Please write your Congressman NOW!!! HR 822 to be voted on - example e-mail - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Please write your Congressman NOW!!! HR 822 to be voted on - example e-mail

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Off of I-80 between Des Moines and Cheyenne
    Posts
    1,207
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Hurtley View Post
    If you feel that Concealed carry is covered by the second amendment (which I do, by the way,) then you should be in favor of it.

    My comment was based on the fact that Supreme Court decisions currently state that it is not. That's where my "open to interpretation" comes from - my interpretation is that open and concealed carry without a permit should be declared legal at the Federal level.

    The fact that right now, Federal law states that concealed carry is not a "right". Therefore, since it is not a "right" (again, by current law and court decision, not by my belief,) it is something that is legislated. Because, right now it is something that is legislated, and we have this mishmash of laws, I would rather have the Federal government declare at least some continuity between the states. Just as they already do for the privilege that is drivers licenses. If that is the first step toward having carry be considered a Federal right, all the better.

    Next step? Federal "shall-issue" Concealed Carry permits, with consistent laws across the entire country. Apply to the ATF, get your permit, be legal by the same rules *EVERYWHERE*. Then, the same for open carry (not the permit part, the 'same rules' part.) Then, no permits.

    Yes, I should like the Tea Party. But it's been taken over by elements who care only about small personal interests (the Koch brothers, among others,) and isn't grass roots any more. If the people take it back from the special interests, I could support it again. The same is starting to happen with Occupy. I support the general idea, but it's starting to get taken over, and is losing my support in the process.

    I used to be a Republican. But as soon as they decided that legislating personal behavior was more important than allowing personal freedom and fiscal responsibility, they lost me. Now, I'm "small l" libertarian. I would like to make a difference, and unfortunately, that means picking one of the big two parties. Right now, the Democratic Party is more open to accepting my beliefs than the Republican Party is. I am openly accepted as a Democrat here. If I were to try to be as involved in the local Republican Party instead, I'd be vilified as a "RINO".

    As for federal power vs. states rights? I'm of the opinion that more freedom is better. If a Federal law guarantees more freedom, even at the expense of a state's rights, then the Federal government should trump state law. If a state law guarantees more freedom, then the state law should take precedence. For example, Oregon has a "Death With Dignity" law that makes physician-assisted suicide legal (under certain conditions.) I vigorously opposed the attempts by the Bush administration to use Federal power to nullify this law. This law allows MORE freedom, therefore it should absolutely not be overridden by the Federal government. HR 822 grants more freedom, therefore IT should override state law.
    The only reason I hit "Reply With Quote" is so that after you read your post again and you put your head in your hands, you cannot go back and change it. The idea of continually finding examples of how you have been misled is getting tedius. Therefore I think the time to turn this thread loose has arrived for me.

    So, have a good night and a great Sunday.
    1)"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty." -Thomas Jefferson.
    2)"Imagine how gun control might be stomped if GOA or SAF had the (compromising) NRA's 4 million members!" -Me. http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/nraletter.htm

  2.   
  3. Uh, not sure what you're trying to say.

    To summarize my point more succinctly: While yes, Concealed carry (and open carry) should be considered by Federal law as "protected nationwide under the second amendment," they presently are not. Because they are not, they are not "constitutional issues", and therefore a CHL is roughly analogous to a marriage license. It is something issued by a state, that, at present, other states have the right to refuse to acknowledge. I would like both conditions rectified. A license (or contract, or any other legal document,) that is accepted as legal in one state should not be able to be ignored by other states.

  4. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Hurtley View Post
    Neither is concealed carry. Whether either should be or not is of course open to debate, but as of now, neither is a Bill of Rights issue.
    WTF! Are you kidding? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don't you get?

  5. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by snatale42 View Post
    WTF! Are you kidding? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don't you get?
    While I am all for this bill to pass....I do have to touch on this....

    You are referring to 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment prevents the Federal Govt from infringing on that Right. It does not, however, prevent a State Govt from doing so.

  6. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfettered Might View Post
    Marriage is not protected by the Bill of Rights. Apples and oranges.
    But the federal govenment still does not have the power to regulate it. No where in article I section four of the US Constitution is congress given, "The power to regulate acts of marriage, reproduction and sexual intercourse."

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjam2jab:242992
    Quote Originally Posted by snatale42 View Post
    WTF! Are you kidding? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don't you get?
    While I am all for this bill to pass....I do have to touch on this....

    You are referring to 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment prevents the Federal Govt from infringing on that Right. It does not, however, prevent a State Govt from doing so.
    The Tenth Amendment does prevent states from infringing on the first nine amendments.

  8. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Drunkbeater View Post
    The Tenth Amendment does prevent states from infringing on the first nine amendments.
    I think you mean the Fourteenth Amendment.

  9. #18
    No, I mean the Tenth Amendment. Please, read the Bill of Rights! The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments.

  10. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Drunkbeater View Post
    No, I mean the Tenth Amendment. Please, read the Bill of Rights! The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments.
    I have, and the amendment that you are refering to is the Fourteenth Amendment.

  11. #20
    No I am not. I am talking about the Tenth Amendment. You clearly do not know what you are talking about. As a matter of fact, I am talking about the Ninth Amendment, too.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast