new proposed law allowing CCW's across state lines - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: new proposed law allowing CCW's across state lines

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    St. Louis/Missouri
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfling68 View Post
    Sorry folks, I'm a states rights guy and I can't have it both ways.
    +1 Keep the federal government as far away form state issues as possible.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. - Ronald Reagan

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by MADnMO View Post
    +1 Keep the federal government as far away form state issues as possible.
    Except that this actually is not a state issue, if the Constitution is interpreted correctly.

    The RKBA is a right that preexists and is not dependent on the Constitution. Heller reaffirmed this long-standing point clearly. However, the regulation of the RKBA is expressly restricted by the Second Amendment and, although SCOTUS has yet to directly rule that the Second Amendment extends against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, it is basically a foregone conclusion that SCOTUS will rule to that effect when the matter is directly before the court. Modern 14A jurisprudence virtually guarantees it, as Scalia suggested in his famous footnote in Heller.

    Thus, regulation of the RKBA actually is not left to the states. Rather, the Constitution, through the 2A/14A, protects the RKBA at the federal level, on a nationwide basis (similar to how the 4A/14A protects us all on the federal/national level from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.).

    Moreover, when read correctly in light of clear evidence in the legislative record and other contemporaneous indicia, the 2A prohibits virtually all regulation of the RKBA--the protection is at least on par with the protections established by the 1A regarding speech, which permits only narrowly tailored regulation that is necessary to a compelling governmental interest, and is the least restrictive option.

    Thus, if read and applied correctly, the protections of the 2A/14A nullify the vast majority of regulations currently in place relating to the possession and carrying of arms--as it should be.

    Our struggle is to bring practical reality into line with this legal fact.

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    west of Atlanta
    Posts
    5
    A well regulated Militia, being neccessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What part "of not be infringed" do they not understand? Better explainations have been put forth than I can render, so I go with the simple one, it is my right to be able to defend myself and family as long as I have not "misbehaved'. 2010 is a voting year so be sure to follow the votes of your elected reps and return the favor. If you are not registered, get registered and vote. Be sure to join the NRA also.
    “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their arms.”__ Samuel Adams

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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