National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced - Page 2
Page 2 of 25 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 243

Thread: National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced

  1. Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    The federal government does not have to issue carry permits in order to regulate them. By using an un-Constitutional interpretation of the Commerce Clause, every firearm and every person carrying a firearm that crosses state lines can be regulated. The current gun laws already serve as precedent.
    It goes much deeper than that, bofh. Neither the gun nor the person carrying it must cross a state line. Remember Wickard v. Filburn? "The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat, he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but, through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn, its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore, Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial."

    There is no reason to believe that liberals could not use the exact same argument to bring EVERY firearm and EVERY person carrying a firearm under the unConstitutional regulation of the Federal government.
    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.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    It goes much deeper than that, bofh. Neither the gun nor the person carrying it must cross a state line. Remember Wickard v. Filburn? "The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat, he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but, through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn, its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore, Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial."

    There is no reason to believe that liberals could not use the exact same argument to bring EVERY firearm and EVERY person carrying a firearm under the unConstitutional regulation of the Federal government.
    I had a comment about that in my original reply, but deleted it as most people reading it would not get it.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    National Reciprocity Act not needed for Liberal Progressives to make stringent anti-gun laws. Just requires people to fall asleep again. National Reciprocity Act does not override state laws, you have to know the laws in the states you carry in. And there is no permit issued by the Feds.

  5. #14
    Only a fool would involve the Federal Government in where they can carry a gun.

    For those that support this, be careful what you wish for, very very careful as it will most certainly blow up in your face.
    “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

  6. #15
    HB 38 currently has 85 co-sponsors.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    Only a fool would involve the Federal Government in where they can carry a gun.

    For those that support this, be careful what you wish for, very very careful as it will most certainly blow up in your face.
    XD40, meet fool sr8.2......

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,759
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    I had a comment about that in my original reply, but deleted it as most people reading it would not get it.
    I think SR9 is likely the only one participating in this thread who wouldn't understand the implications of the seminal Commerce Clause ruling by SCOTUS. Well, some might have to squint real hard and get a headache figuring it out, but I know for sure that SR9 would never understand it, and that most here are pretty well capable if a cursory explanation like Navy posted was included.

    Coincidentally, I used the exact same summary quote of the Wickard v. Filburn ruling as it might apply to national reciprocity just this morning on another forum. That's not a gun "rights" forum, but it is populated by a lot of carriers and gun owners, all of whom seem to think Trump and national reciprocity are going to work to restore Second Amendment rights. I tried as hard as I could not to be insulting or laugh out loud at such a brain-dead premise, and that's why I went all Supreme Court rulings on their dimwitted asses and quoted Wickard to make my point just exactly like Navy made his. Only crickets since I made that post around 9:00 (CST) this morning. Maybe they're pondering, or maybe they're pullin' out the latest and greatest quotes from the NRA, GOA and SAF to show me what an anti-2A SJW I am.

    You can lead a dummy to scholarship, but you can't make 'em think.

    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. Supporting the 2nd Amendment and using it as a basis for legislative action would mean repealing gun control laws such as permit requirements - not supporting the permit requirement like National Reciprocity does. National Reciprocity supports expanding the authority of the Federal government to regulate based upon a faulty interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
    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.

  10. #19
    The government doesn't need a National Reciprocity bill to impose the Interstate Commerce Clause to restrict guns and ammo. They just need a SCOTUS Liberal majority.

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    The government doesn't need a National Reciprocity bill to impose the Interstate Commerce Clause to restrict guns and ammo. They just need a SCOTUS Liberal majority.
    Wrong, they need SCOTUS and a Republican majority. That's the irony of the National Reciprocity Act. It will pave the way for liberals to enact gun control down the road. SCOTUS will affirm that, with the National Reciprocity Act, the federal government has the right to regulate the privilege to bear arms. Once SCOTUS rules on the National Reciprocity Act, the 2nd Amendment essentially gets nullified. Any future federal gun control legislation will use this SCOTUS decision as a basis.

Page 2 of 25 FirstFirst 123412 ... 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