Concealed-weapons measure shoots holes in state sovereignty.

In the early 1990s, then-President Clinton and congressional Democrats responded to a crime wave with a mix of gun control and additional funding for police officers, jails and crime prevention.

Two things happened. One is that crime dropped. The second is thatDemocrats got punished at the polls for enacting gun control measures, which included a ban on assault weapons, and the "Brady Bill," which ordered background checks on gun buyers. The party lost control of both chambers of Congress in the 1994 elections, thanks in part to a gun rights backlash, and subsequently lost much of its appetite for firearms control.

Ordinarily, this would be little more than a history lesson. But gun rights lobbyists have concluded that if the Democratic Party is going to stand down on gun issues, they will step into the void. Their agenda this year has been radical, ill-conceived and, in some cases, breathtakingly contemptuous of the rights of states and localities. Call it the get-guns-everywhere approach.

Firearms advocatesamended a credit card law with a measure allowing concealed weapons in national parks. Theyamended a bill to give Washington, D.C., residents a vote in Congress with a provision overturning the city's gun restrictions. (That bill died.) They've sought to allow guns in places that serve alcohol. And they have pushed — fortunately, with little success so far — to allow college students to carry weapons on campus.

But for sheer audacity, nothing beats themeasure scheduled for a vote today in the Senate. A defense bill amendment, authored by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., would force any of the 48 states with concealed-weapons laws to accept the permit issued by any other state. In other words, states that have decided to allow few, if any, carry permits would be forced to accept those from states with much looser standards.

It makes no sense to make cities such as Los Angeles and Boston, which have significant urban crime, to conform to the politics of rural places. Nor is there much sense in forcing urban police officers to make instant decisions on the legitimacy of pieces of paper handed to them by menacing looking people packing heat.

Most members of Congress know this. But they haven't wanted to buck the National Rifle Association and other gun groups. Or at least they haven't so far. This latest measure, though, seems to have struck a raw nerve with mayors, police chiefs and state law enforcement officials, who rightly see it as a massive intrusion into their sovereignty.

Gun laws in this country will never be perfect or settled. They need to balance the interests of urban and rural areas. But there is no balance as the firearms lobby moves to make concealed weapons the law in places where it is not needed, such as national parks, and places where it is opposed, such as states with large cities.

President Obama, for his part, has apparently calculated that he needs to make amends with the gun enthusiasts he turned off during his campaign. Ultimately, however, someone needs to stand up for the nation's urban areas, their elected officials, and their men and women in blue. Someone needs to stand up against the extreme elements in the gun rights movement. A good time to do that is now.