McCain on S. 388 and/or H.R. 266

McCain on S. 388 and/or H.R. 266

This is a discussion on McCain on S. 388 and/or H.R. 266 within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Does anyone know where McCain stands on S. 388 and/or H.R. 266, (the proposed legislation regarding a nationwide reciprocity on Concealed Carry Permits)? I know ...

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 55

Thread: McCain on S. 388 and/or H.R. 266

  1. #1
    Member Array Amnesia Wes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    99

    McCain on S. 388 and/or H.R. 266

    Does anyone know where McCain stands on S. 388 and/or H.R. 266, (the proposed legislation regarding a nationwide reciprocity on Concealed Carry Permits)?

    I know that both Obama and Clinton are anti-gun politicians, and will try to renew the ban on 'assault-looking' type guns and high capacity magazines, so they're probably anti-Concealed Carry Permits also.

    BTW, how has things been going, on these two measures? Are we getting any closer to a nationwide CC Permit

    Thanks for any and all responses,
    Wes.
    Always remember: 3 can keep a secret, if 2 are dead!


  2. #2
    New Member Array alpinehawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    11
    Its beyond "probably"... its fact:

    His Holiness the Obamessiah supports national law against carrying concealed weapons, with exceptions for retired police and military personnel.

    Gun control: Election Center 2008 - CNN.com

  3. #3
    Distinguished Member Array morintp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    1,233
    Quote Originally Posted by alpinehawk View Post
    Its beyond "probably"... its fact:

    His Holiness the Obamessiah supports national law against carrying concealed weapons, with exceptions for retired police and military personnel.

    Gun control: Election Center 2008 - CNN.com
    Vermont has concealed carry written into our constitution. How would that work if they pass a nationwide ban? Sometimes state law trumps federal, and sometimes federal trumps state.

  4. #4
    New Member Array Hawkeye59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hampton VA
    Posts
    10
    with exceptions for retired police and military personnel.

    and military personnel as in active duty or as in retired. Could read this either way and neither really makes sense. As Active military doesn't allow concealed weapon or open carry on base. And my being retired military sure doesn't give me any reason over the average citizen to carry concealed.

  5. #5
    Ex Member Array Daniella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    172
    Not to hijack any posts but am not much for politics.. will we feel the consequence if Obama becomes President instead of McCain?

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array InspectorGadget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    536
    Quote Originally Posted by morintp View Post
    Vermont has concealed carry written into our constitution. How would that work if they pass a nationwide ban? Sometimes state law trumps federal, and sometimes federal trumps state.

    ? We are getting into cross Constitutional Questions here. If I remember right there is an Argument that a States Constitution(Not state law) can override Federal Law... The way to Overrule a States Constitution is to have a US Constitutional Ammendment. ?

    Now that also brings up a argument that is the Second Ammendment is decided to mean the National Guard instead of the people (DC vs Heller) then the charter's that made a few states into states are null and void. Therefore the states have a breech of contract and can cede from the union and become their own country.

    In other words we can probably run an entire board of Constitutional Lawyers for years on that question alone. But I am sure that individual state would challenge a federal law banning concealed to the Supreme Court very quickly. Sorry no real answer for that one is possible until it happens.
    Colt 1911 New Agent, CTLaser

    You do not work for them, they work for you.
    Senators http://senate.gov/general/contact_in...nators_cfm.cfm
    Congressmen http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

  7. #7
    Member Array braap's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    70
    I don't know what his views are for the bills mentioned, but based on his interview published in the June edition of 1st Freedom I'd have to guess that he wouldn't oppose them. But, you have to remember that he is a politician and is therefore likely to lie directly to your face

    On a side note, I wrote both Florida Senators reguarding H.R. 226 and got back two canned responses.

    Here's Mel Martinez's:

    Thank you for contacting me regarding gun rights. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.

    When our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, they included the Second Amendment to guarantee people the right to keep and bear arms. This is a fundamental part of our American identity, and I will work with my Senate colleagues to ensure that this liberty is protected for all law-abiding citizens.
    and here's Bill Nelson's:

    Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about gun control. I support the constitutional right to bear arms. I grew up on a ranch in the Florida countryside and have been a hunter since I was a boy.

    I also support efforts to reduce gun violence and promote firearms safety. We should close the gun show loophole and take other steps to ensure that felons are not allowed to buy firearms. Running background checks on prospective gun purchasers is a practical way to ensure that guns do not fall into the wrong hands without unreasonably burdening citizens' 2nd amendment rights.

    You can be sure that I will keep your thoughts in mind whenever firearms issues are considered by the Senate. I appreciate your letter. Your communications helps me serve you better.
    Notice how Dems always mention hunting when championing gun use...as if hunting is the only proper use of a firearm. Also notice Mel's term "gun rights"...and the operative term used by Bill "gun control". Hmm...do I see a trend here?

  8. #8
    Member Array cl00bie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Broome County, New York (USA)
    Posts
    426
    Quote Originally Posted by morintp View Post
    Vermont has concealed carry written into our constitution. How would that work if they pass a nationwide ban? Sometimes state law trumps federal, and sometimes federal trumps state.
    It would never pass Constitutional muster. They might try to sponsor some sort of legislation like that, but hold it up in committee and allow it to die there so they can get photo-ops telling their that they are "doing something" to curb gun violence.
    -Tony

    "Those who beat their guns into plowshares will plow for those who didn't." -- Thomas Jefferson

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array Rossman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bass Lake, CA
    Posts
    551
    If you are an NRA member, and I hope you are, they have had several articles that explain Obama's anti-gun and pro-perpetrator position. You and I may not like everything about John McCain, but the 2nd Amendment is clearly an issue worth fighting for so we may collectively maintain a legal right to carry and defend our homes, homeland, and country. I am not here to defend my right to duck hunt. RM

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array KenInColo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    991
    Since the National Guard didn't exist until the early 1900s, the Founding Fathers couldn't have had it in mind when they wrote the II Amendment. The NG cannot be used as an interpretation in 2A arguments..

    What the FFs did have in mind was the citizens. The militia was every [armed] citizen, providing his own weaponry, to be called out by a state to deal with what ever the crisis was.
    An armed populace are called citizens.
    An unarmed populace are called subjects.

  11. #11
    M2
    M2 is offline
    Member Array M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by KenInColo View Post
    Since the National Guard didn't exist until the early 1900s, the Founding Fathers couldn't have had it in mind when they wrote the II Amendment. The NG cannot be used as an interpretation in 2A arguments..

    What the FFs did have in mind was the citizens. The militia was every [armed] citizen, providing his own weaponry, to be called out by a state to deal with what ever the crisis was.
    The Militia Act of 1903 that you referenced only organized the various state militias into the present National Guard system...therefore, the argument that those militias were the logic behind the 2A is reasonable; although I don't believe that was the intent of the founding fathers.

    Cheers! M2

  12. #12
    Distinguished Member Array mr.stuart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    usa-southeast texas
    Posts
    1,728
    I watched the video.When did he say concealed carry was bad?Anyone have a more specific video?

  13. #13
    Senior Member Array bluelineman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by Amnesia Wes View Post
    Does anyone know where McCain stands on S. 388 and/or H.R. 266, (the proposed legislation regarding a nationwide reciprocity on Concealed Carry Permits)?
    FYI - It's HR 226, not HR 266.

    Here's the info if anybody wants to keep up with it...

    S. 388: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in... (GovTrack.us)

    H.R. 226: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance... (GovTrack.us)

  14. #14
    Senior Member Array KenInColo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    The Militia Act of 1903 that you referenced only organized the various state militias into the present National Guard system...therefore, the argument that those militias were the logic behind the 2A is reasonable; although I don't believe that was the intent of the founding fathers.

    Cheers! M2
    In Parker v DC the Circuit Court found that regargless of the wording of the first of the amendment, the part that refers to a "well regulated militia", the spirit of the Second Amendment was that guns would be kept by the people. In effect, they ruled out the first (the militia) part.
    An armed populace are called citizens.
    An unarmed populace are called subjects.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Array cwblanco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Amarillo, Texas
    Posts
    835
    Quote Originally Posted by morintp View Post
    Vermont has concealed carry written into our constitution. How would that work if they pass a nationwide ban? Sometimes state law trumps federal, and sometimes federal trumps state.
    State law does not trump federal law unless the applicable federal statute provides for recognition of a differing state law.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

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. Obama and McCain on DC Decision
    By ArmyCop in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 26th, 2008, 10:59 PM
  2. McCain?
    By Heckler in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 14th, 2008, 07:56 AM

Search tags for this page

bill hr266 guns

,
h.r. 266
,
h.r. 266 firearms
,
hr 266 firearms
,
obama's position on bill s.388
,
problems with s 388
,
s 388 obama
,
s.388 house results
,
s.388 when was it first written
Click on a term to search for related topics.