National Right To Carry Reciprocity Bill Introdued In US House - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: National Right To Carry Reciprocity Bill Introdued In US House

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,668
    Quote Originally Posted by 6shootercarry View Post
    The real issue, go look at this poll...

    Poll: Do You Support Nation Wide Constitutional Carry?

    Trying to figure out why there are NO votes?? 39 at last count..

    Can't get the gun owners to agree on anything. I've read and heard some that make statements about needing restrictions and regulations. How they argue the right is "not defined until the courts say it's so"... How compromise is the way to get our rights back...

    Get the gun owning community to make a unified and cohesive statement and stand their ground and you'll have a chance at making a change. Imagine if we all pulled in the same direction... The cord would get short really fast..

    Allow compromise to be the tool used to get "a little further ahead" and we will never be free from infringement on the right...

    It's up to us... What say you all?
    You'd still lose as it already has been defined.

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

  2.   
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by S&W645 View Post
    You'd still lose as it already has been defined.
    Then it is by this acceptance of the definition of the right, that we have already lost... So when my son is finally old enough to take possession of the rifle I bought him for Christmas, perhaps I won't have that rifle to give him and he would not have the right to posses it??? What a bright future...

    Are you willing to accept that definition and the constant infringement that will stem from it's biasing? That's my question... A real question for you not a flame...

    "The court found the 2nd Amendment right; a good thing. However, mandatory registration of handguns is in force, and “infringement” of the 2nd Amendment is not just tolerated, but loudly supported by the ruling."

    "It does nothing to dissuade government from infringing, hassling and taxing our individual rights. Instead, it clearly gives a nod of the head to limits on rights and “reasonable” infringements of them."
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,668
    Quote Originally Posted by 6shootercarry View Post
    Then it is by this acceptance of the definition of the right, that we have already lost... So when my son is finally old enough to take possession of the rifle I bought him for Christmas, perhaps I won't have that rifle to give him and he would not have the right to posses it??? What a bright future...

    Are you willing to accept that definition and the constant infringement that will stem from it's biasing? That's my question... A real question for you not a flame...

    "The court found the 2nd Amendment right; a good thing. However, mandatory registration of handguns is in force, and “infringement” of the 2nd Amendment is not just tolerated, but loudly supported by the ruling."

    "It does nothing to dissuade government from infringing, hassling and taxing our individual rights. Instead, it clearly gives a nod of the head to limits on rights and “reasonable” infringements of them."
    I don't agree with the SCOTUS on that part of their oppinion. But that was what they held in Heller vs DC. Sadly, they defined it as that there could be restrictions on ownership other than just felons and mental cases.

    I also don't agree with them on Snyder vs Phelps as the WBC practices hate speech. So I guess that anything goes with that sort of thing unless the state sets a standard.

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Hudson, Iowa, United States
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by 6shootercarry View Post
    Conditioning and Compromise... They will be the death of the 2nd Amendment and freedom as well. Thinking, writing and saying "it's never gonna happen"...

    Get off your 4King arse and make it happen. Don't accept no...
    Amen!

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    223
    There are several lawsuits brought by the SAF in IL,MD,NJ,NC,CA that are seeking the courts to acknowledge the 2A as a right like civil rights laws of 30 years ago. Under these circumstance the courts will have to use the Strict Scrutiny level of review. I think this stands a good chance of winning in any one of these courts or SCOTUS. Once the first case is won and the 2A recognized as a core right under strict scruting, these may issue and no issue states will be forced to allow carry. The SCOTUS will leave the choice of which one to the states. It's coming fellas.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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