National concealed carry reciprocity act of 2017 - Page 4
Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 194

Thread: National concealed carry reciprocity act of 2017

  1. #31
    Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell both need to go.

    Everytown Takes Victory Lap as Paul Ryan Lets National Reciprocity Stall

  2.   
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    Thankfully, the NRA is too busy with doing videos that are not gun related. Otherwise, they would engage in pushing this gun control bill. This stall is certainly a win for the 2nd Amendment.

  4. #33
    O well, there's always the next session. This is not going to go away!

  5. Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    O well, there's always the next session. This is not going to go away!
    Like a bad case of the clap.

    The Place To Be

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,366
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    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?
    Sorry I didn't see this earlier. That's an excellent question. I don't find anything in my quotes collection that says that specifically in that way, but there are some that state the same idea.

    Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
    --- Thomas Jefferson
    (emphasis added)

    Although this can't be attributed to any specific founder, it does convey that the right to bear arms is limited, at least in the context of keeping them out of the hands of criminals:

    That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own states or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.
    --- A proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution, as passed by the Pennsylvania legislature.
    (emphasis added)

    I'd swear that I've seen founders express that very same sentiment that criminals and other dangerous individuals be denied arms but I can't find it in my personal collection. Maybe I'll find the time later to look for it further.

    There are plenty of warnings in quotes from the founders that some will try to get people to accept blatant usurpation in various ways, and the ways in which they will try it, so you aren't expressing an idea that they were in any way silent about, or less concerned with.
    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

  7. #36
    Yet 4 more Representatives signed on a co-sponsors to HR 38. total now 204.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...rt=lastToFirst

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    Sorry I didn't see this earlier. That's an excellent question. I don't find anything in my quotes collection that says that specifically in that way, but there are some that state the same idea.

    Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
    --- Thomas Jefferson
    (emphasis added)
    The limits "around us" that Jefferson would've been referring to is the government he was either contemplating when he wrote (or spoke as the case may be) those words, or that he was a part of after ratification of the Constitution and/or BoR. He didn't add "within the law" because he was acknowledging the right of The People to be free from government-imposed limitations that only tyrants would think it within their authorities to impose. This quote makes my point better than I made it for myself. Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    Although this can't be attributed to any specific founder, it does convey that the right to bear arms is limited, at least in the context of keeping them out of the hands of criminals:

    That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own states or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.
    --- A proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution, as passed by the Pennsylvania legislature.
    (emphasis added)
    Well, the Constitution itself has provisions for limiting criminals' rights, and the bit about unnamed individuals who pose completely undefined "real dangers" was so ambiguous as to expand government power rather than acknowledge a fundamental right, so that's probably why this amendment never passed.

    I've never seen this proposed amendment before so I have to ask, was it something proposed or supported by any Framer(s)? Was it proposed contemporaneously with the BoR? Shortly thereafter? Several years or decades hence? Rejected before the BoR were ratified? It might be interesting to read how it progressed from what you quoted here to being an obscure reference found in the dustbin of history, but it certainly doesn't support the notion that our rights, as articulated within either the Constitution or BoR, were ever intended by this country's Founders to be limited in any way other than how they are limited by the clauses and amendments within the documents. The Fourth Amendment, just as an example among several, has a built-in limitation on the right that searches and seizures must be reasonable. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" offers exactly zero latitude for government interpretation, however, and knowing that government has usurped our Second Amendment rights egregiously and often with zero authority to do so, it should be no wonder to anyone that the word "unreasonable" in the 4A has given the imprimatur of legitimacy to all manner of weakening that amendment to the point that only lip-service is paid to the rest of it, while cops, prosecutors and courts from bottom to top exercise authorities that can in no way be discerned from the rest of those words.

    In any case, no matter when the above amendment was proposed, or who authored or supported it, it was rejected, and to boot, you yourself say there's no attribution for its origin anyway, so it doesn't address the question I asked about Framers expressing support for the notion that rights are limited beyond the words and ideas expressed in the way they were written.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    I'd swear that I've seen founders express that very same sentiment that criminals and other dangerous individuals be denied arms but I can't find it in my personal collection. Maybe I'll find the time later to look for it further.
    Your swearing an oath to having seen Founders express the same sentiment that the rejected proposed amendment would've put into law is rather amusing, but not particularly compelling. Quotes that can be scrutinized and tested for accuracy and/or context, or it didn't happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    There are plenty of warnings in quotes from the founders that some will try to get people to accept blatant usurpation in various ways, and the ways in which they will try it, so you aren't expressing an idea that they were in any way silent about, or less concerned with.
    I can't untangle this. Are you suggesting that a person who speaks and understands the English language and takes a literalist view of the words, concepts and principles contained in our founding documents, is somehow trying to "...get people to accept blatant usurpation..."? You're ostensibly juxtaposing what I've expressed against what unnamed and unquoted founders expressed, when the plain fact is, I either have accurately described their literalist intentions, or I haven't. Again, quotes that can be scrutinized and tested for accuracy and/or context, or it didn't happen.

    Blues

    ETA: And here's a question for you on-topic to the thread: Do you believe that the Commerce Clause was intended to limit the right(s) expressed in the Second Amendment? That's the crux of the conflict being argued in this and the other national reciprocity threads. If that's what you're arguing, please just come out and say it. If not, we're just having an academic, but nonetheless unrelated discussion.
    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...

  9. #38
    On Thursday July 20th Rep. Ken Calvert (R) of California's 42 district signed on to HR 38. He is the #205 to sign on the bill.

  10. #39
    Some questions and some answers on HR 38:

    http://gunowners.org/images/pdf/Conc...of-2017-QA.pdf

  11. #40
    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
    Some questions and some answers on HR 38:

    http://gunowners.org/images/pdf/Conc...of-2017-QA.pdf
    The one question not asked/answered is:

    Why is HR 38 based in Commerce Clause authorities of government to regulate instead of the Second Amendment rights of all citizens to be free of government intrusion?
    Answer: Sorry. Too bad for you who revere your Second Amendment rights. We at GOA, like those at the NRA, don't care about your rights, we care about getting credit for supporting your rights, but what we're actually doing is trading your rights for the authority to regulate under the Commerce Clause of the federal government. By the time you realize what an awful mistake you've made by supporting this abortion of the Second Amendment, we'll be busy producing our next glossy 8 x 10 ad-copy to lie to you again about how we need more of your money so we can fix all that went wrong with National Reciprocity. And you suckers will buy it again hook, line and sinker. They say there's one of you born every minute. We're counting on it being closer to one every second. Thanks for your support!

    Pffft.

    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...

Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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