Why I Oppose Cornyn's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill - and Why You Should, Too - Page 3
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 98

Thread: Why I Oppose Cornyn's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill - and Why You Should, Too

  1. Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    I respect your thoughts, but could you explain in a bit more detail what you mean when you say that? I do understand (or rather, I am assuming) that you are probably suggesting that H.R.38 proposes to extend a permitting regime across the United States for concealed carry (one which would allow any permit of any state to be used by any resident of any other state assuming they could get it) and that said permitting regime is itself offensive to the 2nd Amendment. I assume that is what you suggest. But in what way exactly does H.R. 38 offend?

    For example, right now we already have a situation in which many states demand you obtain a permit for people to concealed carry. How would H.R.38 be making that worse?

    There are also a number of states that have offered constitutional concealed carry (not just constitutional carry, which would be carrying OWB and visible, but constitutional concealed carry which would involve IWB and / or deep concealment). I like the idea of constitutional concealed carry, but H.R. 38 does not require that you get a permit if you are in a state that has a constitutional concealed carry standard.

    Read H.R.38 carefully. It does not require that you get a permit! It doesn't require that you do anything, it just creates options for people who previously didn't have any (because of the lousy states they live in), and for everyone else, boom, it gives you reciprocity IF you are in a state that requires you to have a permit to carry concealed! If you're in a state that DOESN'T require a permit for concealed carry, AND YOU NEVER PLAN ON LEAVING YOUR STATE, the approval of H.R. 38 wouldn't affect you in ANY WAY. If you DO plan on leaving that wonderful state you are in where you don't have to get a permit to concealed carry, then H.R. 38 just made your life easier.

    States that do not require a special permit for concealed carry are Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming,

    That's nine states that have explicitly stated there is no permit required for concealed carry - hardly a majority of states. And reciprocity is missing everywhere, of course. It should be obvious that some kind of federal bill is needed to address the problem.

    Meanwhile, Peruta v. California is about to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court (end of March the case could be evaluated / considered by the U.S. Supreme Court with conferences in the following weeks) and by the time that happens, Gorsuch will be seated (he will be seated by April 7), creating a full nine-member Court with a conservative majority. We do not yet know if the Court will even consider Peruta, but if it does the case will undoubtedly shape concealed carry rights across America, in ways that we cannot yet predict.
    From the text of the bill:

    "may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—"

    Tell me why the words in bold are included? What effect on this bill would it have if those words were left out?

    I'll save you the research and tell you. Those words were left out of the original Gun Free School Zone act. The original Gun Free School Zone act was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court (United States v. Lopez [1995]). In response, Congress added those words to the current Gun Free School Zone act which is still in place today: 18 USC 922, "(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone."

    So why are those words significant? Look up the US Supreme Court case of Wickard v. Filburn (1942). Those words are the magical phrase that grants the Federal government the supposed authority via an abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution to regulate anything the Federal government wants to.

    You need to read H.R. 38 carefully. H.R. 38 is not based upon the 2nd Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. H.R. 38 is based upon granting more authority to the Federal government to regulate concealed carry. Sure, the Republicans this term use that authority to enact concealed carry reciprocity. What happens when the liberal Dems get control again? The Republicans will have already established the authority of the Federal government to regulate concealed carry and it opens the door even wider than it already is for them to impose regulatory RESTRICTIONS on concealed carry at the Federal level based upon the authority that the Republicans declared earlier that was based upon abusing the Interstate Commerce Clause.

    Show me a bill based on the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution and I will support it. I cannot support a bill based upon further abuses of the Interstate Commerce Clause such as H.R. 38.
    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. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,759
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    From the text of the bill:

    "may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—"

    Tell me why the words in bold are included? What effect on this bill would it have if those words were left out?

    I'll save you the research and tell you. Those words were left out of the original Gun Free School Zone act. The original Gun Free School Zone act was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court (United States v. Lopez [1995]). In response, Congress added those words to the current Gun Free School Zone act which is still in place today: 18 USC 922, "(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone."

    So why are those words significant? Look up the US Supreme Court case of Wickard v. Filburn (1942). Those words are the magical phrase that grants the Federal government the supposed authority via an abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution to regulate anything the Federal government wants to.

    You need to read H.R. 38 carefully. H.R. 38 is not based upon the 2nd Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. H.R. 38 is based upon granting more authority to the Federal government to regulate concealed carry. Sure, the Republicans this term use that authority to enact concealed carry reciprocity. What happens when the liberal Dems get control again? The Republicans will have already established the authority of the Federal government to regulate concealed carry and it opens the door even wider than it already is for them to impose regulatory RESTRICTIONS on concealed carry at the Federal level based upon the authority that the Republicans declared earlier that was based upon abusing the Interstate Commerce Clause.

    Show me a bill based on the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution and I will support it. I cannot support a bill based upon further abuses of the Interstate Commerce Clause such as H.R. 38.








    If the GFZA that Navy uses as analogous to National Reciprocity doesn't get through the thick skulls of those supporting this botched abortion of constitutionality, nothing ever will. Freethink and thewitt and anyone else who thinks National Reciprocity is a "step in the right direction" should acknowledge here and now that they had no idea of how abused the Commerce Clause is, and that the above juxtaposition between two versions of the same law, one with no Commerce Clause authority and one with, prevails only because the one with gets its authority from the Commerce Clause, which is a virtual repeal of The Second Amendment for all intents and purposes! Wake UP already!!!!

    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...

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    From the text of the bill:

    "may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—"

    Tell me why the words in bold are included? What effect on this bill would it have if those words were left out?

    I'll save you the research and tell you. Those words were left out of the original Gun Free School Zone act. The original Gun Free School Zone act was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court (United States v. Lopez [1995]). In response, Congress added those words to the current Gun Free School Zone act which is still in place today: 18 USC 922, "(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone."

    So why are those words significant? Look up the US Supreme Court case of Wickard v. Filburn (1942). Those words are the magical phrase that grants the Federal government the supposed authority via an abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution to regulate anything the Federal government wants to.

    You need to read H.R. 38 carefully. H.R. 38 is not based upon the 2nd Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. H.R. 38 is based upon granting more authority to the Federal government to regulate concealed carry. Sure, the Republicans this term use that authority to enact concealed carry reciprocity. What happens when the liberal Dems get control again? The Republicans will have already established the authority of the Federal government to regulate concealed carry and it opens the door even wider than it already is for them to impose regulatory RESTRICTIONS on concealed carry at the Federal level based upon the authority that the Republicans declared earlier that was based upon abusing the Interstate Commerce Clause.

    Show me a bill based on the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution and I will support it. I cannot support a bill based upon further abuses of the Interstate Commerce Clause such as H.R. 38.


    If the GFZA that Navy uses as analogous to National Reciprocity doesn't get through the thick skulls of those supporting this botched abortion of constitutionality, nothing ever will. Freethink and thewitt and anyone else who thinks National Reciprocity is a "step in the right direction" should acknowledge here and now that they had no idea of how abused the Commerce Clause is, and that the above juxtaposition between two versions of the same law, one with no Commerce Clause authority and one with, prevails only because the one with gets its authority from the Commerce Clause, which is a virtual repeal of The Second Amendment for all intents and purposes! Wake UP already!!!!

    Blues
    C'mon guys. Stop using logic and actual researchable facts about why national reciprocity is a very bad idea because it just might dry up the wet dream of those who want to concealed carry across state lines because they think giving Daddy Fed the power to control carry permits through the commerce clause is some kind of fantastic step forward for the right to bear arms.
    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. #24
    Hudson's bill HR 38 up to 176 co-sponsors now. This is the better of the 2 bills.

  6. #25
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    From the text of the bill:

    "may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—"

    Tell me why the words in bold are included? What effect on this bill would it have if those words were left out?

    I'll save you the research and tell you. Those words were left out of the original Gun Free School Zone act. The original Gun Free School Zone act was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court (United States v. Lopez [1995]). In response, Congress added those words to the current Gun Free School Zone act which is still in place today: 18 USC 922, "(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone."

    So why are those words significant? Look up the US Supreme Court case of Wickard v. Filburn (1942). Those words are the magical phrase that grants the Federal government the supposed authority via an abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution to regulate anything the Federal government wants to.

    You need to read H.R. 38 carefully. H.R. 38 is not based upon the 2nd Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. H.R. 38 is based upon granting more authority to the Federal government to regulate concealed carry. Sure, the Republicans this term use that authority to enact concealed carry reciprocity. What happens when the liberal Dems get control again? The Republicans will have already established the authority of the Federal government to regulate concealed carry and it opens the door even wider than it already is for them to impose regulatory RESTRICTIONS on concealed carry at the Federal level based upon the authority that the Republicans declared earlier that was based upon abusing the Interstate Commerce Clause.

    Show me a bill based on the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution and I will support it. I cannot support a bill based upon further abuses of the Interstate Commerce Clause such as H.R. 38.
    It's interesting that you have done this research and I'm glad you have. This leads me to ask, should I ask the original sponsor of H.R. 38, Hudson, to remove the proposed phrase "that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce."

    I'm reading that section very closely right now in light of what you wrote.

    I will quote the entire section (and subsections of it) below as it is proposed:

    “(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

    “(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or

    “(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

    “(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

    “(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

    “(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.


    The real question here: Is the phrase "that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce" necessary for the bill to serve the need that it was intended? My answer is perhaps not that specific language, but something like it is necessary.

    The reason is because we are talking about a bill that is trying to protect you when you ship or transport your firearm across a state line. I don't think it's necessary for them to use that specific language -- "shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce" -- but most certainly a reference must be made to something that is shipped or transported across state lines. Otherwise the bill would not confer any legal protections to those who do that.

    You state that this provision that has been included - this language which refers to interstate or foreign commerce - is a result of the Gun Free School Zone Act of today. H.R. 38 was written, in part, so that people would no longer have to worry about the Gun Free School Zone Act, but it would leave up to the states certain things. For example it would allow laws of States to:

    permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
    prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.


    Furthermore, there is a provision in H.R.38 which says that a person who carries a concealed handgun is not subject to the prohibitions of Section 922(q) of the U.S. Code. Section 922(q), the “Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.”
    It reads as follows:

    (f)(1) A person who possesses or carries a concealed handgun under subsection (a) shall not be subject to the prohibitions of section 922(q) with respect to that handgun."


    As such I support H.R.38 (Hudson's bill), I simply suggest that this language could be improved upon. It is Cornyn's bill that I fundamentally oppose, for this reason my efforts will focus on getting Second Amendment Caucus members to push for a new Senate bill that will be literally the same language as H.R.38, so as to ensure that Cornyn's bill does not pass.
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  7. Does it really matter what we minions think of either of these bills? The NRA will pick it's winner, and expect everyone else to fall in line.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    It's interesting that you have done this research and I'm glad you have. This leads me to ask, should I ask the original sponsor of H.R. 38, Hudson, to remove the proposed phrase "that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce."

    ...

    The real question here: Is the phrase "that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce" necessary for the bill to serve the need that it was intended? My answer is perhaps not that specific language, but something like it is necessary.

    The reason is because we are talking about a bill that is trying to protect you when you ship or transport your firearm across a state line. I don't think it's necessary for them to use that specific language -- "shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce" -- but most certainly a reference must be made to something that is shipped or transported across state lines. Otherwise the bill would not confer any legal protections to those who do that.
    There is one reason and one reason only that that phrase is included in the bill. It is very questionable whether or not the US Supreme Court would allow the law to stand using the Second Amendment and the right of the citizen to bear arms as the basis for it. Adding that phrase makes the basis for the authority of the Federal government the Interstate Commerce Clause, not the Second Amendment and the US Supreme Court cases of US v. Lopez and Wickard v. Filburn provide that precedent.

    Propose the question to your congress critters and see what their response is :-)
    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. #28
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330

    Yes

    Quote Originally Posted by OnTheFence View Post
    Does it really matter what we minions think of either of these bills? The NRA will pick it's winner, and expect everyone else to fall in line.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Yes it does matter what we think of these bills. When millions of people have been asking for real reciprocity and being able to have concealed carry treated the same as drivers' licenses, instead of being treated with a patchwork of discriminatory laws from one state to the next, then yes it does matter to Congress. Not to all of them but to those that actually care about the Second Amendment. That is why I will continue to write the Second Amendment Caucus and urge them to pass H.R. 38 and also I will urge them to initiate (introduce) a new Senate bill with the exact language of H.R. 38. Which I think they will do.

    I am also confident that President Trump is listening. Before he formally was inaugurated I would write in to his transition team web site and literally almost every thing I wrote the Trump Transition Team about actually has already happened or is on track to happening. Just one of the various things I asked for was for H.J.Res.40 to be signed into law (to overrule the Social Security Gun Ban that violated so many Americans' due process and 2A rights). It happened! H.J.Res.40 is now law. That's just one of the many requests I made. Another example of a request I made (both to the Transition Team before the inauguration and through the White House website after the inauguration) was that I wanted protection for pre-existing conditions and for kids on their parents plans to remain in whatever would become the new health insurance law. By the time of his Joint Address to Congress, President Trump had announced that the new health care law would indeed preserve and protect those things! Again, these are just a few examples. He's listening to us.

    Don't count yourself out!
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  10. #29
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    (...) It is very questionable whether or not the US Supreme Court would allow the law to stand (...) Adding that phrase makes the basis for the authority of the Federal government the Interstate Commerce Clause, not the Second Amendment and the US Supreme Court cases of US v. Lopez and Wickard v. Filburn provide that precedent.

    Propose the question to your congress critters and see what their response is :-)
    First of all, this bill H.R. 38 has a very large number of cosponsors (176), literally meets President Trump's policy on concealed carry reciprocity which he issued prior to the election as part of a Second Amendment whitepaper, and has a very good chance of being passed and signed into law this Congress, assuming a Senate bill is soon introduced with the same language as H.R. 38.

    Regarding the rest of it, I think you're reading too much into it. It may be safe to say that a state would appeal it ultimately to the U.S. Supreme court, but both the 2nd Amendment and the Commerce Clause issues would come into play. And not just those: The Supremacy Clause would also be evaluated, because there is a preemption provision in the bill BASED ON THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE.

    Without that preemption provision (based on the Supremacy Clause) the bill would utterly fail at the U.S. Supreme Court level. Any state could defeat its provisions in a court challenge.

    WITH the preemption provision (again, based on the Supremacy Clause) the bill's proponents would be victorious at the U.S. Supreme Court.

    And again - as noted before - you were incorrect about the Gun Free School Zone Act issue. There is indeed a provision in H.R.38 which says that a person who carries a concealed handgun is not subject to the prohibitions of Section 922(q) of the U.S. Code. Section 922(q), the “Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.”
    It reads as follows:

    “(f)(1) A person who possesses or carries a concealed handgun under subsection (a) shall not be subject to the prohibitions of section 922(q) with respect to that handgun."

    So again, I support H.R.38 (Hudson's bill). It is Cornyn's bill that I fundamentally oppose, for this reason my efforts will focus on getting Second Amendment Caucus members to push for a new Senate bill that will be literally the same language as H.R.38, so as to ensure that Cornyn's bill does not pass.
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,759
    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    First of all, this bill H.R. 38 has a very large number of cosponsors (176), literally meets President Trump's policy on concealed carry reciprocity which he issued prior to the election as part of a Second Amendment whitepaper, and has a very good chance of being passed and signed into law this Congress, assuming a Senate bill is soon introduced with the same language as H.R. 38.

    Regarding the rest of it, I think you're reading too much into it. It may be safe to say that a state would appeal it ultimately to the U.S. Supreme court, but both the 2nd Amendment and the Commerce Clause issues would come into play. And not just those: The Supremacy Clause would also be evaluated, because there is a preemption provision in the bill BASED ON THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE.

    Without that preemption provision (based on the Supremacy Clause) the bill would utterly fail at the U.S. Supreme Court level. Any state could defeat its provisions in a court challenge.

    WITH the preemption provision (again, based on the Supremacy Clause) the bill's proponents would be victorious at the U.S. Supreme Court.

    And again - as noted before - you were incorrect about the Gun Free School Zone Act issue. There is indeed a provision in H.R.38 which says that a person who carries a concealed handgun is not subject to the prohibitions of Section 922(q) of the U.S. Code. Section 922(q), the “Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.”
    It reads as follows:

    “(f)(1) A person who possesses or carries a concealed handgun under subsection (a) shall not be subject to the prohibitions of section 922(q) with respect to that handgun."

    So again, I support H.R.38 (Hudson's bill). It is Cornyn's bill that I fundamentally oppose, for this reason my efforts will focus on getting Second Amendment Caucus members to push for a new Senate bill that will be literally the same language as H.R.38, so as to ensure that Cornyn's bill does not pass.
    Once you trade your (and our) rights under the 2A for the authority of government to regulate under the Commerce Clause, it will be too late to fix what will amount in the end to the biggest constitutional screw-up all the RINOs in Congress and the Rainbow House foisted upon The People of this no-longer-free country. Don't believe me? Just look at what's about to happen to ObamaCare. It's never going away. The "replacement" is no such thing, they're simply amending ObamaCare! It too was based in the Commerce Clause, as well as a few other bastardized and abused illegitimately-used authorities and functions of all three branches of fedgov. The Commerce Clause creates thousands of opportunities for government to entrench seemingly innocuous and well-intentioned legislation into each and every one of our lives in ways forbidden by other parts of The Constitution. All one has to do is read Article I, Section VIII, Clauses 1 - 18, and combine that Section with the Tenth Amendment to see that the federal government has not one iota of authority to take over either the health insurance or health care industries. Once you understand just how tenuous The Constitution becomes once one of the 18 enumerated powers of government is expanded to literal infinity based on only one of those 18 authorities, you begin to understand the danger of entrusting the Second Amendment to the authority of government to regulate under the Commerce Clause.

    Read Navy's analogy again:

    "The original Gun Free School Zone act was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court (United States v. Lopez [1995]). In response, Congress added those words to the current Gun Free School Zone act which is still in place today: 18 USC 922, '(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.'"
    How is the unequivocal prohibition against Congress infringing on our rights articulated in the Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" clause consistent at all with that same federal government infringing on our rights in places of its own choosing? That couldn't have happened without the GFZA being based solidly in Commerce Clause law and decades of usurping precedent.

    The exceedingly few of you who still trust government to work in an altruistic, Constitution-compliant manner, can only take the majority's analysis here, dismiss it, and hope like Hell that the future will prove us wrong, while all we're doing is looking at actual history of the hundreds of abuses, usurpations and bastardizations of the Commerce Clause since 1942 and sounding the valid warning that government has already proven itself untrustworthy when illegitimately invoking that authority over our rights.

    Any Second Amendment issue that isn't legislated in complete compliance with the Second Amendment is unconstitutional on its face. Your unbelievable flight of fancy concerning how exercising one's rights in states other than his state of residency constitutes a "shipment" or a "transport" under the auspices of the Commerce Clause was the most sophomoric, nay, Kindergarten-ish analysis of either Second Amendment or Commerce Clause law I've ever read. You're certainly no constitutionalist, nor lawyer, so you should stop playing either/or on the internet. There is no "commerce" at all involved in carrying a gun, unless you count the cost in blood that many men better than any of us spilled to protect that right for perpetuity against the tyrannical government they knew would eventually emerge from what they created. Good Lord man, WAKE UP!!!!

    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 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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