll just point out the problem with the "general welfare" clause.
There isn't one. There is a mention of that in the preamble, but the preamble is NOT part of the Constitution any more than a foreward is part of a story. It is an introduction, but does NOT have the force of law.
It IS a favorite of the leftists, who delight to quote it as trumping any restrictions on Federal authority. It's a Very Bad Thing, and we should NOT give it any credence.
But we're making progress!
Yeah, I'd say there's a slim chance. The worst I see happening with that is that we get caught, and the antis scream bloody murder. It will be some negative PR, but I don't think it would do lasting damage. Might be worth a shot. If we win, when the antis find out later, they will have to fight to get those bills passed again, and we'll have a chance to fight them. I think they'll have the upper hand in that fight because they'll be able to cry FOUL! and that will sway a lot of the mushy middle, but it might be a chance worth taking.