National concealed carry reciprocity act of 2017 - Page 3
Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 194

Thread: National concealed carry reciprocity act of 2017

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,759
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    Guns, whether manufactured in the US or overseas, still cross state lines in shipping. Ipso facto, they are already under the Commerce Clause and have been for about 50 years.

    d go to the heart of the states’ police power. Some but not all states deny permits to abusive partners or stalkers, or impose different age and training requirements.

    The Commerce Clause is the most obvious candidate, and since the proposed bills limit themselves to the concealed carry of guns that have traveled in interstate commerce, there are strong arguments that it would be satisfied. The addition of a similar jurisdictional hook was sufficient to save the Gun Free School Zones Act after United States v. Lopez. That said, the hook here would arguably be even more attenuated, since the concealed carry bills do not directly regulate guns or even carrying, but rather the recognition of permits.
    So where did you copy and paste that drivel from? You failed to copy the whole sentence that began the second paragraph, but no matter, it's obvious that it's from some establishment-Republican website that, just like Democrats, seeks to excuse federal overreach at every turn, which likewise describes your contributions on this forum, especially on this particular issue. Still, you should give attribution to whomever you lifted that text from.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  2.   
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,759
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    Guns, whether manufactured in the US or overseas, still cross state lines in shipping. Ipso facto, they are already under the Commerce Clause and have been for about 50 years.

    d go to the heart of the states’ police power. Some but not all states deny permits to abusive partners or stalkers, or impose different age and training requirements.

    The Commerce Clause is the most obvious candidate, and since the proposed bills limit themselves to the concealed carry of guns that have traveled in interstate commerce, there are strong arguments that it would be satisfied. The addition of a similar jurisdictional hook was sufficient to save the Gun Free School Zones Act after United States v. Lopez. That said, the hook here would arguably be even more attenuated, since the concealed carry bills do not directly regulate guns or even carrying, but rather the recognition of permits.
    Well, that didn't take long. Found it. It's from a leftist who hates the idea of national reciprocity whether it's (rightfully and legally) based in Second Amendment orthodoxy, or (illegitimately) based in Commerce Clause subterfuge.

    Y'all can read it if ya want, but I'm fine with simply proving my instincts were right when I said SR9 didn't write any of that post.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  4. As soon as I saw the term ipso facto I knew the post was toast, lifted or not. Liberal double speak. How we get into the overreach of interstate commerce at this point, I don't know, nor do I care. Reciprocity is a state to state function and some would argue a responsibility.

    I have skin in the game with this one. I have several non resident permits that give me much reciprocity already and I do not want the Feds to screw that up. Because they will.

    The Place To Be

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,366
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Well, that didn't take long. Found it. It's from a leftist who hates the idea of national reciprocity whether it's (rightfully and legally) based in Second Amendment orthodoxy, or (illegitimately) based in Commerce Clause subterfuge.
    Blues on the ball as usual. Good find.

    The author contradicts his own statements, but many of the masses would likely never notice it. He tries to make it appear he has a balanced and logical argument by stating, "Law-abiding citizens do have a fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense—one that does not depend on legislation from Congress." But then he brings out the tired old refrain that Scalia's comments in Heller said second amendment rights aren't unlimited, and that he noted most 19th century courts had ruled prohibitions on concealed carry were lawful. The author thus leaves his readers with the obvious implication Scalia was affirming that prohibitions on concealed carry were legal. But Scalia was using that reference only as an example of how 19th century courts ruled (correctly) that most rights aren't unlimited. 19th century courts routinely ruled slavery to be legal too, but my noting that doesn't mean I think slavery should be legal. Conveniently, the author never addresses the fact that a concealed carry ban in a state where no other form of carry is allowed would nullify his statement that "Law-abiding citizens do have a fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.”

    As with most liberals who like to tout those comments by Scalia in Heller, the author leaves out many other remarks that don't support his viewpoint. In the next sentence after those 19th century court remarks, Scalia said "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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." If Scalia was attempting to portray concealed carry prohibitions as 'reasonable' restrictions, why is concealed carry not included in that list?

    Scalia even quoted Muscarello v. United States where Justice Ginsburg (who dissented in both Muscarello and Heller) said, "[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Scalia said "We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” So even a dissenting justice affirms that "in the clothing or in a pocket", carrying concealed, is something the 2nd amendment included as bearing arms. Funny how the author at this link, and almost every other liberal who tries to claim support from the Heller decision, never mentions these other portions that don't support their cause.

    There's plenty more in there that could be mentioned here, but we've analyzed Heller to death already in other threads.

    Something you should keep in mind is that Heller wasn't about concealed carry. It was about Washington DC "enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home." It was also about whether the second amendment rights were limited to militia purposes because that's the premise the lower court used to uphold the DC ban. So any comments about concealed carry made by jurists in the Heller case as examples, weren't Supreme Court proclamations about its legality. And the tactic many liberals use to cherry pick parts of that decision to support their claim that it's lawful to ban concealed carry just doesn't hold water. Certainly there are many comments that might be viewed as suggestive of the legality of concealed carry bans, but I personally think they sound more supportive of concealed carry than not. Read the entire decision for yourself if you want to form your own conclusion.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,759
    As regards the unattributed quote of SR9's in context to this forum and this thread, the more salient point is that use of it exposes SR9 as a supporter of leftist-originated talking points meant to get national reciprocity across the finish line precisely because it is Commerce Clause-based. I said early-on that if national reciprocity passed while Obama was in office, he would sign it in a heartbeat because even he wasn't so blinded by it's ostensibly pro-gun illusion that he couldn't see the avenue it would (or will) open up for draconian regulation. It's been beyond obvious that SR9 doesn't understand that Heller virtually blasted the militia clause out of the water for jurist use as a bottom-line meaning of the Second Amendment, and it's obvious because SR9 continues to cite the word "regulate" as a simply great rationale for national reciprocity being organized under the Commerce Clause rather than the true bottom-line meaning that Heller established as it protecting a right of The People as-described in the shall not be infringed clause. SR9 has never backed off his ridiculous assertions that Heller contradicted, refuted and destroyed, that the militia clause gives government control over the right of The People by virtue of the words "well regulated."

    The most important message here is that readers of this site can't trust SR9 to offer, deliver or care much at all about truth when it comes to analysis of the Second Amendment or proposed national reciprocity legislation.

    That said, though it may be true that 19th Century (and beyond) courts have ruled that most rights aren't unlimited, I'd like to know if Rhino (or anyone else) has a quote from any Framers that supports that notion? Any speeches from the debates on the Floors of Congress that includes that interpretation of "most" of the BoR's most-unambiguous provisions? I believe it's just another excuse for getting The People to accept blatant usurpations, whether by judicial fiat or legislative fiat, or in most case, both. "Shall not be infringed" sounds pretty damned limiting upon courts and legislators to this reader. Which Founder(s) disagreed? And if it's none like I think it is, then all this unlimited crap is just that - crap - and the majority opinion in Heller was written so as to continue the fantasy that citizens are forced by government guns to accept, that the clear and unambiguous meanings of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are fungible according to a gaggle of black-robed oligarchs issuing diktats from on high. My, how liberty and justice for all does that sound, hmmm?

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  7. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    The most important message here is that readers of this site can't trust SR9 to offer, deliver or care much at all about truth when it comes to analysis of the Second Amendment or proposed national reciprocity legislation.
    SR9 has posted more than once that the government wrote the Constitution and that Congress alone could amend it, for example.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  8. #27
    The TRUTH is not what is in your mind but what is real. You are as paranoid as anyone there is.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    The TRUTH is not what is in your mind but what is real. You are as paranoid as anyone there is.
    Right....because the US Federal government has never infringed upon anyone's rights before. And it's an hilarious statement coming from you - the very same person who claims the Federal government can unilaterally change - or even do away with - the Constitution if it desires to do so.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,759
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Right....because the US Federal government has never infringed upon anyone's rights before. And it's an hilarious statement coming from you - the very same person who claims the Federal government can unilaterally change - or even do away with - the Constitution if it desires to do so.
    Well, actually, the federal government can, thanks to the fact that it has already changed, and then done away with, the Second Amendment. Otherwise we'd be a damn sight freer now than after the police state gained an immovable foothold. SR9 simply can't understand that we're not paranoid, we're observant.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  11. #30
    No, you're paranoid.

Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

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