National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced - Page 17
Page 17 of 25 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 243

Thread: National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced

  1. Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    Bikenut,

    The only reason I am replying to you is because I think you may actually not understand what is happening and may need another perspective.

    I will lay it out as easily as possible.

    1) Nobody (or very few) people wanted state and federal laws to infringe upon how people exercised their rights (which are natural rights, but are expressed in our Constitution), but that is exactly what has happened. In the context of concealed carry, states began regulating it in 1813. I know you don't want to hear that and may even deny that it happened for the sake of convenience, but that's our history, and that's what happened. As a consequence, people who violated the gun laws were punished, jailed, or killed. I didn't say I agreed with that, I am saying don't engage in historical revisionism. Be factual and understand that these things did actually happen and continue to happen in the present day. If you want a historical source for when concealed carry restrictions began to emerge in the United States, please see https://gunculture2point0.wordpress....layton-cramer/
    For further historical analysis, I would suggest:
    https://gunculture2point0.wordpress....-anse-patrick/
    Finally, see also: https://gunculture2point0.wordpress....ncealed-carry/
    and https://gunculture2point0.wordpress....mitless-carry/

    2) You compared asking for federal law to override state law as a "Daddy fed" approach to the issue, when in reality it is not a question of asking, it is a question of doing. When the States are infringing upon rights, the federal government has a responsibility to rein in the States' legislative activity. That is quite arguably the extent of and the most important duty of the federal government in the United States. If you do not know that, it is because you did not study how our Founders developed the Supremacy Clause and its implications for federal preemption over state law.

    The issue of the Supremacy Clause in our Constitution, and how it allows for federal preemption, particularly in instances where states attempt to limit rights, is not a matter subject to question. It is expressly intended by our Constitution.

    3) You misunderstand the issue of how one exercises a right. No-one need ask permission to exercise a right, but that does not eliminate the fact that there are laws that interfere with your exercise of your rights. Those laws need to be repealed. There are processes for doing so. Individuals or organizations can prove a harm and thus challenge laws in court - a process which can take years, while meanwhile obstinate legislatures continue to pass more unconstitutional laws. Or, Congress can act to modify or repeal entirely harmful or unconstitutional laws. Those include not only federal laws but also state laws, which can be repealed directly by Congress where they infringe upon a right. Laws not repealed can be deemed by Congress simply to have no effect, which for all intents and purposes is the same thing as repeal.

    Again, you don't need to ask someone if you want to exercise a right, but if there is a law where you live that would interfere with your right and you would violate that law, you know what the consequences of that would be. The better option is to repeal the laws or deem them to have no effect.

    Hope this helps you understand the process.
    Oh.... we get it ....

    It's YOU and your MENTALITY that makes no sense....

    The stupid is strong within you I sense..


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  2.   
  3. #162
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    Bikenut,

    The only reason I am replying to you is because I think you may actually not understand what is happening and may need another perspective.

    I will lay it out as easily as possible.

    1) Nobody (or very few) people wanted state and federal laws to infringe upon how people exercised their rights (which are natural rights, but are expressed in our Constitution), but that is exactly what has happened. In the context of concealed carry, states began regulating it in 1813. I know you don't want to hear that and may even deny that it happened for the sake of convenience, but that's our history, and that's what happened. As a consequence, people who violated the gun laws were punished, jailed, or killed. I didn't say I agreed with that, I am saying don't engage in historical revisionism. Be factual and understand that these things did actually happen and continue to happen in the present day. If you want a historical source for when concealed carry restrictions began to emerge in the United States, please see https://gunculture2point0.wordpress....layton-cramer/
    For further historical analysis, I would suggest:
    https://gunculture2point0.wordpress....-anse-patrick/
    Finally, see also: https://gunculture2point0.wordpress....ncealed-carry/
    and https://gunculture2point0.wordpress....mitless-carry/

    2) You compared asking for federal law to override state law as a "Daddy fed" approach to the issue, when in reality it is not a question of asking, it is a question of doing. When the States are infringing upon rights, the federal government has a responsibility to rein in the States' legislative activity. That is quite arguably the extent of and the most important duty of the federal government in the United States. If you do not know that, it is because you did not study how our Founders developed the Supremacy Clause and its implications for federal preemption over state law.

    The issue of the Supremacy Clause in our Constitution, and how it allows for federal preemption, particularly in instances where states attempt to limit rights, is not a matter subject to question. It is expressly intended by our Constitution.

    3) You misunderstand the issue of how one exercises a right. No-one need ask permission to exercise a right, but that does not eliminate the fact that there are laws that interfere with your exercise of your rights. Those laws need to be repealed. There are processes for doing so. Individuals or organizations can prove a harm and thus challenge laws in court - a process which can take years, while meanwhile obstinate legislatures continue to pass more unconstitutional laws. Or, Congress can act to modify or repeal entirely harmful or unconstitutional laws. Those include not only federal laws but also state laws, which can be repealed directly by Congress where they infringe upon a right. Laws not repealed can be deemed by Congress simply to have no effect, which for all intents and purposes is the same thing as repeal.

    Again, you don't need to ask someone if you want to exercise a right, but if there is a law where you live that would interfere with your right and you would violate that law, you know what the consequences of that would be. The better option is to repeal the laws or deem them to have no effect.

    Hope this helps you understand the process.
    I understand that what is happening is you, and those who are having wet dreams over getting PERMISSION to carry concealed across state lines, are not willing to entertain the perspective that Daddy Fed is not the answer but if any kind of national reciprocity based in the Commerce Clause is enacted it is Daddy Fed who will become more of a problem than Mommy State ever was.

    What some folks seem to be unable to understand is if one must first have a permit in order to exercise a right then that IS being required to ask permission to exercise a right!!!!

    It doesn't matter when Mommy state started requiring folks must first have the state's permission (get a permit) in order to exercise the right to bear arms in a concealed manner. What matters is that folks must get permission from Mommy state.

    It doesn't matter when, or even if, Daddy Fed stands with and supports Mommy state requiring folks to get permission (get a permit) to be allowed to exercise the right to bear arms in a concealed manner in order to carry concealed across state lines. What matters is that folks must first get permission (a permit) in order to avoid prosecution from the government for exercising the right to bear arms in the first place.

    And looking to the Federal government to use the Supremacy Clause to force State governments to "allow" folks to carry concealed across state lines IS the child running to Daddy Fed hoping Daddy Fed's "yes" will override Mommy State's "no".

    The real problem isn't which level of government is controlling carry permits.... the problem is the government controlling the right to bear arms by controlling who has, and who hasn't, the government's permission to bear arms (a carry "permit").

    So what should we do to fix the actual and real problem? Folks from several states have already shown the way by leaving Daddy Fed out of it as they went straight to the actual problem when they demanded, and forced, Constitutional Carry from their own Mommy state.

    Perhaps it is my using the words "Daddy" and "Mommy" in reference to Federal and State government that is irksome. I do that because many folks appear to have a child/Mommy/Daddy relationship with their government never understanding that, just as it is with parents, Mommy State and Daddy Fed work together to keep Child "we the people" under control.

    Ask yourself why Daddy Fed and Mommy State want to be in control who is, and (most importantly!!!!!) who is NOT, "allowed" to bear arms. Hint: It is all about being safe. Not people being safe but Daddy Fed and Mommy State's power over Child "we the people" being safe.
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J. C. Watts

  4. #163
    Hope this helps you understand the process.
    I understand that what is happening is you, and those who are having wet dreams over getting PERMISSION to carry concealed across state lines, are not willing to entertain the perspective that Daddy Fed is not the answer but if any kind of national reciprocity based in the Commerce Clause is enacted it is Daddy Fed who will become more of a problem than Mommy State ever was.

    Your driver's license can also be deemed under the commerce clause. Are you going to give that up too?

  5. Paranoid runs rampant here...

  6. #165
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    Hope this helps you understand the process.
    I understand that what is happening is you, and those who are having wet dreams over getting PERMISSION to carry concealed across state lines, are not willing to entertain the perspective that Daddy Fed is not the answer but if any kind of national reciprocity based in the Commerce Clause is enacted it is Daddy Fed who will become more of a problem than Mommy State ever was.

    Your driver's license can also be deemed under the commerce clause. Are you going to give that up too?
    Please provide cites and/or links to data that shows driver licenses are regulated under the Commerce Clause.

    And while you are searching for that please read the Driver License Agreement that States VOLUNTARILY sign onto in order for driver licenses to be recognized in other states. You know... that driver license reciprocity thingy.

    https://www.numbersusa.com/PDFs/AAMV...ent%20text.pdf

    DRIVER LICENSE AGREEMENT

    General Purpose
    It is vital to the national interest that all jurisdictions participate in a reciprocal program of cooperation to promote highway safety and to provide for the fair and impartial treatment of drivers operating within their respective borders and to implement minimum identification and security standards for driver licenses and identification cards. The member jurisdictions of the Driver License Agreement (DLA) support the following
    principles:
    1.
    One driver license and one driver control record recognized by all member jurisdictions, for each driver;
    -snip-
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J. C. Watts

  7. #166
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Please provide cites and/or links to data that shows driver licenses are regulated under the Commerce Clause.
    He won't even try, but there are driver's licenses that are regulated under the Interstate Commerce Clause. They're the only ones which should be - Interstate Commercial Driver's Licenses (CDLs). Other than that, SR9 has been told many times how non-CDLs aren't regulated or controlled in any way by the fedgov, but he doesn't care. Small-ball for him all the way because he knows nothing about the actual issues of which we speak. He only knows he wants to be able to carry across state lines that don't allow it now.
    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...

  8. Quote Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
    Paranoid runs rampant here...
    Wickard v. Filburn and the change to the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act as a result of US v. Lopez takes us out of the realm of paranoia and right into the reality historical 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.

  9. Sorry. It's pure paranoia.

    National Reciprocity simply requires any state that issues permits to recognize all other state permits.

    Reading more into it than that simply highlights your complete paranoia against anything federal.

    That's ok, but it doesn't make you correct.

  10. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
    Sorry. It's pure paranoia.

    National Reciprocity simply requires any state that issues permits to recognize all other state permits.

    Reading more into it than that simply highlights your complete paranoia against anything federal.
    See, that's pretty much how I feel but what the hell do I know.

  11. #170
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,759
    Quote Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
    Sorry. It's pure paranoia.

    National Reciprocity simply requires any state that issues permits to recognize all other state permits.

    Reading more into it than that simply highlights your complete paranoia against anything federal.

    That's ok, but it doesn't make you correct.
    Then why doesn't the fedgov "simply" write the law and leave the Commerce Clause out of it? What "commerce" is done simply by a citizen crossing a state line with property (a gun) that he already owns?

    It is not paranoia to know and understand the history of government abuses when it invokes Commerce Clause powers. Do you even know a single particular of Wickard v. Filburn? What was Roscoe Filburn doing that authorized the fedgov to regulate his activities based on the Interstate Commerce Clause? When you can answer that question with the full understanding that Wickard v. Filburn repealed the Inter part of the Interstate Commerce Clause, and replaced it with the totally legal fiction of an Intrastate Commerce Clause, you can begin to see the reality that since Wickard in 1942, the Com-Clause has been the most-abused and usurped three words of the entire Constitution. Because of Wickard, fedgov has taken the permission SCOTUS gave them to regulate purely intrastate commerce legal disputes and run wild with it. It has happened time and time again. It is not paranoia to read, research, understand and disseminate that information to people who, like you, may be well-intentioned, but are nonetheless ignorant of fedgov's many abuses of the Com-Clause. That's all we can do, is disseminate information. It is up to each individual to rebut it with something more credible than psychobabble that doesn't apply to anyone who is aware of Com-Clause tyranny. Perhaps if you won't take our word(s) for it, you will be less inclined to refer to Thomas Jefferson as "paranoid" for foreseeing the potential for abuse and usurpation long before it started in earnest.

    At the bottom line, I'll take "paranoid" over "uninformed" or "ignorant" any day of the week. If I be paranoid, it is unambiguously due to my being informed about government overreach and not ignorant at all about how far back its history goes, and I learn much of that knowledge from reading links like the ones I've provided for you today, including as far back as Jefferson's stated "paranoia." If you're a thinker, you can do better than that. If you're a knee-jerk consumer of politician's and their supporter's propaganda that intentionally keeps you ignorant of history, well, only you can change that by taking the gift of free education you've been offered and learning its lessons. Thinker or lemming? You pick.

    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...

Page 17 of 25 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... 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