House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

[Stubborn]

I would re-write something like this, which I believe is what they intended to say.

"A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. The right of the individual people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed should it become necessary for the people to defend themselves against the militia or against other individuals."

Do you seriously believe you are qualified to critique Thomas Jefferson on his writing skills or his command of the English language?
Mister, you're a hoot.
Can you also walk on water?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[azchevy]

No other ammendment has faced so much scrutiny and been attempted to be redefined. We need a supreme court with the brass ones to put it to bed once and for all, not leave it open to interpretation with stupid decisions that allow "reasonable restrictions" they should have clearly defined things

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Bottom line is heller vs. DC put the militia interpretation to bed so we don't need to argue that fact anymore.... the comma is a moot point now.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

[livewire]

Do you seriously believe you are qualified to critique Thomas Jefferson on his writing skills or his command of the English language?
Mister, you're a hoot.
Can you also walk on water?

Well... I hate to be critical of someone's language skills on an internet forum, but I'm glad I wasn't JJVP's English teacher. But his point is valid. Mr. Jefferson's language skills were fine at the time, but the English language has changed a lot since the late 1700s.

If the Militia and Arms clauses were separated, it would have helped a lot. And at the time the Constitution was ratified, there was no difference between Military small arms and civilian small arms. I'm sure from what I know of the Founders' writings, they fully intended for the Citizenry to have Military small arms. I'm also sure that "bear" meant "To carry on one's person", and it would be nice if that had made it in.

[Doghandler]

No other ammendment has faced so much scrutiny and been attempted to be redefined....

It's important that we understand what the 2nd Ammendment meant to the Founders. What's more important is to understand what the 2nd Ammendment means to us in the 21'st Century.

I will always cheer for 2A controversy. Without controversy there will be no debate. Without debate there will be no meaning. Without meaning there will be emptiness. With emptiness there will be nothing. With nothing will be left a Zen prayer.

[ksholder]

It's important that we understand what the 2nd Ammendment meant to the Founders. What's more important is to understand what the 2nd Ammendment means to us in the 21'st Century.

I will always cheer for 2A controversy. Without controversy there will be no debate. Without debate there will be no meaning. Without meaning there will be emptiness. With emptiness there will be nothing. With nothing will be left a Zen prayer.

How about applying unfaithful hermeneutic to determine what it meant then. That is what it means, period. If you don't like that meaning - amend it. That is how it is supposed to work and the only way the constitution has any stability and/or real meaning.

[paching]

In my opinion If you want to carry in other states it should be optional, let the feds deal with those interested for a small fee. I don't travel out of state but I'd like to be able to ccw if needed.

[zacii]

That's a good idea; charge a fee to exercise the right to bear arms.

[azchevy]

That's a good idea; charge a fee to exercise the right to bear arms.

we should charge people to speak too and to vote

[paramedic70002]

Apparently Massachusetts is taking the whole States Rights things seriously. This could be interesting to watch. It may become a tit for tat issue.


Mass. Suspends 100s of Ariz. Driver's Licenses

Massachusetts authorities have suspended the driver's licenses of more than 100 people who converted licenses earned in Arizona to Massachusetts licenses, and are investigating hundreds more.

[OldVet]

I think a major catch to this plan is that like now, in reciprocy states, one must obey and comply with the laws of the state one is in, regardless of what state "issued" any permit. So if the laws of IL say "NO" than it's still no--iaw the laws of IL.

[phreddy]

LaPierre said Obama's base is in favor, not Obama. There is a big difference.

[GM]

LaPierre said, "It cuts across Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives -- even President Obama's base is strongly in favor of this legislation”; do you not think it is very strange that Obama, one of the most anti-gun presidents in U.S. History, is "strongly in favor of this legislation"? Do you not think that something fishy might be going on?

[azchevy]

I was going to respond to that. Bottom line is the feds want control because they can red tape the states into giving control of not only the database and the process to them, then they can raise the fees, control who gets what, and effectively regulate it right out of existence is they so want to. They can and will screw this up with over regulation and ridiculousness. As they do with everything else. Have the states give up control only to abolish it completely under the reasonable restrictions loophole heller left us. People think I am crazy for saying this and that it will never happen..... but I think it can and will. Keep the feds out of it.

[phreddy]

I will ask the same question that I asked in other thread (Started by CountryGal). LaPierre said, "It cuts across Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives -- even President Obama's base is strongly in favor of this legislation”; do you not think it is very strange that Obama, one of the most anti-gun presidents in U.S. History, is "strongly in favor of this legislation"? Do you not think that something fishy might be going on?

LaPierre said Obama's base is in favor, not Obama. There is a big difference.

Aslong as it passes as written, I am for it. It does not give the Feds any more power than they already have and it moves us in the right direction. I would love for the Supreme Court to rule on a case that would bring the 2nd amendment back to what the founding fathers intended, but until it does I will take incremental movement in the right direction.

[GM]

LaPierre said Obama's base is in favor, not Obama. There is a big difference.

Of course, there is a big difference