Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation goes to the US Senate. - Page 3

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; Obviously, 2900 is a vast improvement - still not perfect. Rightfully, each state (including IL) must recognize self-defense as good cause for honest citizens to ...

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 174
Like Tree48Likes

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

  1. #31
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,182
    Obviously, 2900 is a vast improvement - still not perfect.
    Rightfully, each state (including IL) must recognize self-defense as good cause for honest citizens to carry any way and anything that they may legally possess. As azchevy noted (quoting from Wikipedia), "The Supreme Court commented that state laws restricting concealed weapons do not infringe upon the right to bear arms protected by the Federal Second Amendment."
    This dicta SCOTUS reiterated in its Heller decision, "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 majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."
    Enter bureaucracy and politics to determine what is legal as the Supreme Court rules that states have the power to do.
    So there we are between a natural right to self defense and the Supreme Court. If I may respectfully add that since states have the power to prohibit, states should pre-empt any local attempt at prohibition.
    So, apart from my rightful solution, my political and bureaucratic goal is minimal prohibition with state preemption. I consider potential legislation with that goal in mind. The politicians and others so quick to compromise further the rights of some US citizens for a carrot on the road to more regulation don't have my support.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)


  2. #32
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,403
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    This is an ancillary statement used to support the justice's position about exceptions to other amendments as well... I'm not sure how this is a ruling on the 2a and concealed carry
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Array 1911_Kimber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    If I may respectfully add that since states have the power to prohibit, states should pre-empt any local attempt at prohibition.
    So, apart from my rightful solution, my political and bureaucratic goal is minimal prohibition with state preemption. I consider potential legislation with that goal in mind. The politicians and others so quick to compromise further the rights of some US citizens for a carrot on the road to more regulation don't have my support.
    I want to make sure I understand your position... You are saying that because the Supreme Court erroneously gave power to the States to make policy on the 2A amendment and as result some of the cities in the states have taken steps to create policy on their own and effectively taken away our rights, states should maintain power and take it away (preempt) from the cities therefore quashing the laws created by local cities?

    Is this correct?
    "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."

    -James Earl Jones


  4. #34
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    This is an ancillary statement used to support the justice's position about exceptions to other amendments as well... I'm not sure how this is a ruling on the 2a and concealed carry
    and was specifically cited in a decision in 2008 that affects all of us......

    so go figure huh? now it is mentioned in an "ancillary statement" and re-affirmed in a SCOTUS decision

    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.
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

    So what now Badey? What is the legal argument against this held decision? States Rights control CC

    Seriously, you are arguing something that states like CA, NJ, NY and IL are going to definitely take to Appeals court. If SCOTUS sees it do you really think they are going to overturn a decision they just made less than 4 years ago? Do you think a federal appeals judge is going to use this DECISION as a basis on his decision?

  5. #35
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,403
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    and was specifically cited in a decision in 2008 that affects all of us......

    so go figure huh? now it is mentioned in an "ancillary statement" and re-affirmed in a SCOTUS decision



    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

    So what now Badey? What is the legal argument against this held decision? States Rights control CC
    It is cited in the Heller case, and I just spent the last hour reading the decision... The decision does say that it is a states rights issue... I have never argued that that is not the current precedent, I have argued that it should not be.

    No states regulate 1st, 4th, 5th, etc. amendment issues, so I am not sure how LOGICALLY, they are able to regulate the 2A. How do you justify this logically, not legally?
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine

  6. #36
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    So I am telling you that the 2A DOES NOT COVER concealed carry. So your "opinion" means nothing based upon a current held legal definition of the 2d amendment. yet you continue to argue. Sometimes I don't understand people. I am not trying to argue a point, just point out a fact. this isn't going to happen. Even if passed, IL, NJ, NY and CA will have it in court so fast.... it won't even see fruition. What things should be and what they are are the difference between reality and fantasy land.

  7. #37
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,110
    AZ-- some of the "confusion" may come from the recent "incorporation" of 2A through the 14th.
    2A now, as 1A, 4, 5, etc. can be used against the states. However, the Justices have refused to
    state that 2A speaks to concealed carry; just to possession in one's home. They have not said
    it never allows for concealed carry, but they have not said too that states would violate 2A by
    restricting concealed carry. Rather obviously, many do, and the courts do not intervene.

    822 however can stand regardless of how one views 2A. It is bolstered by 2A but 2A isn't essential to make it
    legitimate.

    As for the state's right stuff; give it up folks. Wrong side of history whether you like it or not.
    azchevy likes 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

  8. #38
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    and was specifically cited in a decision in 2008 that affects all of us......

    so go figure huh? now it is mentioned in an "ancillary statement" and re-affirmed in a SCOTUS decision



    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

    So what now Badey? What is the legal argument against this held decision? States Rights control CC

    Seriously, you are arguing something that states like CA, NJ, NY and IL are going to definitely take to Appeals court. If SCOTUS sees it do you really think they are going to overturn a decision they just made less than 4 years ago? Do you think a federal appeals judge is going to use this DECISION as a basis on his decision?
    Remember both Heller and MacDonald were both 5-4 decisions.
    I'm not disagreeing with you "AZChevy", but if the imposter in the White House can replace just one more Supreme Court Justice with one of his hand picked liberal judges, they will absolutely want to hear 2A cases...because they know the decisions will come out quite differently than Heller.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  9. #39
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    Remember both Heller and MacDonald were both 5-4 decisions.
    I'm not disagreeing with you "AZChevy", but if the imposter in the White House can replace just one more Supreme Court Justice with one of his hand picked liberal judges, they will absolutely want to hear 2A cases...because they know the decisions will come out quite differently than Heller.
    Sometimes when I see comments like that I think we need to resurrect the Sedition Act of 1798-it never was declared unconstitutional
    by the Supreme Court; moreover, Jefferson used it against his own enemies even while pardoning those convicted
    under it during the Adams administration and letting it expire.

    There is a line between malicious lies and libel, and free speech.

    See my signature line.
    Last edited by Hopyard; March 14th, 2012 at 05:11 PM. Reason: change "to" to "the" in word before "sedition"
    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

  10. #40
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    When a stone is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps the loudest is the one that was hit.
    kerberos likes this.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  11. #41
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    Remember both Heller and MacDonald were both 5-4 decisions.
    I'm not disagreeing with you "AZChevy", but if the imposter in the White House can replace just one more Supreme Court Justice with one of his hand picked liberal judges, they will absolutely want to hear 2A cases...because they know the decisions will come out quite differently than Heller.
    Five to four are just as binding. They are just as good as precedent for future rulings.

    The Courts don't choose the cases
    that are brought to them. They choose from amongst cases which may be brought to them but never are able to
    initiate a case on their own. It really doesn't matter what the make up, because if there is no case ripe for
    hearing at the Supremes, it won't happen.


    The majority of the court (including especially the so-called conservatives) are
    proud participants in the Federalist Society and some (I think Scalia, Roberts, and Alito) have made speeches before that
    group. These are very conservative folks who are not going to upset apple carts or readily rule against Uncle in any
    matter brought to them; guns or otherwise.

    They certainly didn't in Heller.

    Step back from the political rhetoric and look at this through the prism of history and reality.
    azchevy likes 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. #42
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    I don't always agree with Hopyard's more liberal view of things, but I do realize we need both perspectives to keep the balance in the republic. These battles have been going on since inception and it started with the Republicans vs. the Jeffersonians.

  13. #43
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    You are correct they don't choose what cases they want to hear, but they most certainly refuse to hear the ones they don't.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  14. #44
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,403
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    So I am telling you that the 2A DOES NOT COVER concealed carry. So your "opinion" means nothing based upon a current held legal definition of the 2d amendment. yet you continue to argue. Sometimes I don't understand people. I am not trying to argue a point, just point out a fact. this isn't going to happen. Even if passed, IL, NJ, NY and CA will have it in court so fast.... it won't even see fruition. What things should be and what they are are the difference between reality and fantasy land.
    Ok, so you are saying that we shouldn't try to change things even if we believe they are wrong... You have yet to address my civil rights point, in which several SCOTUS decisions upheld racial discrimination as constitutional, yet the black community fought, and eventually won... in your logic, they should still accept segregation (among other indignities).
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine

  15. #45
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    Ok, so you are saying that we shouldn't try to change things even if we believe they are wrong... You have yet to address my civil rights point, in which several SCOTUS decisions upheld racial discrimination as constitutional, yet the black community fought, and eventually won... in your logic, they should still accept segregation (among other indignities).
    The only way you can change things is to either try a case that the SCOTUS decides on or get elected president and appoint SCOTUS judges. or better yet get all the states to call a ConCon and make changes that way.... Go for it.
    Hopyard likes this.

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

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
  •  

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.