National concealed carry? - Page 2
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: National concealed carry?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,762
    What I meant by Nugent addressing the "topic at hand" was the last few posts, including yours, stating that a national CWP isn't necessary because, as he put it, "The 2nd Amendment of our Bill of Rights is my concealed weapons permit, period!"

    I thought I was fairly well-spoken, but you're starting to make me wonder ElZorro! :D

    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...

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    But in the same way States tacitly recognize those licenses, marriage and driving for example, the move is on to recognize State CCW licenses as well. See www.Packing.org for the widespread and growing reciprocity between the States. A Florida licensee enjoys recognition in as many as 40 (I believe) other States. Until we get honest-to-God American leadership which recognizes the inviolate sanctity of 2A, that's better than nothing. As for the "What the State giveth, the State can taketh away" idea, that's true enough...but what're you going to do? Either you submit, or you choose not to participate and carry nothing, or you tell 'em all to go to Hell and just strap it on and let the chips fall where they may! Some do that. Are you ready for the potential consequences?
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  4. #13
    Packing dot org is dead,,,RIP

    On the other hand Having the states individually responsible for CCW is proper. Having an organization as indicated by elzorro that would coordinate some of the rules and regulations from state to state would be great.

    To have states have more parallel guidlines for their regulations would be a godsend for those that travel and have multipal permits.

    ElZorro


    Default SwiftEagle, you've got it partly right, HOWEVER
    Marriage and driving licenses are not universally recognized by any Federal mandate. It's all reciprocity between the STATE Governments.

    Witness the spate of state law amendments after some states recognized "same-sex" marriages; many states specifically redacted their full recognization of those states' marriage licenses, eliminating the same-sex.

    Also; driving license reciprocity is managed by a private organization that coordinates with the various states' DOTs to keep us all driving nonchalantly across state lines.

    A similar organization and cooperation by the states could easily handle this idiotic "national CCW" idea.

    BTW, Nugent nowhere addresses this idea of national licensing but, rather, espouses the clear fact that 2A doesn't exclude compliance by the states, so we defacto already have universal carry rights. It's just that the states have been allowed to usurp the right.

    ElZorro
    Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message

  5. #14

    Rights? What Rights!

    We have a discrepancy at hand between the Feds and Local State Govs.

    At some point in the future there will be no States Rights all laws will be National across the board.

    Examples: Marriage, as mentioned above some states tried to legislate Marriages but the Fed Courts for the most part shot them down.

    Congress is now working on a National Marriage Act that will make all State Laws Ineffective and mandate same sex marriage and woe to the Preacher that speaks outs against it.

    Some 20+ years ago various states tried legislating Pornography before it spread to what we have today. But what we have today again is Fed ordained.

    Various Southern States tried to pass laws directly outlawing Pornography, attempted to try various Porn Stars because there movies were being sold in their state, but the Feds stepped in and made all of them null and void.

    So local state rights were usurped once again. Local communities had no control over what could be shown, or sold.
    The Shadow

    The Shadow Knows What Evil Lurks In The Hearts Of Men

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,762
    Quote Originally Posted by The Shadow View Post
    We have a discrepancy at hand between the Feds and Local State Govs.

    At some point in the future there will be no States Rights all laws will be National across the board.

    Examples: Marriage, as mentioned above some states tried to legislate Marriages but the Fed Courts for the most part shot them down.

    Congress is now working on a National Marriage Act that will make all State Laws Ineffective and mandate same sex marriage and woe to the Preacher that speaks outs against it.

    Some 20+ years ago various states tried legislating Pornography before it spread to what we have today. But what we have today again is Fed ordained.

    Various Southern States tried to pass laws directly outlawing Pornography, attempted to try various Porn Stars because there movies were being sold in their state, but the Feds stepped in and made all of them null and void.

    So local state rights were usurped once again. Local communities had no control over what could be shown, or sold.
    All of these points are perfectly valid examples of the fed ignoring the 10th Amendment guarantee of states' rights. State-to-state, local control of CCW laws however, is not a valid example because the 10th only applies to issues not specifically provided for in the rest of The Bill of Rights. The words, "the right to keep and bear arms" certainly implies physical possession (keep) being covered from the fed level, as well as the right of lawful use of deadly force (bear). The right "of The People shall not be infringed" is laying down the law for the states, don't mess with this right, it's not within your authority to refine/alter/ignore.

    States' rights is a fine issue to discuss and/or strongly support, but the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms does not fall within any valid claim of states' rights being violated. It's quite the other way around in fact. The Constitution is being violated in favor of states' rights in the case of varied and confused state and local laws on gun ownership and gun carrying.

    I am 100% in favor of returning to the states all of the authority the Framers intended them to have. Get rid of the federal education bureaucracy, it is an infringement of states' rights, no question. Overturn Roe v. Wade and all the other activist decisions that establish federally-protected rights which cannot be found articulated anywhere in The Constitution. Let the states decide on every single one of those issues, no arguments from me. But recognize and uphold the power that only the fed is authorized to exert, the text contained in The Constitution, The Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments. Just as it says in Matthew, "Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Same thing here. Render unto the states the authority which is theirs; and unto the fed that which is delineated in The Constitution. This isn't a states' rights issue.

    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...

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NE Portland, Oregon - PacNW
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by Torch View Post
    Federalization is a bad thing as far as I'm concerned. The founding fathers intended this county to be run mostly by the states. I'm a big 10th ammendment supporter and don't like the idea of federalizing anything.

    In short, I don't think we have a 'problem' at all.
    I'd agree with you in 99% of the cases on Federalization. However the 2nd Amendment did not give States the authority to infringe upon the rights of citizens. Look at it like this: Is it fine for the Federal Government to regulate things like Drugs which there is nothing in our constitution that stipulates states may overturn Federal legislation on say something like... medical marijuana. The DEA can still prosecute your ass for growing and dispensing a narcotic for sale- even though the state says it's ok. Yet your constitutional right to keep and bear ams is regularly infringed upon by the states and the BATF does not intervene to protect your right to carry your firearms accross state lines the way they allow you to carry a pack of cigarettes or a six pack of beer between states.
    MΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NE Portland, Oregon - PacNW
    Posts
    328

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    . The right "of The People shall not be infringed" is laying down the law for the states, don't mess with this right, it's not within your authority to refine/alter/ignore.

    "Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Same thing here. Render unto the states the authority which is theirs; and unto the fed that which is delineated in The Constitution. This isn't a states' rights issue.

    Blues

    FLAWLESS!!! This a masterpeice of thought to paper (rather keyboard)!
    MΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,762
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    The right "of The People shall not be infringed" is laying down the law for the states, don't mess with this right, it's not within your authority to refine/alter/ignore.

    "Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Same thing here. Render unto the states the authority which is theirs; and unto the fed that which is delineated in The Constitution. This isn't a states' rights issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by doublenutz View Post
    FLAWLESS!!! This a masterpeice of thought to paper (rather keyboard)!
    Wow doublenutz, you're going to make me blush! :o Thanks for the kudos though, and thanks for *getting it*.

    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...

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    DFW, TX AKA Baja, OK
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by rabywk View Post
    Torch,

    You don't live in IL!!!!!!
    I had a chance to transfer to Il. many years ago, didn't do it just because of this and many other things that are just plain wrong with it and Wi. Those 2 states take the prize on being anti-gun.
    So sad.

  11. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by The Shadow View Post
    We have a discrepancy at hand between the Feds and Local State Govs.

    At some point in the future there will be no States Rights all laws will be National across the board.

    ...

    Some 20+ years ago various states tried legislating Pornography before it spread to what we have today. But what we have today again is Fed ordained.
    This is a bad example. Banning pornography is a blatant 1st amendment violation. Guys, I don't give up ANY of my rights, not the 2nd, not the 1st, not the 4th and not the 6th. NONE.

    In the same way, state legislation to ban ownership or carry of firearms is a State restriction on a constitutionally protected right. The States have no authority to do this.
    Last edited by ishi; 09-30-2007 at 02:27 PM.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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