National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced - Page 8
Page 8 of 25 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 243

Thread: National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced

  1. #71
    Infringing constitutional rights is criminal however.

    The most recent case in point was involving Mayor Ray Nagin in New Orleans after Katrina.

  2.   
  3. National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced

    So then our federal federal government is very selective about whose/which civil rights get protection.? Too bad the NRA has chosen to spend it's resources protecting their education and licensing schemes.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #73
    Co-sponsor #157 signs on to HR 38. Representatives from TX, MO, and LA sign on.

  5. #74
    2 more co-signers added, now 159 signed on to HR 38.

  6. #75
    Be careful what you wish for.... for only a fool wants when and where we can carry under the control of the federal government... and that is exactly what will happen.
    “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

  7. Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    Be careful what you wish for.... for only a fool wants when and where we can carry under the control of the federal government... and that is exactly what will happen.
    That is not true. States still have the authority to determine where and how. All this does is force the states to recognize the permits issued in other states.

  8. #77
    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
    That is not true. States still have the authority to determine where and how. All this does is force the states to recognize the permits issued in other states.
    If you were alive in 1941, you could've made the same assurances to Roscoe Filburn, the appellee in the landmark SCOTUS case, Wickard vs. Filburn. When Filburn lost his appeal in 1942, he likely would've had some choice words to describe your ignorance on Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Here's a short, but nonetheless, fairly complete synopsis on what Wickard vs. Filburn established as federal authority in regulating purely intrastate commerce issues under the federal Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause. Just two short lines from that link sums up the problem that you are apparently completely ignorant of:

    "Issue: May Congress regulate purely intrastate activities under the commerce clause?"

    "Held: Yes."

    The Nationwide Reciprocity scheme that NRA, GOA, SAF, a couple of morons on this site, Donald Trump and most Republican Congress-critters have advocated for, is organized under the Interstate Commerce Clause, not the Second Amendment as it should be. After Filburn, the fedgov was given carte blanche to intrude into intrastate affairs. Do some research and replace your ignorance with knowledge of what can happen in this country when the rights of The People are supplanted by the authority to regulate of the federal government. This is the Information Super-Highway. There is no reason for anyone to be ignorant about such important liberty-based ideals. Oppose nationwide reciprocity if you love your liberty. Support it if you don't. Those are your only two choices. Pick one.

    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. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    If you were alive in 1941, you could've made the same assurances to Roscoe Filburn, the appellee in the landmark SCOTUS case, Wickard vs. Filburn. When Filburn lost his appeal in 1942, he likely would've had some choice words to describe your ignorance on Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Here's a short, but nonetheless, fairly complete synopsis on what Wickard vs. Filburn established as federal authority in regulating purely intrastate commerce issues under the federal Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause. Just two short lines from that link sums up the problem that you are apparently completely ignorant of:

    "Issue: May Congress regulate purely intrastate activities under the commerce clause?"

    "Held: Yes."

    The Nationwide Reciprocity scheme that NRA, GOA, SAF, a couple of morons on this site, Donald Trump and most Republican Congress-critters have advocated for, is organized under the Interstate Commerce Clause, not the Second Amendment as it should be. After Filburn, the fedgov was given carte blanche to intrude into intrastate affairs. Do some research and replace your ignorance with knowledge of what can happen in this country when the rights of The People are supplanted by the authority to regulate of the federal government. This is the Information Super-Highway. There is no reason for anyone to be ignorant about such important liberty-based ideals. Oppose nationwide reciprocity if you love your liberty. Support it if you don't. Those are your only two choices. Pick one.

    Blues
    Unfortunately many folks are not aware that National Reciprocity is really a scheme to give the Federal government the power to control concealed carry. All they can see is how nice it would be to carry across state lines not understanding that, with the exception of a few states, they already can carry across state lines IF they take it upon themselves to get non resident permits from the states they might visit. But many folks would rather make everyone suffer under the Federal regulations sure to come from a national reciprocity scheme than take the responsibility to spend their own time and money getting those non resident permits.

    What Federal regulations would come under National Reciprocity? Well... consider that the most restrictive states like California are going to be upset that anyone could carry within the state without having to undergo the strict qualifying criteria and fees that the California government has decreed are necessary to get a carry permit. And California WILL lobby Daddy Fed to make the criteria and fees standard for all states... preferably patterned after what California already has on the books. Folks need to think about that.

    Not only that, and this is my pet peeve, national reciprocity for carry PERMITS! is being touted as furthering the right to bear arms when the truth is a carry PERMIT! is the government PERMITTING!, as in being in charge of who is allowed and who is NOT allowed, to carry concealed.

    If one must get a permit permit is just another word for permission then it is not the right to bear arms but is permission to carry an arm concealed granted by the government.

    All one needs do is look up the definition of the word "permit" to understand that a permit is the exact kind of thing that the words "shall not be infringed" were intended to stop.
    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

  10. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
    That is not true. States still have the authority to determine where and how. All this does is force the states to recognize the permits issued in other states.
    And you really think that NY, MA, CA, HI, MD and a few other states are going to comply?? That's rich, but I would really like to talk to you about a deal on some beach front property in Kansas.
    “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

  11. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Unfortunately many folks are not aware that National Reciprocity is really a scheme to give the Federal government the power to control concealed carry. All they can see is how nice it would be to carry across state lines not understanding that, with the exception of a few states, they already can carry across state lines IF they take it upon themselves to get non resident permits from the states they might visit. But many folks would rather make everyone suffer under the Federal regulations sure to come from a national reciprocity scheme than take the responsibility to spend their own time and money getting those non resident permits.

    What Federal regulations would come under National Reciprocity? Well... consider that the most restrictive states like California are going to be upset that anyone could carry within the state without having to undergo the strict qualifying criteria and fees that the California government has decreed are necessary to get a carry permit. And California WILL lobby Daddy Fed to make the criteria and fees standard for all states... preferably patterned after what California already has on the books. Folks need to think about that.

    Not only that, and this is my pet peeve, national reciprocity for carry PERMITS! is being touted as furthering the right to bear arms when the truth is a carry PERMIT! is the government PERMITTING!, as in being in charge of who is allowed and who is NOT allowed, to carry concealed.

    If one must get a permit permit is just another word for permission then it is not the right to bear arms but is permission to carry an arm concealed granted by the government.

    All one needs do is look up the definition of the word "permit" to understand that a permit is the exact kind of thing that the words "shall not be infringed" were intended to stop.
    So you're not in favor of this particular Federal reciprocity proposal then?

    Note that Scalia was very specific in his write-up of Heller to say that the states do have jurisdiction over public carry (whether open or concealed) in their particular states, which does in fact make it a "permit" or a "license" for public possession outside the home.

    Does this change your answer?

    Or do you still insist that the 2nd Amendment permits public carry as well ??

Page 8 of 25 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... 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