National Reciprocity Action Needed - Page 11

National Reciprocity Action Needed

This is a discussion on National Reciprocity Action Needed within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; 1. "Hop - I have been saying that the 2A should simply be applied to the states from the beginning of the prior thread on ...

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011
Results 151 to 161 of 161
Like Tree43Likes

Thread: National Reciprocity Action Needed

  1. #151
    Senior Member Array wjh2657's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,168
    1. "Hop - I have been saying that the 2A should simply be applied to the states from the beginning of the prior thread on this issue. This is not a new revelation. I think it was post 19 of the prior thread."

    I would prefer my state to regulate my HCP because Tennessee did incorporate the 2dA in our state constitution, and in fact expanded firearms rights for a state citizen. I have an HCP and did not have any kind of a hassle getting my permit. I buy handguns without a real struggle and I buy ammo in WALMART. The Feds are not going to improve on that, they will most likely mess it up.
    Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.


  2. #152
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,046
    No government at any level has the authority to deprive you of your rights.
    Unless you broke the law in some way.
    So, they write so many laws that at some point in time, you will break a law without even knowing it, thus giving them justification for depriving you of your rights if they so choose to do so.
    oneshot likes this.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  3. #153
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Laws passed by Congress and signed by a prez are presumptively constitutional. We have plenty of law firms willing to take on almost any issue, and plenty of Federal Judges willing to hear almost any case provided the complaining plaintiff has standing--however tenuous. The Dept. of Education has been around a few decades and so far there has not been a challenge which passed the scrutiny of the folks who get to make those decisions. Therefore, it is constitutional, and our opinion one way or the other is quite irrelevant.
    Your statement is quite right, so long as Congress and the courts stay in the boundries that were established by the governed, i.e., the Consitution. When the government unilaterally expands its mission without the consent of the governed, it is embarking on a tyrannical mission. It may take a while for it to devolve into tranny, but that is where it is headed once the mission is expanded without a commission from the governed. Once the confines established for the government in the constitution are exceeded, any laws they pass are, by definition, unconstitutional regardless of whether any agent of that government acknowledges it or not.

    The nature of government is to expand its scope, power and size. This is the nature of all governments and it is why the Founders put strict limits on the federal government. It is up to the states and the people to keep the government within its mission. Just because the education department exists, and the agents of the federal goverment have allowed it to contiune to exist does not make it a constitutional entity. Since you have not answered my query of where, in the enumerated powers clause, the feds gain the authority to do anything with education, I will answer it. IT IS NOT THERE. The feds have no authority to act on education - period. Shame on us, we the people, and the states for allowing these abuses of power to continue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    [Just so folks know, K and I have had a friendly discussion of this issue via PM. We don't agree. I'm right, he's wrong. I'm sure he'll post the opposing view here any moment. :) ]
    We have been having such conversations. We both feel the other is misguided. Instead of simply declaring that I am right, I will let you, the reader, make up your own mind on this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    We need not wade through the history of the Marshall court in 1804 to decide this matter. There have been 103 Congresses since, about 43 Presidents since, 10-20 K Federal Judges since, and maybe 150 SC Justices since. Marshall's decision still stands. That's the law and that's the way it is.
    If Congress passed a law and the SCOTUS confirmed the constitutionality of the law that all males (except Congressmen, members of SCOTUS and the President) must be castrated and their women had to be members of a federal harem to serve members of Congress, SCOTUS and the President. Would you sit back and say, well, Congress and the SCOTUS said it, so it must be constitutional - I guess I will get in line? Of course you would not! You would say, "hey, who gave you the authority to make such a clearly unconstitutional law. I don't recognize your authority to do this and will not submit." Marshall's actions were just as constitutional as my ridiculous hypothetical above, however, because they served to increase the power and size of the federal government, no federal agency would complain. The states and people should have put a stop to this in 1804-1805, alas, they did not. Because no action was taken, the precedent stood and was expanded over time. That may be the way it is, but it is not the way it should be. The states are beginning to understand their power. It will be interesting to see what they do with that knowledge. Hopefully they will put the federal genie back in its bottle.
    HotGuns and oneshot like this.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  4. #154
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,974
    Quote Originally Posted by wjh2657 View Post
    1. "Hop - I have been saying that the 2A should simply be applied to the states from the beginning of the prior thread on this issue. This is not a new revelation. I think it was post 19 of the prior thread."

    I would prefer my state to regulate my HCP because Tennessee did incorporate the 2dA in our state constitution, and in fact expanded firearms rights for a state citizen. I have an HCP and did not have any kind of a hassle getting my permit. I buy handguns without a real struggle and I buy ammo in WALMART. The Feds are not going to improve on that, they will most likely mess it up.
    Just so I am sure I properly understand you let me ask if I have this right. Are you saying that you believe that having to get training, get fingerprinted and pay some fee, then wait for some period of time to get your HCP is an improvement on simply applying the 2A? If you simply apply the 2A, you don't have to get training, don't have to get fingerprinted, don't have to pay fees and don't have to wait for a piece of paper/plastic to say you get to exercize your 2A rights. I am having a problem seeing how the current situation is preferable to simply applying the 2A.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  5. #155
    Senior Member Array wjh2657's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,168
    "No government at any level has the authority to deprive you of your rights."

    Authority no, but power, most assuredly they do have . They have the power to arrest you, to torture you and to send you where nobody will ever find you. And they have done just that to American citizens. They have the power to deprive you of everything you own and every freedom you thought you had. Any and all Federal Governments (Central National power base) in existence have this power and does exercise it. When you reach the central (Federal) level, authority is not the key word, power is the rule. I am not an anarchist, but I am realistic enough to realize that any power we can exercise as private citizens is only at the local (city, county and state) levels. We don't really pick who runs on the national level, these are picked at auction by very wealthy and very powerful interests. I will continue to fight for "states rights" because I know that is the only level that I can hope to keep my individual rights protected.

    We lost all control or protection at federal level just after George Washington stepped down as President. It isn't something new or invented by Bill Clinton, George W, Bush or Obama. It got away from us just after we became a country.
    oneshot likes this.
    Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.

  6. #156
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,912
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Hop - I have been saying that the 2A should simply be applied to the states from the beginning of the prior thread on this issue. This is not a new revelation. I think it was post 19 of the prior thread.

    The problem is that while the states may be willing to ignore peoples rights, .
    Yes, that is the problem, and here comes Uncle (Congress) with a perfectly reasonable bill which will hold the state's feet to the fire on national carry to a very large extent, and all of you state's rights folks pop up to knock the bill. Sure, the problem will go away if and when the states decide to stop ignoring their own constitutions and the US constitution, but in the meantime, let Uncle whack them a bit with this bill and thus uphold 2a.

    It IS Uncle's business to promote the rights in 2A against state interference. This bill does that. I don't find that objectionable at all. As pointed out earlier by others, it involves no new taxes, no new hiring, no new Agency creation. Some litigation might arise at some point, but that will be because place like NY NJ and IL will try to circumvent the letter of the Federal law to uphold their own ideas of limited gun rights.

    Again, it is the states which endanger gun owners, and most everyone else's right, far more so than Uncle.

    Uncle mostly leaves me alone. I can't say that for either our State government or our local government. Locally, they have code for everything. They claim they want to attract business but make it impossible (almost) for a small business person to open up because you need so many permits and have to meet so many codes that you spend your investment dollar on dealing with city hall instead of creating your business.

  7. #157
    Senior Member Array DoctorBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Just so I am sure I properly understand you let me ask if I have this right. Are you saying that you believe that having to get training, get fingerprinted and pay some fee, then wait for some period of time to get your HCP is an improvement on simply applying the 2A? If you simply apply the 2A, you don't have to get training, don't have to get fingerprinted, don't have to pay fees and don't have to wait for a piece of paper/plastic to say you get to exercize your 2A rights. I am having a problem seeing how the current situation is preferable to simply applying the 2A.
    What does that part about a WELL REGULATED MILITIA apply to?

  8. #158
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    FOR K, and any one else interested: Rulings of the Marshall Court

    Oh, and he was what many conservatives today like to think of themselves as; a federalist.

    Again, "one nation indivisible" or we are doomed.
    Hop - the term federalist today means exactly the opposite as it did in Marshall's day. Frankly the use of the term made more sense back then, but they are different animals.

    ETA - I just got home and had the time to read the linked data. Any treatise that proports to be the "Important Rulings of the Marshall Court" and does not deal with Marbury -v- Madison (1803), is obviously limited in scope. Admittedly, this states 1810s - 1820s, but many important rulings of the Marshall court preceded that time. Marshall was an unabashed federalist and used the court to further the federalist (storng federal government) cause somewhat like a bully pulpit.
    Last edited by ksholder; March 26th, 2011 at 02:59 PM. Reason: ETA
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  9. #159
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Yes, that is the problem, and here comes Uncle (Congress) with a perfectly reasonable bill which will hold the state's feet to the fire on national carry to a very large extent, and all of you state's rights folks pop up to knock the bill. Sure, the problem will go away if and when the states decide to stop ignoring their own constitutions and the US constitution, but in the meantime, let Uncle whack them a bit with this bill and thus uphold 2a.

    It IS Uncle's business to promote the rights in 2A against state interference. This bill does that. I don't find that objectionable at all. As pointed out earlier by others, it involves no new taxes, no new hiring, no new Agency creation. Some litigation might arise at some point, but that will be because place like NY NJ and IL will try to circumvent the letter of the Federal law to uphold their own ideas of limited gun rights.

    Again, it is the states which endanger gun owners, and most everyone else's right, far more so than Uncle.

    Uncle mostly leaves me alone. I can't say that for either our State government or our local government. Locally, they have code for everything. They claim they want to attract business but make it impossible (almost) for a small business person to open up because you need so many permits and have to meet so many codes that you spend your investment dollar on dealing with city hall instead of creating your business.
    Hop - you are kidding yourself if you think another law will solve the problem. What we need is enforcement not another law that will be ignored just like the 2A. If they can enforce this new law, they can enforce what we already have. Frankly, I doubt they have the will to enforce either.
    Last edited by ksholder; March 26th, 2011 at 02:46 PM. Reason: spelling
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  10. #160
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    It'll fall to the Federal courts to enforce this. I would agree that sometimes the Federal courts try to water down laws they don't like. But it's better than allowing NY,NJ,and CA to enforce their own brand of CCW.
    "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
    Nunn v. State GA 1848

  11. #161
    JD
    JD is offline
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    19,341
    Major thread drift....closed for clean up....

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. National Reciprocity part Deux
    By swinokur in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: February 27th, 2011, 01:12 PM
  2. CSPAN LIVE VID of the US Senate on National Reciprocity
    By dlclarkii in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2009, 02:31 AM
  3. National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced
    By alelks in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 25th, 2009, 12:27 AM
  4. SC: H. 3212 action needed by Senate (Reciprocity bill)
    By SCGunGuy in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: May 29th, 2008, 10:10 PM
  5. National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry
    By ArmedAviator in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 16th, 2008, 12:25 PM

Search tags for this page

2011 national ccw carry
,
activism nationwide reciprocity 2011
,
check gun serial number
,
dod police concealed carry texas 2011
,
hb 822 congress
,
hb 822 national
,

hb 822 right to carry

,
hb822 discussion
,
medical ohio reciprocity tennessee criteria or standards -emergency
,

national reciprocity

,

national reciprocity 2011

,
national reciprocity bill 2011
,
national reciprocity bill 2011 vote date
,
national reciprocity not necessary
,
why is reciprocity needed
Click on a term to search for related topics.