Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation goes to the US Senate.

This is a discussion on Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation goes to the US Senate. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by accessbob So the full version as passed by the House and sent to the Senate: So, your argument is that they COULD ...

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6789101112 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 174
Like Tree48Likes

Thread: Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation goes to the US Senate.

  1. #136
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,050
    Quote Originally Posted by accessbob View Post
    So the full version as passed by the House and sent to the Senate:


    So, your argument is that they COULD do something bad? For heaven's sake that is ALWAYS possible with ANYTHING they pass. And by the way, as it is written there is NOTHING, NOTHING that sates that they can create anything like a nationwide registry. It only includes the STUDY of how they can verify. And then report back to Congress.

    So your fight is not with this bill. It is with any SUBSEQUENT - I REPEAT FOR EMPHASIS - SUBSEQUENT legislation which might create a registry.
    Plus, the kind of study they included can be called by any member of congress at any time, whether it's included in the bill itself or not. It also has no relevance to the passage of the law, no matter what the results of the study, because there were no conditions added.
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #137
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,669
    Nope. See my answer above. I haven't said anything about any registry. In fact, I don't think anything like that would come for quite some time, if it came at all.

    I do believe that the first thing to get legislated away would be the out of state permit system. They'll find some 'good' reasons why they can't be justified based on effective state tracking and public safety. Does that affect me? Nope. But maybe what they do next will and plenty of good folks are forced to use the out of state permit system because their own state restricts the Second Amendment and effectively stops them from being able to concealed carry.

    Moreover you guys seem to forget that the Federal Government does not have Constitutional authority to do this...

  4. #138
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,669
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    Plus, the kind of study they included can be called by any member of congress at any time, whether it's included in the bill itself or not. It also has no relevance to the passage of the law, no matter what the results of the study, because there were no conditions added.
    They don't need any "conditions"; they'll have legal precedent for any laws they want to enact. The very act of forcing the "national reciprocity" will give the Federal Government that precedent.

  5. #139
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,050
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    Nope. See my answer above. I haven't said anything about any registry. In fact, I don't think anything like that would come for quite some time, if it came at all.

    I do believe that the first thing to get legislated away would be the out of state permit system. They'll find some 'good' reasons why they can't be justified based on effective state tracking and public safety. Does that affect me? Nope. But maybe what they do next will and plenty of good folks are forced to use the out of state permit system because their own state restricts the Second Amendment and effectively stops them from being able to concealed carry.

    Moreover you guys seem to forget that the Federal Government does not have Constitutional authority to do this...
    The Constitution is full of authority to do this... hell, if we really look at it, the constitution does this. The 2nd Amendment, the infamous "Commerce Clause", Article 4: Section 1, the 10th Amendment, the whole bloody thing. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is in our Constitution for a reason.

    And where do you possibly come to the conclusion that the 'out of state permit system' would be a target? For one, there is no out of state permit system, just states that allow non-residents to apply. I see no reason for those states to change their methods, and it would require legislative change in those states.




    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    They don't need any "conditions"; they'll have legal precedent for any laws they want to enact. The very act of forcing the "national reciprocity" will give the Federal Government that precedent.
    Okay, I don't understand what you're even saying here. Care to elaborate so the rest of us simpletons can understand?
    Last edited by livewire; March 20th, 2012 at 07:38 PM. Reason: merge
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  6. #140
    Distinguished Member
    Array accessbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,383
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    First off, it absolutely isn't within the legal purview of the Federal Government to enact a selective piece of legislation like this.
    Can you explain further? I'm not seeing what you're seeing and it would be helpful to try.

    If they were applying their authority based on the Second Amendment, then I would be applauding it wholeheartedly. That's not what they are doing and sorry if you happen to like this little piece of legislation; it's not legal based on the same Constitution that gives you the Second Amendment.
    Again, I need specifics. I just re-read the Constitution and am failing to see your logic here. Help me to do so.


    Secondly, if you can get past the legality of it, more of the bill is about 'studies and audits' of out of state permits.
    9 lines (studies) to 12 lines of the original bill. But if it is about the studies and audits for future legislation, I still fail to see how defeating this bill will help as they will still find a way for evil if they can. I do not see it as a conspiracy to kill more rights, but perhaps you are right.

    What does the Federal Government historically do with anything they study or audit? The enact legislation.
    Yes, that is true. But again, you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Study or no study, this can open things up immensely and could generate even more momentum for people to pester their legislators for more or to keep their hands off.

    I know, I know... You don't want to buy into this. Good for you, but the government typically makes legislative moves one of two ways: 1. They ride the coattails of an event and enact legislation while public opinion is on their side (the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act and the Homeland Security Act) or 2. They fabricate a crisis based on whatever they can dig up to use and they use that to help garner public support (Healthcare reform and the gun control legislation that would have come from Operation Fast and Furious, if it hadn't blown up in their faces). I believe that those 'studies and audits' will be the inroad that the Federal Government uses to start enacting legislation over permits. You may not believe it. You may think the Federal Government can't or won't use those audits for some sort Federal laws regarding permits, but here's the deal; you can't guarantee it. You absolutely cannot say, with any credibility anyway, that you know what they won't do with them. That's enough for me, because all I need to know is what they might do with them. I don't want them to have any possible inroad into what each state decides is legal for their citizens.
    So, I think by your standards, you would have the House and Senate not pass any legislation of any sort which might help us for fear of it being misused. I see that as one of the hunker down and don't move for fear I might get hit mentality. That would mean that we can't try to move forward at all because they will always try to add stuff. But as I said, it is the FUTURE legislation which is to be watchful of. This here does not put into law anything more than making it more uniform across the states so that I don't have to get 4 or 5 CHL's just to go from one state to another and to another.

    But I guess we'll have to come to the point of recognizing that we don't see eye to eye on this and go on with life.
    EDC - M&P Shield .40, Ruger P90, OR Ruger SR1911 CMD AND
    Ruger LCP in Desantis Pocket Holster (backup)
    Member - SAF, OFF,
    NRA Life Member

  7. #141
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,669
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    The Constitution is full of authority to do this... hell, if we really look at it, the constitution does this. The 2nd Amendment, the infamous "Commerce Clause", Article 4: Section 1, the 10th Amendment, the whole bloody thing. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is in our Constitution for a reason.

    And where do you possibly come to the conclusion that the 'out of state permit system' would be a target? For one, there is no out of state permit system, just states that allow non-residents to apply. I see no reason for those states to change their methods, and it would require legislative change in those states.

    Okay, I don't understand what you're even saying here. Care to elaborate so the rest of us simpletons can understand?
    Where in the Constitution do you see the authority to subject some states to legislation such as this? The Second? That'd be correct if they were applying across the entire nation, not selectively. Not by allowing any state or other governmental subdivision the authority to disregard the Second Amendment. The 10th? The Tenth give the powers to the states not the Fed... The "Commerce Clause" of the Enumerated Powers of Congress? How exactly would you apply the Commerce clause to select states? It's true that Congress uses it as their catch all, but that doesn't make it legal any time they want to drag it out. Full Faith and Credit? That's used for our justice system, not application of state laws or documents within other state boundaries.

    In all honesty, the Second Amendment is the only place that the Federal Government could make a solid play for some sort of legislation like this. Unfortunately, when their legislative attempt only applies to certain states and specifically allows others the freedom to not have the law apply, then they aren't applying their authority under the Bill of Rights, because the BoR is supposed to apply to all Americans, not just those who live in states that pass state law allowing it. Plenty of state laws vary from state to state and the Federal Government doesn't have the power to come in and selectively force states to acknowledge another state's laws. Imagine if this were any other right that we are explicitly afforded under the Bill of Rights. Our right to due process or unreasonable search and seizure isn't dependent on state laws. Accepting less for the Second Amendment isn't a "win"...

    I'm saying the system for non-resident permits (that many Americans use) would be their first target because that's exactly what they have designated in Section 3 and 4. They'll study it, they'll audit it, then they'll legislate it.

    As far as your idea that they would need "conditions" in this bill in order to enact any legislation, I'm saying that the very act of creating Federal law that would dictate this "national" reciprocity, they won't need any conditions for further legislative action. The act of creating a Federal law governing state reciprocity will be their legal road to oversight or whatever they choose to do.

    @ accessbob - Hopefully I got some of your comments addressed above. To answer you specifically, no, I'm not saying I wouldn't support any legislation that would help; I'm saying I won't support one that doesn't apply to all Americans equally. When the Federal Government enacts legislation that provides every American the same Second Amendment rights; I'll be very supportive of it. I'm dubious of anything that sidesteps the BoR and grants some sort of Federal auditing process into what they are acknowledging is a state matter. I don't believe it's a conspiracy; I believe it's an inroad to Federal oversight.
    beararms likes this.

  8. #142
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,050
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    Where in the Constitution do you see the authority to subject some states to legislation such as this? The Second? That'd be correct if they were applying across the entire nation, not selectively. Not by allowing any state or other governmental subdivision the authority to disregard the Second Amendment. The 10th? The Tenth give the powers to the states not the Fed... The "Commerce Clause" of the Enumerated Powers of Congress? How exactly would you apply the Commerce clause to select states? It's true that Congress uses it as their catch all, but that doesn't make it legal any time they want to drag it out. Full Faith and Credit? That's used for our justice system, not application of state laws or documents within other state boundaries.

    In all honesty, the Second Amendment is the only place that the Federal Government could make a solid play for some sort of legislation like this. Unfortunately, when their legislative attempt only applies to certain states and specifically allows others the freedom to not have the law apply, then they aren't applying their authority under the Bill of Rights, because the BoR is supposed to apply to all Americans, not just those who live in states that pass state law allowing it. Plenty of state laws vary from state to state and the Federal Government doesn't have the power to come in and selectively force states to acknowledge another state's laws. Imagine if this were any other right that we are explicitly afforded under the Bill of Rights. Our right to due process or unreasonable search and seizure isn't dependent on state laws. Accepting less for the Second Amendment isn't a "win"...

    I'm saying the system for non-resident permits (that many Americans use) would be their first target because that's exactly what they have designated in Section 3 and 4. They'll study it, they'll audit it, then they'll legislate it.

    As far as your idea that they would need "conditions" in this bill in order to enact any legislation, I'm saying that the very act of creating Federal law that would dictate this "national" reciprocity, they won't need any conditions for further legislative action. The act of creating a Federal law governing state reciprocity will be their legal road to oversight or whatever they choose to do.

    @ accessbob - Hopefully I got some of your comments addressed above. To answer you specifically, no, I'm not saying I wouldn't support any legislation that would help; I'm saying I won't support one that doesn't apply to all Americans equally. When the Federal Government enacts legislation that provides every American the same Second Amendment rights; I'll be very supportive of it. I'm dubious of anything that sidesteps the BoR and grants some sort of Federal auditing process into what they are acknowledging is a state matter. I don't believe it's a conspiracy; I believe it's an inroad to Federal oversight.
    It's obvious that you've drunk the "Anti kool-aid" and I'm not going to convince you otherwise. What I'm trying to do is prevent other pro-gun people from falling victim to the same fallacies that you have.


    I do believe that the Commerce Clause applies here. I disagree with its use most of the time, but the Commerce Clause was inserted for a reason. If I travel to another state, I will almost always spend money. I'm engaging in interstate commerce when I buy food, fuel, or products in another state. If I were a truck driver, my livelihood would depend on interstate commerce if I did any long haul at all. I don't believe it stands on it's own here, but it is relevant. With the DEA, not so much. With the EPA, also not so much. Interstate CCW Recognition, sure.

    The 2nd Amendment clearly puts firearms ownership and defense of Self (from other individuals, foreign powers, and State and Federal governments) into the legislative hands of the Federal Government. This was done to prevent the Fed from interfering (shall not be infringed) with our gun rights, and your state and local governments as well.


    The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". This means that the State's Rights argument here is totally Bunk. Basically, there are three kinds of powers according to the COTUS:

    "Basic, God-given rights", in the modern world, we call them "Human Rights" to do things like live in peace, travel without fear, to not be persecuted based on our physical traits.

    "Enumerated Powers" The stuff mentioned specifically in the Constitution. Protection of our borders, Military, Tax and Borrow... it's a long list I'm not going to repeat the whole thing. Then, through the Amendments, some things have been added: Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech and Protest, Due Process, Protection from search, etc etc. Wait... I'm missing an important one. Oh, right. The 2nd Amendment.

    "Unenumerated powers" According to the 9th: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." which was originally intended to protect the people from any government overstepping its boundaries, but through some unfortunate jurisprudence, was bound to just the Fed.


    Our Founders knew that firearms would eventually be a contentious issue, that governments would try to take them away. They had seen it happen to their own country before they left it, and had seen it happen throughout history. While I doubt they could have envisioned a modern AR-15, they knew weapons technology was only getting better, and that more advanced arms would lead to more attempts to regulate. They also lived at a time when there were debates on whether we should be a country of united states or independent states, and that even after that debate was resolved that there would always be conflict on that point.

    That's why they addressed firearms the way they did. The phrase "Shall not be Infringed" doesn't show up anywhere else in the Constitution. Of course, it HAS been infringed, and we have a long way to go to fix that. We have made a lot of progress in the last decades. We now have more shall-issue states than ever, at least since permits were required. The debate on Preemption and Constitutional Carry has spread from state to state in ways I'd never hoped to see. Here in WA, we've just won the legal protection of using suppressors, something we've been fighting for for a very long time.

    Reciprocity and Recognition are two of the biggest fights we've had in this arena. We have made a lot of progress, but there is a long way to go. Ultimately, we're fighting for something we shouldn't have to fight for, because the 2nd Amendment says that the right to ... bear arms "shall not be infringed". That means that the permits either shouldn't exist, or should be 'shall issue', at least in my mind. If they don't exist, then it should be "constitutional carry", not "Illinois carry"

    And, if permits exist, they should be good everywhere, because of Article 4 / Section 1 of the COTUS: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." To my mind (not a judge, Justice, or scholar) this means, in the arena of CCW, that if a person has a CCW permit, or lives in a state where they are not required, that person should be able to carry in any state.



    The Driver's License analogy keeps coming up in this debate when Art4/Sec1 comes up. "Every state honors every other state's DL" "Yeah, but they did it on their own". If you think that when states first started licensing drivers, Art4/Sec1 didn't come into play, you're nuts. Just because they agreed voluntarily without involving the Courts doesn't mean that it wasn't because of the Constitution.

    I agree that the 2nd Amendment should be my CCW permit. This debate shouldn't be happening, and this law shouldn't be necessary. Ultimately, that's still the goal. But right now, there is a CCW permit required in all but a small handful of states that allow CCW. If I'm going to travel to Oregon, I have to have an Oregon CHL which cost me hundreds of dollars in travel and training. Same with Nevada (I did both at once) as they don't recognize my permit either. If I want to go to California, I can either break the law or go unarmed.


    Lets face a cold reality here. We nearly lost the war on firearms. A few years ago, most states had may-issue at best, 10 round magazines were the upper limit, and "Assault weapons" nearly included sharpened sticks. The idea of interstate reciprocity was a joke. We've made a lot of progress, but we're not done yet, and this bill will be a substantial victory toward our ultimate goal of nationwide travel without worry.
    accessbob and beararms like this.
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  9. #143
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,669
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    It's obvious that you've drunk the "Anti kool-aid" and I'm not going to convince you otherwise. What I'm trying to do is prevent other pro-gun people from falling victim to the same fallacies that you have.

    Lets face a cold reality here. We nearly lost the war on firearms. A few years ago, most states had may-issue at best, 10 round magazines were the upper limit, and "Assault weapons" nearly included sharpened sticks. The idea of interstate reciprocity was a joke. We've made a lot of progress, but we're not done yet, and this bill will be a substantial victory toward our ultimate goal of nationwide travel without worry.
    And if you were some all-knowing omnipotent being, then you'd have some credibility. Unfortunately you are not, and none of what I have stated is a 'fallacy'; unless of course you define a fallacy as 'anything you don't agree with'.

    Let's do face some cold realities. If, as you say, a few years ago most states were 'may-issue at best', just look how far we've come (and continue to advance) without Federal involvement in such a short amount of time. Furthermore, The low-cap magazines and assault weapons ban that "nearly lost the war on firearms" were courtesy of the very governmental body that you are inviting in. Sadly, I believe it's you who don't get it. But if it pases and the Federal Government steps in and starts legislating restrictions on permits (while never actually addressing the fact that these laws should apply to every part of our country and not specifically allow lesser jurisdictions to 'opt out' of the Second Amendment), I'm sure you'll be quick to assign blame elsewhere instead of taking ownership of the fruit borne from your "mostly" national reciprocity w/audits.
    paaiyan, jem102 and beararms like this.

  10. #144
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,050
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    And if you were some all-knowing omnipotent being, then you'd have some credibility. Unfortunately you are not, and none of what I have stated is a 'fallacy'; unless of course you define a fallacy as 'anything you don't agree with'.

    Let's do face some cold realities. If, as you say, a few years ago most states were 'may-issue at best', just look how far we've come (and continue to advance) without Federal involvement in such a short amount of time. Furthermore, The low-cap magazines and assault weapons ban that "nearly lost the war on firearms" were courtesy of the very governmental body that you are inviting in. Sadly, I believe it's you who don't get it. But if it pases and the Federal Government steps in and starts legislating restrictions on permits (while never actually addressing the fact that these laws should apply to every part of our country and not specifically allow lesser jurisdictions to 'opt out' of the Second Amendment), I'm sure you'll be quick to assign blame elsewhere instead of taking ownership of the fruit borne from your "mostly" national reciprocity w/audits.
    Your argument about the "Assault Weapons" Ban proves my point. That wasn't any "backdoor" bill based on some other legislation that had already passed and been snuck through, it was passed right through Congress and the Pres at the time who were all very obvious about it.

    I've never claimed that our position is safe, and there will always be someone trying to undo all the progress we've made. But no amount of "studies" are going to be able to turn this law against us. Sure, they can repeal it, and pass other legislation to damage CCW and such, but they'll have to do it via other bills or regulatory bodies, which this bill does not provide!

    And all of the conditions that existed through the AWB period at both the State and Federal levels was due to public opinion. That go the State legislatures elected, and the US Congresscritters at the time. Even the President campaigned to some extent on Anti policies. It's the current public opinion that's allowing us to get pro-gun legislation through, and we cannot ignore this opportunity.

    If you let the Antis pass legislation piecemeal, then they'll win. We have to take whatever victories we can to gain momentum. Getting in front of our own ball here is a bad idea. Even if the Anti arguments that have slipped into the debate were actually true, I would still support this bill, but they aren't.




    Let's look at some fallacies*, shall we?


    • A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument's form without an understanding of the argument's content. All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.
    • Appeal to probability – assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen.

      Well... do I really have to explain how this one applies?

    • Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them

      Common in this argument is that Congress, after passing this bill, will simultaneously use it to rip control of CCW out of the states' hands while creating a database of license holders to take guns from us directly. Neither is likely or even possible under this bill.



    Informal fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and which usually require examination of the argument's content.


    • Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.

      We see this one a lot around here... "It doesn't help people in Illinois because they don't do CCW at all" "It doesn't help me because I'm a New York resident, and can't get a permit anyway" "This does nothing for open carry" "I still wouldn't be able to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol in Texas"


    A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.

    • Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side

      There's a lot of FUD in this thread, and it's being repeated almost verbatim from the Anti organizations.

    • Appeal to motive – where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer

      Here's a big one... "here's this pro-gun bill, but it's a Trojan Horse!!!"

    • Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

      More of the Trojan Horse stuff... I see this one more with the 'political camp' arguers. "This bill can't be good because Democrats support it!" This implies that all Dems are Antis, when we know that this is not the case.



    Then there's this... not really in any of the above categories, but a common theme:

    • Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose) – asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact

      Well... I suppose all of the arguments against qualify here.



    *Shamelessly ripped from Wikipedia
    Last edited by livewire; March 21st, 2012 at 03:50 PM. Reason: Formatting is hard :(
    accessbob and beararms like this.
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  11. #145
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,597
    Just one quick remark on constitutionality. Too much is made by opponents to the notion that this 822
    somehow rides on the "evil" commerce clause. It doesn't. It rests on the "necessary and proper" clause.

    The Federal Government has the right to make laws which are necessary and proper to accomplish
    its purposes. In this instance, the purpose is very much strengthening 2A, which after the last round
    of court opinions vis-a-vi "incorporation" of 2A under the provisions of the 14th, is very much a proper
    thing for the Federal Government to do.

    There is no serious constitutional or state's right objection to 822 that comes even close to being
    reasonable. Sorry if that opinion is going to sound harsh to some, but just as Uncle (via Congress) is beholden
    to hold the feet of the states to the fire on Miranda and police interrogations, it is obligated to hold the feet
    of the states to the fire on the "carry" portion of 2A.

    822 goes in that direction while some of our
    many courts continue to weasel word their way around the word "bear" The House has spoken, and I hope The Senate
    concurs, and The President signs the bill into law.

    IMO 822 is 120% necessary and proper.
    accessbob and Brass63 like this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  12. #146
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    So how does it address states that scrap their entire conceal carry programs to combat this?

  13. #147
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,050
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    So how does it address states that scrap their entire conceal carry programs to combat this?
    I doubt it will happen. it's a lot harder to repeal existing legislation than it is to pass new. Even if you're NY or CA.
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  14. #148
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,597
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    So how does it address states that scrap their entire conceal carry programs to combat this?
    You are talking about addressing (with IL being the exception) a future possible event. Cross that bridge when we
    get there. I was merely addressing the legitimacy of Uncle enacting 822. Congress could of course have chosen
    stronger language; or passed legislation that direct The Supremes to interpret the word "bear" in some particular way.
    The House has done what it wants to do as a representative body. Is 822 enough? No. But it is very far from the
    unconstitutional legislation some who post here try to make it out to be.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #149
    VIP Member Array tokerblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,338
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    Your argument about the "Assault Weapons" Ban proves my point. That wasn't any "backdoor" bill based on some other legislation that had already passed and been snuck through, it was passed right through Congress and the Pres at the time who were all very obvious about it.
    - Exactly. The Federal government doesn't need to "backdoor" any type of weapon ban. They simply will do it if there is enough support. Even HR2900 wouldn't change this.

    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    So how does it address states that scrap their entire conceal carry programs to combat this?
    - Why would that bother the anti-HR822 people? Don't they want the states to be in control of their concealed carry programs? Not to mention that people seem OK with never traveling to a place where they can't CCW anyway.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote." ~ Benjamin Franklin

  16. #150
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,050
    Quote Originally Posted by tokerblue View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    So how does it address states that scrap their entire conceal carry programs to combat this?
    - Why would that bother the anti-HR822 people? Don't they want the states to be in control of their concealed carry programs? Not to mention that people seem OK with never traveling to a place where they can't CCW anyway.
    Yaknow... that's a good point.
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6789101112 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
  •  

Search tags for this page

astoria oregon gun carry regulation
,

concealed carry reciprocity ruling

,
jim brady quotes reciprocity
,
reciprocal gun law before seante
,
reciprocity law senate ruling
,

s.2188 --national right-to-carry reciprocity act

,

s2188 introduced in the us senate

,
senate passes u.s. reciprocity
,

senate right to carry

,
senator brown on reciprical carry law
,

us senate ccw bill 2012

,

us senators in favor of reciprocal carry

,
what is illinous senator kirks stance on concealed carry ?
,
what states have reciprical agreements with mississippi on the right to carry law?
,
when is the national reciprocity being voted on
Click on a term to search for related topics.