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 azchevy The only way you can change things is to either try a case that the SCOTUS decides on or get elected ...

Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 174
Like Tree48Likes

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

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,886
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    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.
    I find any of these options preferable to passively accepting the status quo...

    Another, more realistic option is the populace electing pro 2A officials (senators, representatives, and president)... the president can appoint justices, and a pro 2A Congress will not stall the process...
    "My problem with life is not that it is rational nor that it is irrational, but that it is almost rational." - G.K. Chesterton

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Nobody is accepting anything, just stating the facts as they reside today in the real world we live in..... if you cannot accept those facts and wish to carry on with fantasy scenarios and comparing civil rights to firearm rights then that is your choice. Carry on.
    Hopyard likes this.

  4. #48
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,886
    explain how exactly it is a fantasy, and how there is no comparison between the two. In both cases, there is a misinterpretation in a group's constitutional rights. In both cases, the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue in a way that unduly limited a group's constitutional rights.
    "My problem with life is not that it is rational nor that it is irrational, but that it is almost rational." - G.K. Chesterton

  5. #49
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Carry on sir. Carry on.
    Hopyard likes this.

  6. #50
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,886
    So you bash my argument and then offer no rebuttal... how exactly does that make you right???
    "My problem with life is not that it is rational nor that it is irrational, but that it is almost rational." - G.K. Chesterton

  7. #51
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Sometimes when I see comments like that I think we need to resurrect to 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.
    "There is one thing, my dear sir, that must be attempted and most sacredly observed or we are all undone. There must be decency and respect and veneration for persons of authority of every rank."
    John Adams. Second President of the United States.
    Respect must be earned. It is worthless drivel if it is unearned.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  8. #52
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    1,988
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911_Kimber View Post
    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?
    SCOTUS is ruling on precedent. Now that SCOTUS confirms states' power to prohibit concealed carry, states should write pre-emptive legislation that has the power to cancel or draw the line on local laws that infringe on the rights of honest citizens to effective self defense. For example, WA has a good, "plain language" law:
    RCW 9.41.290
    State preemption.

    The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.
    Moving forward, there's plenty of room for SCOTUS to limit (ie., pre-empt) state powers to prohibit our right to bear and hopefully SCOTUS will limit state powers or the states will remove prohibitions or both.

    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    Nobody is accepting anything, just stating the facts as they reside today in the real world we live in..... if you cannot accept those facts and wish to carry on with fantasy scenarios and comparing civil rights to firearm rights then that is your choice. Carry on.
    The Second Amendment Foundation says that gun ownership is a civil right.
    Is gun ownership a "civil right?"

    World Net, from Princeton University, defines a "Civil Right" as a right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of congress including the right to legal, social and economic equality. This makes gun ownership as much of a civil right as freedom of speech, religion and freedom of the press.

    1a. Supreme Court affirms Second Amendment as a fundamental civil right (District of Columbia v Heller).... The Supreme Court affirmed that Washington DC gun laws violated the Second Amendment Civil Rights of DC residents and to positively restore those rights.
    Civil rights are not about minorities but are for all. The same laws that restricted gun rights to blacks and hispanics and asians that were not enforced against whites are now enforced against whites for the same reason - control of the population. It's true, "an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere". I keep faith that SCOTUS will take the case that limits state power to infringe on the right of honest citizens to effective self defense, ie., carry by choice of concealed or open - to recognize gun bearing as a civil right.
    Stubborn likes this.
    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)

  9. #53
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,570
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    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.
    AZ-- not quite but close. So just for historical clarity: Jefferson and Jeffersonians were then known as Republicans. The political warfare of the day back then was Federalists v Republicans.

    The word "Republican" had a completely different meaning; also sometimes a different moniker. Washington and Adams
    were Federalists as are the 5 present day conservatives on the SC; and as was GWB when he advanced the
    "Unitary Executive" theory which claimed extraordinary authority for a president.

    What is sadly true is that absolutely everything we fight about with each other today, we were fighting about
    with each other back then. The flaws due to compromise and haste, to human nature too, which beset our Constitution,
    have never quite been ironed out; and there were many beyond the slavery thing.
    Last edited by Hopyard; March 14th, 2012 at 04:37 PM. Reason: comma added after "Constittution
    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. #54
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    Respect must be earned. It is worthless drivel if it is unearned.
    In the context of my signature line and the side discussion some of us are having per AZ-Chevy's post
    of the Seaman's case, "seditious libel" is, what it is. That our courts tolerate it in the political arena
    is a disservice to our country.

    We'd all be better off if we kept our modern political discourse within more civil bounds.
    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

  11. #55
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    explain how exactly it is a fantasy, and how there is no comparison between the two. In both cases, there is a misinterpretation in a group's constitutional rights. In both cases, the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue in a way that unduly limited a group's constitutional rights.
    So what else is new? Do you think we live in a perfect world with a perfect court? And what makes you or I or anyone else
    more right on a particular matter than the folks who are briefed by the litigants, have received briefs on all sides of the
    issue by "friends of the court" and heard the arguments?
    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. #56
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    In the context of my signature line and the side discussion some of us are having per AZ-Chevy's post
    of the Seaman's case, "seditious libel" is, what it is. That our courts tolerate it in the political arena
    is a disservice to our country.

    We'd all be better off if we kept our modern political discourse within more civil bounds.
    Same old liberal side-step, if you agree with the view it's "healthy discourse" and if you don't agree with it it's "seditious libel".
    Same old double standard...it's ok for Katie Couric to stand up on national TV and state "he's not my president" referring to Bush but if I call the imposter an imposter it becomes sedition.
    Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
    If theres not two sides to a road, we all go the same direction until we drive into the ocean.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  13. #57
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,050
    I would like to point something out here. There seems to be a misconception that the SCOTUS has ruled that carry restrictions are upheld and legitimate. This is NOT the case as far as I can tell.

    In Heller (and repeated in McDonald) the cases were about the first part of the 2nd Amendment; i.e. keeping arms. Both cases were regarding the fact that the plaintiff lived in a jurisdiction where it was illegal to own a handgun for self defense. The quote is:

    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.
    (shamelessly copied from azchevy)

    This isn't a ruling on carry of weapons, just a statement that they were not ruling on carrying in that case as it wasn't part of the original complaint. Since that time, cases regarding carry have been brought to the Court, and all of those cases have been rejected.
    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. #58
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,050
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    In the context of my signature line and the side discussion some of us are having per AZ-Chevy's post
    of the Seaman's case, "seditious libel" is, what it is. That our courts tolerate it in the political arena
    is a disservice to our country.

    We'd all be better off if we kept our modern political discourse within more civil bounds.
    Same old liberal side-step, if you agree with the view it's "healthy discourse" and if you don't agree with it it's "seditious libel".
    Same old double standard...it's ok for Katie Couric to stand up on national TV and state "he's not my president" referring to Bush but if I call the imposter an imposter it becomes sedition.
    Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
    If theres not two sides to a road, we all go the same direction until we drive into the ocean.
    Would you two cut it out? You're gonna get the thread closed. Lets stay away from the political bickering on the liberal/conservative divide and focus on this bill.
    Pistology likes 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

  15. #59
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    So what else is new? Do you think we live in a perfect world with a perfect court? And what makes you or I or anyone else
    more right on a particular matter than the folks who are briefed by the litigants, have received briefs on all sides of the
    issue by "friends of the court" and heard the arguments?
    No one is asking for perfect, only objectiveness. It all depends whether a Justice enters the court with an objective mindset, or whether he enters the court with a pre-concieved notion of furthering his own personal agenda, or furthering the agenda of the person or party who put him in office.

    Please don't insult anyones intelligenge here by telling us you don't believe that the "good ol boy" you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours syndrome doesn't exist in Washington.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  16. #60
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    So what else is new? Do you think we live in a perfect world with a perfect court? And what makes you or I or anyone else
    more right on a particular matter than the folks who are briefed by the litigants, have received briefs on all sides of the
    issue by "friends of the court" and heard the arguments?
    The short answer to your last question would be: logic and a good understanding of the meanings or words (i.e., bear).
    "My problem with life is not that it is rational nor that it is irrational, but that it is almost rational." - G.K. Chesterton

Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678 ... 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.