National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced - Page 14
Page 14 of 25 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 243

Thread: National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced

  1. #131
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    Yeah and once again your reply is the same of that of a "donkey and a hole" kind of person.


    So, for a bill that you said right here, last sentence in the second paragraph down, all the sudden we don't have to wait for anything to get ironed out? Hmmm. Interesting.


    Well, I guess I'll just have to wait for help from someone else.


    Again, getting help from someone like you is pointless.


    I was just simply asking a question. For you to refer to it as an "analogy" is your mistake.


    Which you doubt? Well, not really. Think I said that once or twice.


    Just not you apparently.


    That would be the easiest. Your way of describing is like, Constitution Caculus.

    My questions are answered in those to links about California potheads and an old-time wheat farmer??...lol. Still don't see the relevance or relation but whatever.

    Again, where does the bill say it has every intention of totally and completely taking over the permit system?


    Still don't and your lousy hint below is about as useless as the come.

    But you know, your help is about as useless as tits on a bull. So I'm not even going to answer the rest of your post. I'll patiently wait to discuss it with someone else.
    All of your questions have been already answered, even to the point of giving you case law in carrying firearms across states, such as United States v. Lopez that used the "old-time wheat farmer" (Wickard v. Filburn) as a basis. Now there are two possibilities. You either do not understand the answers or you are trolling, which is it?

    You are also putting words in my mouth. I never said that the intention of this bill is to "totally and completely take over the permit system". I said in post #122 that it creates the legal precedence for doing so later on. The intent of this bill is to enact concealed carry reciprocity nationwide. The mechanism is to use the Commerce Clause combined with the Supremacy Clause. The unintended consequence is that it would also allow this or another administration to enact a federal licensing scheme and regulate concealed carry nationwide. I very clearly stated the differences between intent, mechanism and unintended consequences in my prior posts, so why are you putting words in my mouth?

  2.   
  3. #132
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,759
    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    I'm going to ignore the whinings of Navy and Blues who apparently don't want people to be able to utilize their rights in every state.

    SUPPORT H.R. 38.
    You're damned right I don't want people to utilize the permissions of the federal government under the auspices of their authority to regulate granted by We, The People within the Interstate Commerce Clause.

    You like to talk about rights, hot-shot. How about you point to that clause in The Constitution that says government of any description (federal/state/county/municipality) has the authority to regulate that right of The People which shall not be infringed.

    You keep begging Daddy Fed for your permissions to exercise what you falsely claim are your rights, and I'll keep ordering my life in such a way as to avoid all the contact and interactions with government as is humanly possible in this police state, surveillance state in these waning days of the "United States of America." USA doesn't exist anymore. If it did, you wouldn't have to ask permission to carry.

    It's time you live up to the name you've chosen for yourself. Everything you post about is encouraging free people to look to government for their freedom. Government is the antithesis of freedom. How about you start advocating for educating people how to be free instead of how to be freakin' slaves to government?

    I don't whine. I analyze and get to the bottom line of things based on whatever substance I can extract from my analysis. If you can't find that clause in The Constitution that says the federal government has any say-so whatsoever over ownership or carry issues, then you're opining on things outside of a free man's perspective on "rights."

    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...

  4. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    All of your questions have been already answered, even to the point of giving you case law in carrying firearms across states, such as United States v. Lopez that used the "old-time wheat farmer" (Wickard v. Filburn) as a basis. Now there are two possibilities. You either do not understand the answers or you are trolling, which is it?
    Well, I'd say it ain't trolling.... again..... but you wouldn't believe as usual. But that's it, either just say I get it or I'm trolling? Hmmm.

    As I stated I'll just stand by and discuss this with someone else since according to you, I'm "trolling".
    You are also putting words in my mouth. I never said that the intention of this bill is to "totally and completely take over the permit system". I said in post #122 that it creates the legal precedence for doing so later on. The intent of this bill is to enact concealed carry reciprocity nationwide. The mechanism is to use the Commerce Clause combined with the Supremacy Clause. The unintended consequence is that it would also allow this or another administration to enact a federal licensing scheme and regulate concealed carry nationwide. I very clearly stated the differences between intent, mechanism and unintended consequences in my prior posts, so why are you putting words in my mouth?
    Well sure, you said here that there is nothing that prevents it or another administration to enact a federal licensing scheme and regulate concealed carry nationwide but, down below, even said you stated it several times---

    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    As I stated numerous times in this thread, the National Reciprocity bill is about the federal government seizing authority from the states over infringing on 2nd Amendment rights by regulating concealed carry permits, all in the name of providing universal concealed carry reciprocity.
    But in all honesty, I'm not putting words in your mouth. Matter of fact, I hope that if this bill does pass that, all this other talk of taking over permits won't happen.

    It's just interesting how you make it sound like it will happen.

  5. #134
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    Well, I'd say it ain't trolling.... again..... but you wouldn't believe as usual. But that's it, either just say I get it or I'm trolling? Hmmm.

    As I stated I'll just stand by and discuss this with someone else since according to you, I'm "trolling".

    Well sure, you said here that there is nothing that prevents it or another administration to enact a federal licensing scheme and regulate concealed carry nationwide but, down below, even said you stated it several times---



    But in all honesty, I'm not putting words in your mouth. Matter of fact, I hope that if this bill does pass that, all this other talk of taking over permits won't happen.

    It's just interesting how you make it sound like it will happen.
    Looks like you have problems with the English language. The bill is seizing authority by using the Commerce Clause, but it does not totally and completely take over the permit system yet. The difference is in using the seized authority fully or not, i.e., in applying the Supremacy Clause to all state permit laws or only to some. The current bill does not, but a later bill can using the existing one as precedent. Plain and simple, as I explained already. Do you have any more word twisting for me?

  6. #135

    National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced

    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    Looks like you have problems with the English language.
    How so? I may not have a fully-stocked arsenal of them fancy, five-dollar words but I don't have problems with the English language so where in the deepest, darkest pits of your backside-cavity did you pull that from?
    The bill is seizing authority by using the Commerce Clause....
    I've already asked you more times than many on how the commerce clause has anything to do with this so again I'll just sit patiently and wait for someone else to chime in.

    ...but it does not totally and completely take over the permit system yet.
    Ahh, yet. lol.
    The difference is in using the seized authority fully or not, i.e., in applying the Supremacy Clause to all state permit laws or only to some. The current bill does not, but a later bill can using the existing one as precedent.
    Again, so we're banking on could, can and probably, huh.

    Plain and simple, as I explained already.
    Well, not really but whatever, if you say so. I could sit here and argue with you all night long saying you did a lousy job explaining it but I choose not to.
    Do you have any more word twisting for me?
    Never accused you of word-twisting nor did I ever put words in your mouth. If your only saying this, ie, could turn into much more than just forcing states to honor other states' permits, you didn't do a very good job saying it only... could happen. You did a great job making it sound like it was going to, no matter what.

  7. #136
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    How so? I may not have a fully-stocked arsenal of them fancy, five-dollar words but I don't have problems with the English language so where in the deepest, darkest pits of your backside-cavity did you pull that from?

    I've already asked you more times than many on how the commerce clause has anything to do with this so again I'll just sit patiently and wait for someone else to chime in.



    Ahh, yet. lol.

    Again, so we're banking on could, can and probably, huh.


    Well, not really but whatever, if you say so. I could sit here and argue with you all night long saying you did a lousy job explaining it but I choose not to.

    Never accused you of word-twisting nor did I ever put words in your mouth. If your only saying this, ie, could turn into much more than just forcing states to honor other states' permits, you didn't do a very good job saying it only... could happen. You did a great job making it sound like it was going to, no matter what.
    Your question regarding the Commerce Clause has been answered over and over again. To make it simple, from H.R. 38: "... may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce ...". For the slow learner, the underlined part is the use of the Commerce Clause. Without that underlined part, the bill would be unconstitutional similar to the original GFSZA as decided in United States v. Lopez.

    Hence, the GFSZA was rewritten and 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) now states: "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." Once again, for the slow learner, the underlined part is the use of the Commerce Clause.

    And yes, any item that has moved in to a state or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce can be regulated by this type of use of the Commerce Clause. That's why this bill provides the blueprint for a national carry permit system, without enacting it. It sets legal precedence.

    Also for the slow learner, the entire opposition to the National Reciprocity bill is that it could turn into much more than just forcing states to honor other states' permits. This has been stated over and over again in this and all the other National Reciprocity threads. It is not about what this bill does now, but what the legal precedence set by this bill will do in the future.

    If you trust the federal government, that's your problem. I don't. I fully expect a Democrat government to take full advantage of the newly given authority by this bill and screw us all. Even a Republican government will likely add their gun control provisions to this law over time. Past performance is an indicator of future performance in this case.

  8. #137
    Boring!

  9. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    Boring!
    Ditto.

  10. Congress passes a law and then turns it over to the Bcrats to write the rules and regulations and in almost all cases they go overboard.
    A lot of times they go far and beyond the intent of congress.
    Most of the time the regulations are never cut back and almost all the time they are increased later.

    I would just like for the government to keep their hands off my rights (or permits) and if so , I never have to worry about future changes they might decide to make.

  11. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by ken grant View Post
    Congress passes a law and then turns it over to the Bcrats to write the rules and regulations and in almost all cases they go overboard.
    A lot of times they go far and beyond the intent of congress.
    Most of the time the regulations are never cut back and almost all the time they are increase later.

    I would just like for the government to keep their hands off my rights (or permits) and if so , I never have to worry about future changes they might decide to make.
    Why people don't see this threat is amazing. It's like they believe the regulators in Washington are actually on the side of the American Citizens, when they are merely puppets controlled by politicians and the highest bidder. Plus they have to justify their own existence, and the power trip they get from being in control.

    To willing hand over control of anything to any government is a sign that you have not been paying attention to the past.
    “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

Page 14 of 25 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... 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