HR 38 now has 212 Co-Sponsors
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 50

Thread: HR 38 now has 212 Co-Sponsors

  1. #1

    HR 38 now has 212 Co-Sponsors

    HR 38, the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, now has 212 Co-Sponsors and still House Leader Paul Ryan sits on his laurels and prevents it from coming to the floor for a vote. Trump will sign it if it comes to his desk. Paul Ryan is blocking it and needs to go!

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

  2.   
  3. #2
    Bikenut Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    HR 38, the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, now has 212 Co-Sponsors and still House Leader Paul Ryan sits on his laurels and prevents it from coming to the floor for a vote. Trump will sign it if it comes to his desk. Paul Ryan is blocking it and needs to go!

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...rt=lastToFirst
    Paul Ryan, whether he intends it or not, is actually following the Constitution with the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd Amendment. You do understand that "shall not be infringed" means the government shall not control? And that shall not control includes controlling in ways that you happen to like.

    National reciprocity is nothing more than a government power grab over the right to bear arms and there is no way that power grab can be justified to anyone who understands how the Commerce Clause has been abused in order to give Daddy Fed power over things the government was never meant to have power over no matter how many threads you start touting how wonderful it would be for Daddy Fed to grant you the privilege of carrying concealed across state lines.

    One more time. If Daddy Fed can use the Commerce Clause to grant you the privilege to carry a concealed gun across state lines Daddy Fed can also use that same Commerce Clause to deny you the privilege of carrying a concealed gun anywhere. All it takes is a liberal interpretation of a National Reciprocity law to mean all States must have the same criteria for carry permits (fully supported by the States with the most restrictive carry laws) for the entire country to end up with the requirements to obtain a carry permit so restrictive, so onerous, so expensive, and so impossible to obtain that only the rich, powerful, and connected would be able to get one.

    But then the supporters of a National Reciprocity law who are blinded by the shiny promise of having permission to carry across state lines don't seem to be able to entertain the notion that there will be unintended consequences.

    What is really sad is many of those supporters have fallen for the sales pitch that getting Daddy Fed's permission through National Reciprocity is a step forward for the right to bear arms never understanding that if it is a right you don't need permission to do it but if you have to get permission then it is a privilege controlled by whoever is in charge of granting, or denying, a permit to do it.

    But then I suspect that for some folks having a carry permit is an ego thing being proof to themselves they are more special than others.

  4. #3
    Paranoid!

  5. #4
    Bikenut Guest
    Short sighted!

  6. #5
    Perhaps if we lived in a restrictive state like SR9, anything would look hopeful. After all he lives where he had to take out a legal notice in a newspaper advertising the fact he wanted to apply for a carry permit.

    This would be a complete disaster for the carry rights that the residents of most states enjoy.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gondor
    Posts
    1,931
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Paul Ryan, whether he intends it or not, is actually following the Constitution with the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd Amendment. You do understand that "shall not be infringed" means the government shall not control? And that shall not control includes controlling in ways that you happen to like.

    National reciprocity is nothing more than a government power grab over the right to bear arms and there is no way that power grab can be justified to anyone who understands how the Commerce Clause has been abused in order to give Daddy Fed power over things the government was never meant to have power over no matter how many threads you start touting how wonderful it would be for Daddy Fed to grant you the privilege of carrying concealed across state lines.

    One more time. If Daddy Fed can use the Commerce Clause to grant you the privilege to carry a concealed gun across state lines Daddy Fed can also use that same Commerce Clause to deny you the privilege of carrying a concealed gun anywhere. All it takes is a liberal interpretation of a National Reciprocity law to mean all States must have the same criteria for carry permits (fully supported by the States with the most restrictive carry laws) for the entire country to end up with the requirements to obtain a carry permit so restrictive, so onerous, so expensive, and so impossible to obtain that only the rich, powerful, and connected would be able to get one.

    But then the supporters of a National Reciprocity law who are blinded by the shiny promise of having permission to carry across state lines don't seem to be able to entertain the notion that there will be unintended consequences.

    What is really sad is many of those supporters have fallen for the sales pitch that getting Daddy Fed's permission through National Reciprocity is a step forward for the right to bear arms never understanding that if it is a right you don't need permission to do it but if you have to get permission then it is a privilege controlled by whoever is in charge of granting, or denying, a permit to do it.

    But then I suspect that for some folks having a carry permit is an ego thing being proof to themselves they are more special than others.

    I have always suspected the text in bold was the case. We shouldn't need a National Reciprocity law. CHL permits should be given the same full faith and confidence that driver's licenses or gay marriage certificates are
    In an emergency individuals do not rise to the occasion, they fall to the level of their MASTERED training
    Barrett Tillman

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Paul Ryan, whether he intends it or not, is actually following the Constitution with the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd Amendment. You do understand that "shall not be infringed" means the government shall not control? And that shall not control includes controlling in ways that you happen to like.

    National reciprocity is nothing more than a government power grab over the right to bear arms and there is no way that power grab can be justified to anyone who understands how the Commerce Clause has been abused in order to give Daddy Fed power over things the government was never meant to have power over no matter how many threads you start touting how wonderful it would be for Daddy Fed to grant you the privilege of carrying concealed across state lines.

    One more time. If Daddy Fed can use the Commerce Clause to grant you the privilege to carry a concealed gun across state lines Daddy Fed can also use that same Commerce Clause to deny you the privilege of carrying a concealed gun anywhere. All it takes is a liberal interpretation of a National Reciprocity law to mean all States must have the same criteria for carry permits (fully supported by the States with the most restrictive carry laws) for the entire country to end up with the requirements to obtain a carry permit so restrictive, so onerous, so expensive, and so impossible to obtain that only the rich, powerful, and connected would be able to get one.

    But then the supporters of a National Reciprocity law who are blinded by the shiny promise of having permission to carry across state lines don't seem to be able to entertain the notion that there will be unintended consequences.

    What is really sad is many of those supporters have fallen for the sales pitch that getting Daddy Fed's permission through National Reciprocity is a step forward for the right to bear arms never understanding that if it is a right you don't need permission to do it but if you have to get permission then it is a privilege controlled by whoever is in charge of granting, or denying, a permit to do it.

    But then I suspect that for some folks having a carry permit is an ego thing being proof to themselves they are more special than others.
    +1

    The Place To Be

  9. Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    Paranoid!
    -1

    The Place To Be

  10. Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    HR 38, the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, now has 212 Co-Sponsors and still House Leader Paul Ryan sits on his laurels and prevents it from coming to the floor for a vote. Trump will sign it if it comes to his desk. Paul Ryan is blocking it and needs to go!

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

  11. Quote Originally Posted by Eidolon View Post
    I have always suspected the text in bold was the case. We shouldn't need a National Reciprocity law. CHL permits should be given the same full faith and confidence that driver's licenses or gay marriage certificates are
    We shouldn't need CHL permits at all. I don't see anything in the 2nd Amendment that says the government has the authority to turn the RIGHT to keep and BEAR arms into a privilege that one must pay for the government's permission to exercise. Can you image the outcry there would be if we required the same crap to vote as we allow the government to require to bear arms?
    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.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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