This. It was never an issue until the Gov. infested itself in it.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
House Approves Rule For Concealed Weapons Bill
- Thread starter sig2009
- Start date
This. It was never an issue until the Gov. infested itself in it.
The states right argument is BS. Whats gives the states a right to infringe upon the second amendment in the first place. That said I don't really support this bill anyways as I believe the Federal Government shouldn't have any say in it either. We don't need a Bill we have an amendment. How about the Feds make it so states can't infringe on the second amendment and they stop doing it themselves.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2010
- Messages
- 513
- Likes
- 74
The states argument is B.S.
We all know the states don't have any more right to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights than the federal government. This was the whole point of the Heller and McDonald descisions. These state legislators are ignoring the supreme court ruling by thinking they have the right to infringe where the feral government does not.
What is wrong with a civil suit against a legislator who tries to pass laws that infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights?
We all know the states don't have any more right to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights than the federal government. This was the whole point of the Heller and McDonald descisions. These state legislators are ignoring the supreme court ruling by thinking they have the right to infringe where the feral government does not.
What is wrong with a civil suit against a legislator who tries to pass laws that infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights?
Bill Nance
Banned
You are so wrong it's hard to even solidify an argument against your ludicrous position.
This bill does NOT state that congress unequivocal position is that all citizens have a right to bear arms. Period. End of story.
It mandates, against all law, precedent and history, that the FEDERAL government has authority to mandate that individual states must relinquish all authority to regulate their permission to bear arms CONCEALED within their states to ANY other state, regardless of THEIR regulations permitting concealed arms.
That's a fundamental slap in the face to the tenth amendment to the constitution and ANY consideration of a state's individual rights separate from and independent of the Federal government.
This IS NOT an issue within the federal government's authority absent an amendment to the constitution, or a ruling by the Supreme Court.
What you think the 2a's meaning OUGHT to be means SQUAT.
There are two mechanisms to ensure our right to bear arms.
1. A supreme Court Ruling.
2. A constitutional amendment.
Dopung anything else just empowers the federal government to do anything it wants (Or what is it you DO object to Obama care based on?)
Do it right.
This is a bad bill that won't pass the Senate and would be vetoed (and NOT over-ridden ) if passed.
I completely agree with post #95. Despite what some people think the Second Amendment is about, it's what the Supreme Court says that matters. The Supreme Court has not given their opinion on if the the SA gurantees the right to carry a firearm on your person. I think a Supreme Court ruling is more likely than a Constitutional Amendment, but if the SC rules on it, I think the ruling will ony benefit Illinois. I doubt they will ever say that if you can legally own a firearm, you can carry it on your person, anywhere in the country. They will order states to put a process in place (IL is the only state that doesn't have one). Some states will still make it difficult to obtain a permit even if the SC says they have to have a process. We have seen this in Chicago with regards to handgun ownership.
Indeed - that's been my fear all along. Similar issue with allowing amendments to the Constitution...
The bill is "clean" right now, but the Senate is no doubt about to crap all over it in order to get 51 votes (they can already count comrade Brown for the 49...)
The Republicans who voted against it.. No real shockers there based on where they are from. Of course Chellie Pingree (D-ME) voted Nay.. So she won't be getting my vote.. AGAIN.. sigh...
http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/sublist/9526?party=Republican&vote=Nay
[h=3]Republicans Voting 'Nay'[/h]
http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/sublist/9526?party=Republican&vote=Nay
[h=3]Republicans Voting 'Nay'[/h]
hpm
NES Member
Yeah - but on the other side...there were even multiple Democrats from NY and one Democrat from the PR of California who voted AYE!!
Libertarian chiming in since soloman02 requested it - I don't support any federal legislation concerning a national reciprocity bill. Having the feds force gun laws onto the states is just as bad as states that don't view the 2nd amendment as being assigned to the individual. I also believe that any federal action on this issue will only serve to further the expansion of the ATF and government intervention into our lives. Having said that (and my own acknowledgement that I'm an idealist), I understand the argument that some 'progress' is better than none - but I still worry about how this would be interpreted across the board.
The US government rarely does anything to grant more rights to its citizens, that is the opposite of the function of government in the modern age.
The US government rarely does anything to grant more rights to its citizens, that is the opposite of the function of government in the modern age.
The "clean bill" (much to my surprise) doesn't grant more rights (rights aren't granted), but rather forces states to respect the rights of non-residents.
I don't see any violation of the letter or spirit of the Constitution by the Feds here, only a failure of the states that led to the need for this. The workings of business and persons crossing state-lines is actually what the Feds are supposed to deal with.
If you want to be concerned about abuse from cluttering up the law, that's reasonable, but in principle there's nothing wrong, even from a libertarian view with the "clean law" as it merely states what should already be understood from the Constitution.
You contradict yourself. This bill in fact validates the state's rights to place limitations on 2A by validating their right to place restrictions on who can CC.
Think it through: The bill allows someone with a CC permit from one state to CC in any state requiring a permit - thus validating the concept of a permit for CC.
Sadly, it even allows for states that do not have a permit/allow CC to continue to treat non-residents as criminals for visiting their state.
People seem to have the same problem here that they have with litigation. They want everything at once. What has accomplished more so far in the gun rights fight? Shouting "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" over and over, or working incrementally? When the constitutional carry bill in WI couldn't get enough votes, should we have given up for the session instead of passing the shall issue permit bill because the shall issue bill validates the concept of a permit for CC? Over 5 million people who couldn't before can now legally exercise their right to self defense. Do you SNBI types not think of that as progress?
Mike S
NES Member
Does this legislation give us more, or less, ability to carry legally throughout the country?
we are so far away from a nationally recognized constitutional carry that it's not funny.
this at least is a step in the right direction flawed as it is.
we are so far away from a nationally recognized constitutional carry that it's not funny.
this at least is a step in the right direction flawed as it is.
YES it's better than what we have now. HERE in MA. What are the unintended consequences of this bill though? Might it be used, in the future, to justify the Fed in dictating what the standards are that are acceptable for a CC permit?
Let's look at history: Helmet laws. Check. 21 y/o drinking age. Check. Seatbelt laws. Check. Education standards. Check.
ALL federal mandates once they got the nose under the tent.
Horrible
NES Member
There is a shock. We voted all commies back in last November while the rest of the country went the other way.
My rep (McGovern) is the biggest effin' commie in Washington.
Brown disappoints me, but in all fairness Warren will trash him if he votes in favor of this.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2011
- Messages
- 43
- Likes
- 3
"After being approved by the House on November 16, 2011, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 continued its journey on Capitol Hill..."
Last edited by a moderator:
good points Cekim, and I haven't had time to review it in depth. As a general rule more laws are a bad thing so I tend to be cautious - there is always a politician/lawyer who can find a way to twist something benign into something malignant.
GM-GUY
NES Member
Warren will trash Brown no matter what he does, the only difference is now we (Gun Owners) are no longer a lock for him and probably a blank on the ballot - like I'll be doing.
Good job Sen. Brown - good luck in your next job.
Good job Sen. Brown - good luck in your next job.
*******
So your voting for Lizzie over LTC Brown?
As an NRA instructor, would rather teach a class that was optional for people to come in and learn to use a gun in the way they want to, then a required NRA class. I personaly dont charge much at all and usualy take a loss financialy every time i teach the NRA class as I'd rather not let money be a reason why someone doesn't go for their license.
State do not have rights.
Anyone who speaks of "states rights" does not understand the concept of rights.
States have authority and many police powers. The 14th Amendment says that the states can't use their authority to curtail individuals' rights that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
This bill should be superfluous. Sadly, it's not. I'm not troubled that it tells rights infringing states to lay off of individuals that have gone the extra distance within their own state.
--jcr
I would say the vote in Congress says otherwise... That's far from a "party line" vote.
I disagree. IMO, it will not pass in the Senate. In the unlikely event that it does pass, Obama will veto it and we don't have a 2/3rds majority to override.
I hope I'm wrong. Time will tell.
And I still prefer Brown to Warren. He may not be with us all the time, but he is with us a lot more often than Warren will ever be.
Similar threads
