National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced - Page 15
Page 15 of 25 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 243

Thread: National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced

  1. #141
    Join Date
    May 2013

    The alternative

    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    So then what do we do? Keep on letting these states continue making non-resident, law abiding people get a permit for states like California if they wish/have to travel there and want to carry for protection? Do we just say screw it and carry there illegally and hope we don't get caught? You know, kinda like, treat these gun hating states like the gun free zones you and I talked about, Bikenut? Just stay out of them? Only travel to the states that currently allows reciprocity with the state you live in?

    No, I'm not trying to be smartassed. I'm only trying to understand. I'm only trying to understand why the people that are for this bill are supporting it and why the people that think it's a bad idea are so opposed to it.
    As I said before I support H.R. 38 and I won't keep on ranting on about that or responding to rants trying to convince me otherwise. From my own thread on it, I've addressed the various arguments that have come up against it over the course of a four-page discussion, and no need for me to ramble on further about that subject.

    But since you (corneileous) asked "So then what do we do -- keep on letting thes states continue making non-resident, law abiding people get a permit for states like California if they wish / have to travel there..."

    What I would suggest, and this is an "ideal world" suggestion that perhaps has found its time, is for someone to really encourage all of the members of the Second Amendment Caucus to adopt a law that would be designed literally to undo (repeal) most, if not all, of the (unconstitutional) state and federal gun control laws that have been passed over the years, and would also be designed to prevent any more from being passed.

    Of course, such a bill would face tremendous obstacles. First, it would have to clear House and Senate. (if it were to do so, I suspect it would be signed by the President.)
    Then, it would have to go through court challenges. Many states would challenge it in court. Ultimately that would go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Such a bill, if it were to become law, would simply not survive a court challenge unless it were carefully designed with preemption provisions based on the Supremacy Clause and designed with an eye to case law that has specified standards for how federal preemption over state law is permissibly enacted.

    But it could be done. And the bill could be written either to name specific state and federal laws it would repeal, or it could be more general, simply stating something like

    "Any and all federal, state, regional, and local laws which in any way infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, including, but not limited to, any laws which would require serialization or registration of guns or ammunition, are hereby repealed, and no further laws of this type shall be considered to have any effect, whether they be federal, state, regional, or local laws. Similarly, any laws which would require serialization or registration of any firearm parts, or of any objects which would later on be made part of a firearm (whether or not the object would upon being finished become a regulated part of a firearm), are also deemed to be null and void, and no further laws of this type shall be considered to have any effect. Any laws which would regulate the making of firearms where individuals make a firearm or firearms for their own purpose (not to sell or transfer) are hereby null and void, and no further laws of that type shall be considered to have any effect, and no law shall ever be considered valid which regulates the transmittal of information relating to firearms. All laws which have resulted in registries corresponding to gun ownership or ammunition are hereby determined to be null and void, and said registries shall be permanently destroyed within one year of the effective date of the end of said laws. No permit shall be required to carry concealed in any state, but states may establish a standard for concealed carry training. States may establish hunting permits and tags, but may not restrict the type of ammunition or guns utilized by hunters."

    Something like that.

    I mean, I know. Someone will tell me "It will never pass." That may be, but that's not stopping you from suggesting it to a friendly Second Amendment Caucus Congressmember, who might have similar ideas and may even introduce legislation that will do something like that.

    For those who are reading this and have serious concerns about my proposed language because you are thinking "Well shiyte, if that were to pass, any American could get their hands legally on rocket launchers then," well technically yes, but I suspect that the language would be modified before passage to include some variation of USML from the ITAR (as exclusions or specifically prohibited items, like rocket launchers and nuclear bombs and whatnot). If you don't know what the USML in ITAR, it's basically a list of things that the fedgov argues that most people shouldn't run around with.

    Until then, I'm just supporting H.R. 38.

    If you are curious about preemption and how it can be used to defend the federal government efforts to do things like repeal unconstitutional gun laws or successfully advance pro-2A laws, see a discussion about my petition on the subject here.

    Edit: As a brief edit to this comment, I just want to remind readers that there will always, always be idiots like this who somehow end up either becoming Attorney Generals, State Assemblymembers / State Senators, or members of Congress. ALWAYS. In order to deal with these people, whining and complaining about "what could be" or "how it once was" is simply not an option. Nor is it an option merely to wait for them to enact yet another law or rule and contest it in court. That's a losing battle because they can put unconstitutional laws and rules in place faster than you can challenge them in the courts (although of course I think we have an obligation to challenge them in the courts, I still think there's obviously more that needs to be done).

    Really the solution and the way to deal with such people is to develop a preemptive solution of the type that I've suggested in the above paragraphs.
    Member, FPC -
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters

  3. #142
    Still boring!

  4. I said this in the other thread and will do it here .

    "Allowing government at any level to regulate our rights is a never ending process. "

    Also a never ending cycle.

  5. #144
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Ken - it is, although you have to ask yourself, since it was government that decided to regulate things in the first place, then if you don't want those regulations or laws to be there, how do you get them to go away?

    The answer is fairly simple and straightforward - by adopting a law or laws that repeal prior laws and establish preemption provisions to head off court challenges by gun-controllers from the states (or people in the fedgov who might also launch or join such a lawsuit).

    Because of the Supremacy Clause, which is considered the cornerstone of how our whole system works, it's established that there is a hierarchy. The Constitution comes first (duh). It's the highest law of the land. Somebody misconstrued it along the way, or had an agenda, or purposefully sabotaged it with laws that went unchallenged, or a combination of all of the above. So federal laws and lots of state laws (and court decisions) got made that said not just a few things, but LOTS of things about the Second Amendment. It got legislated to death - as did many other of our rights as well. Getting back to the Supremacy Clause, it provides that the federal laws are next in the hierarchy, then state, then local laws. In the case of conflict between federal law and state law, federal law must be applied, but there is a standard by which the federal laws in this day and age are supposed to provide an expression of preemption in order for it to be defensible if the federal law is challenged - I won't get into that in detail here.

    So that's my point. Yes, it can be a never ending cycle (and it has been) but skillful use of the laws can actually cut the cycle off.

    Assume you have Law X, and unconstitutional federal (or state) law that says something along the lines of "You can't own that type of gun because we say so."

    Doesn't exactly seem consistent with the Constitution does it?

    Now someone comes along and passes Law Y, saying Law X is repealed, but there is no preemption provision in Law Y. Court challenge ensues, Law Y is overturned, back to square one.

    Let's try again.

    Some other legislator comes along, passes Law Z, saying Law X is repealed forever and ever and nothing like it can ever be passed again. Written into Law Z is a preemption provision which is intended to provide an express example of federal desire for preemption (flowing from the Supremacy Clause). Some state challenges Law Z. Circus Court 9 supports the claims in the brief of the state. Fedgov challenges the decision of the Circus Court. On appeal a higher court correctly mentions the preemption issue, the Circus Court's decision is thrown out and Law Z is upheld.

    Thus NO LAW like Law X can ever be passed again. However that is only by skilful maneuvering in the legislative arena to repeal a law (or laws). There isn't a way to do that in the courts. Courts can be used to uphold or overturn a decision (including a decision to pass a law) but the courts themselves don't have legislative capacity, thus although they can overturn a law they can't do so with a preemptive condition in their decision that would prevent a state from just adopting another stupid unconstitutional law just like the one that is overturned.

    However, Congress CAN actually act in a fashion to repeal laws in such a way to repeal a law such that no law like it can ever be enacted again. It does have that ability.

    The only reason we have found ourselves in the "never ending cycle" of which you speak is because Congress people have not yet had the guts to actually do what I have described above; there are some signs they are now finding their guts so to speak. As I mentioned before, the Hearing Protection Act has in both its House and Senate versions, a preemption provision.

    So yes it is possible. It is not easy however.
    Member, FPC -
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters

  6. #145
    HR 38 now has 177 co-sponsors signed on.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    More likely, above your ability to comprehend...

  8. #147
    2 more co-sponsors sign on, on the 17th, bringing the total to 179 for HR 38.

  9. #148
    Make that 180 co-sponsors signed on to HR 38 a/o 3/21/17.

  10. #149
    Additional group of members of the US House of Representatives signed onto HR 38. Total now 185 co-sponsors.

  11. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Page 15 of 25 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... 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