Help needed with National Reciprocity - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: Help needed with National Reciprocity

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Yep - it will take at least one lifetime for Nationwide Carry Reciprocity to survive a Democrat filibuster in the Senate. Just like everything else the Republicans will attempt to do. And in two years, instead of taking care of the problem by electing a super majority of Republicans to the Senate, ignorant American voters will just vote more Democrats to the Senate and give them a simple majority and all the will continue to get accomplished is nothing.
    Spoken like a NavyLCDRsnowflake crybaby

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    Spoken like a NavyLCDRsnowflake crybaby
    In other words, "I have nothing intelligent to offer, therefore I am going to resort to childish name calling and temper tantrums." SR9 is clearly in those advanced stages of life when one reverts back to childhood - about 2 or 3 year old equivalency now.

    Now for a retort based on facts. History:
    Filibuster Ends After GOP Agrees to Allow Gun Control Votes: Senator - NBC News

    History repeating itself:
    Democrats promise to filibuster and kill national reciprocity for concealed carry in the US Senate - Crime Prevention Research CenterCrime Prevention Research Center

    And let's not forget that National Concealed Carry Reciprocity requires a repeal or amendment to the Federal Gun Free School Zone Law, which I do not see any proposals for:
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

    (q)
    (2)
    (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
    (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
    And now we wait for more whining, crying, name calling and temper tantrums from SR9 because he can't deal with facts.
    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.

  4. #13
    Here is the fact you can't deal with swaby....We are going to get a National Concealed Carry reciprocity Law and soon. Waaa Waaa Waaa!

  5. Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    Here is the fact you can't deal with swaby....We are going to get a National Concealed Carry reciprocity Law and soon. Waaa Waaa Waaa!

  6. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    Here is the fact you can't deal with swaby....We are going to get a National Concealed Carry reciprocity Law and soon. Waaa Waaa Waaa!
    And when it bites us in the ass with draconian restrictions? Only a fool would want the federal government controlling the rules of carrying a gun.
    “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. #16
    All true, plus the added Commerce Clause regulatory authority overriding the Second Amendment rights of The People. Though not specifically articulated as a Commerce Clause-based piece of legislation in the First Draft that bofh linked to, we can only presume that the Commerce Clause will be the "Constitutional Authority" listed when this bill is ultimately introduced on the Floor of the House since all others have had that as their "constitutional authority" before.

    Constitution Check: Can Congress override state and local gun control laws?

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,761
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    All true, plus the added Commerce Clause regulatory authority overriding the Second Amendment rights of The People. Though not specifically articulated as a Commerce Clause-based piece of legislation in the First Draft that bofh linked to, we can only presume that the Commerce Clause will be the "Constitutional Authority" listed when this bill is ultimately introduced on the Floor of the House since all others have had that as their "constitutional authority" before.
    Constitution Check: Can Congress override state and local gun control laws?
    Your apparent ignorance about how to properly quote another post notwithstanding, your ignorance is also on display by using that particular link to make some defensive "point" about the Commerce Clause's unholy relationship to your precious national reciprocity advocacy. If Mr. Denniston is correct (the author of the piece you linked to), national reciprocity will fall to Supreme Court challenge if passed, which makes your advocacy not only representative of horribly flawed legal "thinking," but advocacy for what has already been ruled unconstitutional in U.S. vs. Lopez in 1995. You basically make our own argument for us; using the Commerce Clause to control issues that the Second Amendment already should be controlling is not only a bad idea, it's unconstitutional to boot. It begs the question, why do you support it then? And we've answered the question in various ways many times over the years-long course of this discussion - because you're more concerned with your own selfish motivations than you are by the constitutionality of the bill(s) you support passage of. With simply posting a link, you almost came across as engaging in honest discussion about the topic, but my guess is that you just don't understand the implications of the text within the article you linked to. You somehow think it supports your advocacy for national reciprocity, but what it really does is support the notion that you support legislation which is doomed to SCOTUS overruling, leaving you with nothing to fulfill your selfish desires (national reciprocity), and giving those (like myself) proof positive of what we've said over and over again, that you couldn't care less about the Constitution or the God-given rights it is intended to protect for perpetuity.

    I suggest you put your critical-thinking cap on (if you are indeed in possession of one), and re-read that link. It is trying to tell you at least one important reason why this country should run from national reciprocity like its hair is on fire - it's unconstitutional.

    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...

  9. #18
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    It may be sometime after most of us are dead and gone, but gun owners will ultimately rue the day they handed authority to carry guns over to the regulatory authorities of Congress. Heck, it could start happening in 2017 before the ink is dry on Trump's signature, but mark my words, it will happen sometime.

    Blues
    I disagree with the notion that this is somehow "handing over authority to carry guns to congress."

    The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect our God-given rights EVERYWHERE in the nation, in EVERY STATE. It is the ABSOLUTE BASELINE of our rights/freedoms/liberties.

    The Founders never dreamed that courts would one day interpret Second Amendment rights (or ANY RIGHT, for that matter) so narrowly that some states would be able to, practically speaking, legislate the right to bear arms into oblivion.

    The movement to establish national reciprocity has nothing to do with the government GIVING US anything; rather, this as a LEGISLATIVE CORRECTION to all the wrong-headed court decisions that brought us to this point in the first place - RESTORING the status quo ante, our uninfringed right to bear arms.

    There are two solutions to judicial overreach: first, you wait for the opinion to be challenged, work its way through the court systems, and hope it is overturned - a process that can take years. Second, the legislature writes a law that renders the court opinion moot, a law that clarifies legislative intent. The national reciprocity act is just such a correction.

    In other words, national reciprocity legislation is an example of our system of checks and balances in action - something we rarely get to see where the Second Amendment is concerned.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    I disagree with the notion that this is somehow "handing over authority to carry guns to congress."

    The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect our God-given rights EVERYWHERE in the nation, in EVERY STATE. It is the ABSOLUTE BASELINE of our rights/freedoms/liberties.

    The Founders never dreamed that courts would one day interpret Second Amendment rights (or ANY RIGHT, for that matter) so narrowly that some states would be able to, practically speaking, legislate the right to bear arms into oblivion.

    The movement to establish national reciprocity has nothing to do with the government GIVING US anything; rather, this as a LEGISLATIVE CORRECTION to all the wrong-headed court decisions that brought us to this point in the first place - RESTORING the status quo ante, our uninfringed right to bear arms.

    There are two solutions to judicial overreach: first, you wait for the opinion to be challenged, work its way through the court systems, and hope it is overturned - a process that can take years. Second, the legislature writes a law that renders the court opinion moot, a law that clarifies legislative intent. The national reciprocity act is just such a correction.

    In other words, national reciprocity legislation is an example of our system of checks and balances in action - something we rarely get to see where the Second Amendment is concerned.
    There is one small flaw that you seem to be overlooking, ezkl2230. Under the Nationwide Reciprocity bill - the government still gets to decide who gets to legally carry firearms and who doesn't and the government still gets to decide where those people approved to carry firearms can and cannot legally carry them. Nationwide Reciprocity is not based upon the Second Amendment. It is based entirely upon the premise that the government has the authority to regulate it.
    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.

  11. Help needed with National Reciprocity

    Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    I disagree with the notion that this is somehow "handing over authority to carry guns to congress."

    The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect our God-given rights EVERYWHERE in the nation, in EVERY STATE. It is the ABSOLUTE BASELINE of our rights/freedoms/liberties.

    The Founders never dreamed that courts would one day interpret Second Amendment rights (or ANY RIGHT, for that matter) so narrowly that some states would be able to, practically speaking, legislate the right to bear arms into oblivion.

    The movement to establish national reciprocity has nothing to do with the government GIVING US anything; rather, this as a LEGISLATIVE CORRECTION to all the wrong-headed court decisions that brought us to this point in the first place - RESTORING the status quo ante, our uninfringed right to bear arms.

    There are two solutions to judicial overreach: first, you wait for the opinion to be challenged, work its way through the court systems, and hope it is overturned - a process that can take years. Second, the legislature writes a law that renders the court opinion moot, a law that clarifies legislative intent. The national reciprocity act is just such a correction.

    In other words, national reciprocity legislation is an example of our system of checks and balances in action - something we rarely get to see where the Second Amendment is concerned.

    "this as a LEGISLATIVE CORRECTION to all the wrong headed court decisions that brought us to this point in the first place"

    You mean all those illegal and unconstitutional INFRINGEMENTS that our loving Government has bestowed upon us even after specifically being told that "They" have ZERO AUTHORITY to infringe upon our Rights?

    You mean .... THAT government?!


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 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