National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced - Page 9
Page 9 of 25 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 243

Thread: National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    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 ??
    The 2nd Amendment does not "permit" public carry. The 2nd Amendment recognizes the already existing right to private and public carry.

    The 2nd Amendment is not where the government grants the people the right to bear arms. It is a law of the land and the words "shall not be infringed" says the government has no power to control the right to bear arms.

    Sadly folks have allowed the courts (the judicial arm of.. you guessed it.. the government) to interpret and rule in ways that only serve to hand the government the power to infringe through giving itself the power to control bearing arms. And some folks have become so used to being told by the government that the government has the power to infringe that they think the right to bear arms only applies to inside the home.

    I don't want even more government infringements upon the right to bear arms. I want LESS gun control! So there is no way I can support any scheme that hands the federal government the power to infringe even more on the right to bear arms using the Commerce Clause with the Trojan Horse called........... national reciprocity.

    By the way.... did you notice this in the Heller decision?

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    Syllabus
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL . v . HELLER

    -snip-
    JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’
    -snip-

    And that was from the liberal Justice Ginsburg!!!!!!
    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

  2.   
  3. #82
    I'm afraid you are construing your own interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

    And since you are not a SCOTUS justice or clerk of the court this is way above your pay grade.

    But thanks for your reply.

    This actually tells me there is nothing wrong with the Federal legislation proposal.

    Thanks again.

  4. #83
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    I'm afraid you are construing your own interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

    And since you are not a SCOTUS justice or clerk of the court this is way above your pay grade.

    But thanks for your reply.

    This actually tells me there is nothing wrong with the Federal legislation proposal.

    Thanks again.
    If I am construing my own interpretation of the 2nd Amendment then the SCOTUS justices are doing the very same thing. The difference is I am approaching it from the perspective of the meanings of the words contained therein but the SCOTUS justices are treading a fine line between keeping the government in control while appeasing the people.

    I understand that many people believe that Daddy Fed and Mommy State are protecting them and their rights. That only means those justices have done a very good job of hoodwinking the people.

    Thanks for your reply.
    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

  5. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    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 ??
    One other thing. Not every method of carry requires a permit in every state. Open carry outside the home in Michigan does not need a permit of any kind and has been legal since Michigan became a state in 1837.

    And for those states that do require a permit to open carry that requirement is just as much an infringement upon the right to bear arms as is a permit being required to carry concealed.

    Again... here is Justice Ginsburg's interpretation of bearing arms per the 2nd Amendment contained within the Heller Decision...

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    Syllabus
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL . v . HELLER

    -snip-
    JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’
    -snip-
    Bold added by me for emphasis...

    So even one of the most liberal SCOTUS justices recognizes that the right to bear arms means to wear or carry upon the person (open carry) or in the clothing or in a pocket (concealed carry).

    Sadly where this all goes wrong is the notion that the government is justified in controlling not only who is allowed to carry but also how folks are allowed to carry. The really sad thing is so many people have become accustomed to accepting having their rights infringed just because the government the very entity that stands to benefit from doing the controlling said so.
    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

  6. #85
    HR 38 now at 160 co-sponsors.

  7. #86

  8. #87
    Every state is different, you are correct on this, Bikenut.

  9. #88
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,759
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    This ought to make you feel just great about that bill - From your link:

    TEXT: Not available yet.
    Is it available from the House yet? Do you even know what it is you're shilling for?
    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...

  10. #89
    The text will be very similar to last years bill, and HB 38.

  11. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,759
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    The text will be very similar to last years bill, and HB 38.
    Yeah, I found it after asking you about it. It's still Commerce Clause-based BS. It will still trade The Peoples' right to keep and bear for the authority of government to regulate under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

    But I know - you don't care - just so long as you can carry into MD or whatever other leftist bastions of gun-control you seem to have no problem with spending your dollars in when you visit. Not that it would make any difference if I didn't say it, because I know you'll keep shilling for Commerce Clause reciprocity, but carry on gun-grabber, carry on.

    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 9 of 25 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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