Utterly awesome!!!!

  • Thread starter Rode Hard and Put Up Wet
  • Start date
  • Replies 60
  • Views 647
R

Rode Hard and Put Up Wet

Guest
http://www.guns.com/2017/01/05/nra-n...city-proposal/

Republican lawmakers in the U.S. House on Tuesday made it clear that national concealed carry reciprocity was a priority for the next Congress.

A group of 59 GOP representatives introduced a proposal — to allow the holder of a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun in any state — just after the body convened for its first session this week.

The bill is sponsored by U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson, a Republican from North Carolina, who is one of just six congressmen listed among the 62 co-chairs of the pro-gun Second Amendment Coalition of advisors to President-elect Trump.

As a side note: Trump is turning out to be more 2A friendly than my wildest hopes. Let's push for the continuation of this.

There is talk of Constitutional carry legislation here, but I don't know if there is enough support for that.
 
The first time I saw this I wasn't sure how I felt about it from a 10th amendment standpoint.

And then I realized that this truly is what a centralized federal government was designed to do. This really does fall under the authority of the fed and is backed up by the right being spelled out and protected in the bill of rights.

I hope it passes. My only question is how it will be effected by shall not issue states.
 
Chdamn said:
The first time I saw this I wasn't sure how I felt about it from a 10th amendment standpoint.

And then I realized that this truly is what a centralized federal government was designed to do. This really does fall under the authority of the fed and is backed up by the right being spelled out and protected in the bill of rights.

I hope it passes. My only question is how it will be effected by shall not issue states.
Click to expand...
Our thinking is alike. This should worry you.
 
If the right judge(s) get selected for the SCOTUS it will be even better.

Thanks for posting this. I will share and encourage people to support pro-2A stances the best ways they can!!!

Great counter points too. The greatest faiths should be put in individual liberties as long as they aren't harmful to others. 2A does specifically use the phrase shall not be infringed so nothing should stop me or be required of me to possess any firearm.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chdamn said:
The first time I saw this I wasn't sure how I felt about it from a 10th amendment standpoint.

And then I realized that this truly is what a centralized federal government was designed to do. This really does fall under the authority of the fed and is backed up by the right being spelled out and protected in the bill of rights.

I hope it passes. My only question is how it will be effected by shall not issue states.
Click to expand...
Hahaha, my business partner asked me who I was talking to on the phone yesterday. I said "One of the smartest guys I know and crazier than a sh!t house rat."
 
This is a huge 2A fail in the making. I hope it never happens.
 
Catfish;n43886 said:
This is a huge 2A fail in the making. I hope it never happens.
Click to expand...

Please explain. I realize that the potential for a back door registration exists with this, however if it passes close to its current form i.e. a simple order to grant reciprocity, how is that a fail?
 
I think I win the award for the most cynical guy on the forum, if not the planet, and I am confused by this! :)
 
I don't trust Congress not to screw this up. It'll be a mess by the time it makes it to Trumps desk, and it sets a precedent for federal regulation of carry rights which will grow over time into who knows what? This legislation will end up demoting 2A from a Right to a tightly controlled Federal privilege. It will give the anti-gunners yet another lever to pull on and pry our guns away. I find it incomprehensible that the same community that's screaming for repeal of the NFA is cheering for .gov to get involved in concealed carry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Catfish;n43904 said:
I don't trust Congress not to screw this up. It'll be a mess by the time it makes it to Trumps desk, and it sets a precedent for federal regulation of carry rights which will grow over time into who knows what? This legislation will end up demoting 2A from a Right to a tightly controlled Federal privilege. It will give the anti-gunners yet another lever to pull on and pry our guns away. I find it incomprehensible that the same community that's screaming for repeal of the NFA is cheering for .gov to get involved in concealed carry.
Click to expand...

I get your point and I concede the possibility for this to turn into something that it is not in it's current form.

However, wouldn't our efforts be better used to try and support the current form of this legislation and try to ensure that it does not become what you suggest than to simply worry about the possibility of it turning bad?

I don't see this legislation as anything but good in it's current form. While I agree that the NFA should be repealed and I agree that we shouldn't need any concealed carry laws because the constitution already grants that. However, this is a long term war and we should latch onto every victory in every single battle.

Currently the pendulum is swinging quickly with the restoration of constitutionally protected gun rights across almost every state in the union with a few exceptions that have gone in the opposite direction.

This legislation (again, if passed in it's current of close to its current form) would be a huge push of the pendulum in the right direction and force the states who have gone in the opposite direction to move in the right direction.

That's my take on it anyway.
 
I agree that congress can screw up a steel ball with a rubber hammer. I am, though, at this time, greatly encouraged just at the content of the legislation and the tone of the discourse on the hill.

Catfish is right to be cautious. It is not like we all have never been burned before.
 
Yeah I suppose that's how we make the best of the situation. You still won't see me cheering for it though.

[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/images.memes.com\/meme\/607083"}[/IMG2]
 
I have always thought that the 2A put the gun ownership question right into the lap of the federal government, not the states, and answered all questions by saying "shall not be infringed" in the Constitution.

Perhaps challenges to this new law, if it becomes law, will allow a suitable case to be brought before a hopefully soon to be 2A friendly Supreme Court so they can reconfirm that the 2A applies to all the country and really means what it says.

This is not a 10A issue.

My hope is that this legislation will not push the 2A deeper into the hole it is in now in which it seems to be viewed as a privilege regulated by the government.
 
It is a 2A & 14A issue and not a 10A issue.

One of the arguments put forth in support of the 14th Amendment was that black Union veterans were being disarmed by the states of the very arms they had used to secure their liberty.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The operative phrase here is, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens..."
 
Catfish;n43954 said:
Yeah I suppose that's how we make the best of the situation. You still won't see me cheering for it though.
Click to expand...

The problem is, though, that the CURRENT situation is not only constitutionally illegal, but already provides all the mechanisms to outlaw 2A in practice. It is not as though we are in a situation where to do nothing makes us "safe" and any Congressional activity will only screw us up from our secure position. There is, of course, always the PROBABILITY that there will be legislative overreach and an intrusion of power.

However, I have to ask a simple question. Have you read the proposed bill?

I find nothing objectionable in it. http://bearingarms.com/wp-content/up...ep.-Hudson.pdf
 
As far as a national database, that already exists. A few years back, I was boarding a flight to Mexico. I had a leather carry on, which I had used as a range bag. I dumped it upside down and then stuffed it full of underwear, socks, tee shirts,etc. I missed a 7.62x39 round, caught in the folds of the bag. TSA, however, did NOT miss it, and pulled me aside. My wife was furious with me and stomped off to another part of the airport like "I do not know this man!"

Anyway, they sent my name and identifying info to TSA, and it took them 30 seconds for her to come back to me and say "we see that you are a concealed permit holder and have passed all the tests and background checks........." They kept the round, lectured me a bit, and let me on the plane. It helped that one of the TSA guys had recently sold me a thousand primers the week before and came up and vouched for me, but the thing that surprised me was how quickly the electronic info came back.

I guarantee you it is out there on every single gun owner with ANY electronic presence or any official permits.

It is not like some national reciprocity bill is going to do anything but move that data over to a new entity.
 
Charlie;n43955 said:
I have always thought that the 2A put the gun ownership question right into the lap of the federal government, not the states, and answered all questions by saying "shall not be infringed" in the Constitution...
Click to expand...

No. It does not put the ownership question in the lap of the feds, but removes it entirely from their control. Remember that the Bill of Rights was written to place limitations on the federal government. The Second Amendment specifically forbids the federal government from doing anything whatsoever in regard to our guns and gun rights. It's really not even a states' rights question, but ours as a free people.
 
This is a 10thA consern from the get-go.

Think of this. The 2ndA is a blanket that covers the whole country. Each state carves out it's interpretation of it.

Example:
The 19 discriptions of a handgun within the 50 states

Each state views rights differently and they should. To make a blanket fed law (we already have one) is a bad idea. This "new" law opens doors that are closed at this time do to the uniqueness of each state.

Regerstation, standards, regulation and over reach has happened on EVERY federal law.

This will be no different..

You think getting a form 4 is a drag, hold out for your Federal CCH with a picture and finger print card.
 
I do appreciate the 10A concerns, but I can't see the validity. Would not be the first time I was wrong, but I just dont see it.
 
I know the idea of federal concealed carry reciprocity sounds good. But it is not. We need to push Constitutional Carry meaning you can carry how you want where you want as long as it is permitted and you are legally allowed. No permit or licensing required. I am against any database that list individuals with a propensity to carry a firearm. This will eventually be used incorrectly by the government.
 
SafetySquintsEngaged;n44140 said:
I know the idea of federal concealed carry reciprocity sounds good. But it is not. We need to push Constitutional Carry meaning you can carry how you want where you want as long as it is permitted and you are legally allowed. No permit or licensing required. I am against any database that list individuals with a propensity to carry a firearm. This will eventually be used incorrectly by the government.
Click to expand...

If you strike the part of your statement that I bolded, I would agree completely with you. Permits means the gummint gets a say in our business. We're either free or we're not.
 
trcubed;n44042 said:
No. It does not put the ownership question in the lap of the feds, but removes it entirely from their control. Remember that the Bill of Rights was written to place limitations on the federal government. The Second Amendment specifically forbids the federal government from doing anything whatsoever in regard to our guns and gun rights. It's really not even a states' rights question, but ours as a free people.
Click to expand...

That is what I said. The 2A answers any question of gun ownership in the entire country by saying that the right shall not be infringed. Any infringement on that right by the states is not allowed by the 2A.
 
Charlie;n44571 said:
That is what I said. The 2A answers any question of gun ownership in the entire country by saying that the right shall not be infringed. Any infringement on that right by the states is not allowed by the 2A.
Click to expand...

Maybe I've misunderstood your wording, but "into the lap of the federal government" means to me and many others that the feds have purview over that right.

That last sentence above still isn't right. The US Constitution imposes no limitations on what the states can do, only the federal government.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The states can't deny a right that is confirmed by the Constitution for the whole country. If they could, the Bill of Rights would apply to whom? Nobody except perhaps the people living in DC. Can Idaho establish a state religion? Can Missouri sentence people to cruel and unusual punishments? If what you say is true, they could.
 
The limitations in the BoR apply to no one but the federal government, although the BoR does recognize that certain powers belong to the state and/or to the people. Mr. Jefferson et al saw the problems inherent in a strong fed and used the BoR as a measure to ensure all the states would ratify the Constitution, and to limit the power the fed could wield.

Tell me...if the US Constitution applies to the individual states, why does each state maintain its own constitution?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ya'll are painting a picture of an over constrained system that is becoming what it was never supposed to be, and cannot be saved due to it's complexity.
 
MacEntyre;n45259 said:
Ya'll are painting a picture of an over constrained system that is becoming what it was never supposed to be, and cannot be saved due to it's complexity.
Click to expand...

Very true. It was a very simple system as originally designed, but has slowly been bastardized over the last 228 years.
 
Charlie;n45145 said:
The states can't deny a right that is confirmed by the Constitution for the whole country. If they could, the Bill of Rights would apply to whom? Nobody except perhaps the people living in DC. Can Idaho establish a state religion? Can Missouri sentence people to cruel and unusual punishments? If what you say is true, they could.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Bill of Rights was originally written to allow exactly what you suggest.

The Bill of Rights listed areas in which the federal government had not been granted any power and was prohibited from becoming involved. For instance, the 1st Amendment prohibited the federal government from making any "law respecting an establishment of religion." Dealing with religion was a power held by the states and several states did have legally established state religions - Massachusetts until 1833.

The Bill of Rights was turned on it head by the 14th Amendment. The 14A's Privileges and Immunities Clause was intended to apply the entire Bill of Rights to the states, but that application was struck by down by the Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases in 1873. The Court later applied individual provisions from the Bill of Rights to the states under the 14A's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. Shockingly, instead of prohibiting federal involvement in areas reserved to the states, the Bill of Rights has become the basis for giving the federal government near-absolute enforcement powers over the states.
 
gc70;n45409 said:
...the Bill of Rights has become the basis for giving the federal government near-absolute enforcement powers over the states.
Click to expand...
I thought the War between the CSA and the USA accomplished that...

...just sayin'.
 
Charlie;n45663 said:
It looks as if my rights are not as protected as I thought they were.
Click to expand...

The only person that can truly protect your rights is...you.

Education is vital.
 
While I'd love to carry through Chicago, NYC, Kali, I don't know about this. What's the cost? No free lunch and all... The blue states will push for rules and that will hurt carrying in red states...
 
bigfelipe;n47339 said:
The blue states will push for rules and that will hurt carrying in red states...
Click to expand...

That is my biggest concern. Once federal power is established, how will the law be used for abuse after the inevitable change in political power occurs? Will we have nationwide reciprocity for the lucky few who can meet stringent and expensive national licensing standards?
 
Rode Hard and Put Up Wet said:
As far as a national database, that already exists. A few years back, I was boarding a flight to Mexico. I had a leather carry on, which I had used as a range bag. I dumped it upside down and then stuffed it full of underwear, socks, tee shirts,etc. I missed a 7.62x39 round, caught in the folds of the bag. TSA, however, did NOT miss it, and pulled me aside. My wife was furious with me and stomped off to another part of the airport like "I do not know this man!"

Anyway, they sent my name and identifying info to TSA, and it took them 30 seconds for her to come back to me and say "we see that you are a concealed permit holder and have passed all the tests and background checks........." They kept the round, lectured me a bit, and let me on the plane. It helped that one of the TSA guys had recently sold me a thousand primers the week before and came up and vouched for me, but the thing that surprised me was how quickly the electronic info came back.

I guarantee you it is out there on every single gun owner with ANY electronic presence or any official permits.

It is not like some national reciprocity bill is going to do anything but move that data over to a new entity.
Click to expand...
That is exactly why I never use any bag that has touched a firearm or ammunition for air travel. :D
 
Rode Hard and Put Up Wet said:
I do appreciate the 10A concerns, but I can't see the validity. Would not be the first time I was wrong, but I just dont see it.
Click to expand...
10th, leaves to the states only those powers that are not prohibited by the constitution.
Therfore, the states are prohibited from infringing 2A rights just as the federal government is.
Some hold the the constitution is not binding on the states unless specifically "incorporated. " there is a lot wrong with this view.
 
trcubed said:
Charlie;n44571 said:
That is what I said. The 2A answers any question of gun ownership in the entire country by saying that the right shall not be infringed. Any infringement on that right by the states is not allowed by the 2A.
Click to expand...

Maybe I've misunderstood your wording, but "into the lap of the federal government" means to me and many others that the feds have purview over that right.

That last sentence above still isn't right. The US Constitution imposes no limitations on what the states can do, only the federal government.
Click to expand...
Wrong,. The 10th amendment specifies that states have powers not prohibited by the condition. Operative phrase "nor prohibited by it"
"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."
 
Charlie said:
The states can't deny a right that is confirmed by the Constitution for the whole country. If they could, the Bill of Rights would apply to whom? Nobody except perhaps the people living in DC. Can Idaho establish a state religion? Can Missouri sentence people to cruel and unusual punishments? If what you say is true, they could.
Click to expand...
Exactly. California rules as if the constitution doors not apply within the borders of the state. They often defy SCOTUS rulings and federal law as well. They force their citizens to okay laweeds to fight them in court knowing that liberals own the 9th circuit.
 
There is nothing in the wording of 2A which mentions Congress or the Federal Government. Rather it simply says the rights of the people shall not be impeded. The implication is by ANYONE, state or Federal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom