Why I Oppose Cornyn's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill - and Why You Should, Too - Page 4
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 98

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

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330

    Commerce Clause, Obamacare / Ryancare, and Preemption Issues in New Court Decisions

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    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:



    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

    Blues,

    In response to the above I have two basic points:

    1) On the subject of your concern about the federal government's expansion of use of the Commerce Clause and its abuse of (interpretations of) the same, I don't dispute that this is a salient issue.

    For example, you mentioned the Obamacare debacle and the "replacement." There is no question that the Ryancare bill, formally known as the American Health Care Act, is absolutely a disaster. Although I do support repeal of Obamacare (like most people do who, like me, voted for President Trump), I've found that I am not alone in being one of MANY in the Trump crowd that is absolutely opposed to Ryancare for many reasons. People will cite different reasons - for example, it fails to ensure that many people will remain insured, or it preserves various elements of Obamacare, including the horrible "Cadillac tax," or that it is basically (in failing to consider the needs and rights of gun owners), an assault on our 2nd Amendment right, as has been well elucidated upon by GOA in a recent action statement.

    Various of these reasons have led some of us to recently call for a vote of no confidence in Ryan and to ask our Representatives to have him replaced as Speaker.

    But apart from that, you pointed out that "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." I do not disagree that it does.

    A question I raise, however, is when one element of the Constitution can be preserved (in terms of the ability of the population of all states to be able to access and have full use (and exercise) of the right or rights provided), by means of the skillful use of another element of the Constitution, why should we not do so?

    That is the situation we find ourselves in now.



    2) You mentioned the Tenth Amendment, too. Very interesting you brought that up. I want to address that shortly.

    You argue that the Commerce Clause, and your understanding that the government tends to abuse it, is sufficient to negate any benefit which might be afforded by H.R. 38. I argue the opposite.

    It is a comfortable position for someone to take, I suppose, especially if you are in a state where you already have concealed carry (without a permit) allowed as "constitutional carry" by way of state law. But there are only nine states that expressly and absolutely allow that at present. (Some people will say ten, but the way I consider constitutional concealed carry as it should be, I don't count Arkansas as one; it's what you call "disputed status," and for that reason I place the count of states that truly offer constitutional concealed carry at nine.)

    If I were to accept all your arguments, then we should wait for a hundred years (or perhaps never) until such time as all the states would simply draft laws stating that everybody could carry concealed without a permit. Of course, each state still can do that, and H.R. 38 is not getting in the way of the states doing it, but they are not doing it. And there are some states that will never do it.

    That brings me to another point. Some people are under the impression that states' rights are of some kind of vital importance here, and that the federal government shouldn't enter into and make laws at all about how the 2nd Amendment can be utilized. Problem with that argument is that the states have no rights to deny rights, and that's what states are doing.

    As quoted from therealwritewinger on this subject:

    "The problem with “States’ Rights” is… it doesn’t exist.

    “How can you say that?! Tenth Amendment! Tenth Amendment!!!”

    Ok, repeating yourself doesn’t make something say something it doesn’t say, just like shouting “Separation of Church and State!” doesn’t mean the First Amendment says that either… but let’s keep our focus on so-called “States’ Rights”.

    Here is your Tenth Amendment:

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Notice anything missing? The Tenth Amendment was about delegation of power, not rights. It states that the United States, the federal government, only has specific powers that the Constitution gives it the authority to do and also denies it from doing, and that all other powers belong to the individual States or the people.

    It’s not splitting hairs. Words have meanings, at least they used to. States don’t have rights; States have power, and the power of a State is also limited and controlled by each State’s Constitution. And every single State’s primary role is to protect the rights and liberties of the people.

    States don’t have a right or authority to deny people their rights under the Tenth Amendment, because States don’t have rights – people do. Some of these rights are protected by the U.S. Constitution and State Constitutions, but as the Ninth Amendment also states:

    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    (...)

    A power also delegated to the United States federal government is to guarantee a State doesn’t deny people their rights – the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875):

    “The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, but it adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. The duty of protecting all its citizens in the enjoyment of an equality of rights was originally assumed by the States, and it still remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right. This the Amendment guarantees, but no more. The power of the National Government is limited to the enforcement of this guaranty.”

    (...)

    It is the duty of the United States government to make, enforce, and uphold laws against States that infringe upon our rights. It is not an unjust federal encroachment upon State power to do this."



    You would be wise to assume that this implies that the federal government can (and does) utilize the Supremacy Clause in order to engage in preemption against state laws. Where it should do so is certainly up for debate but there is no question it can do so in the context of protecting fundamental Constitutional rights when those are threatened by the laws of the States.

    You mentioned that Navy had stated that "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.'" Indeed, that is so, and that is why there is a provision WITHIN H.R. 38 that is EXPRESSLY INTENDED TO OVERRULE THAT SECTION. You sound as though you want the GFZA provisions to remain intact and not have Congress overrule them with a new law.

    So if the federal government can pass a law that extends our ability to exercise our rights in the 41 states where there is NOT constitutional concealed carry, AND make reciprocity possible in 50 states, I see no reason whatsoever why your endless arguments about the Commerce Clause have any real merit in the context of H.R. 38 AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN. Particularly since H.R. 38 does rely (in part) on a preemption provision which is based on the Supremacy Clause. (You can find it in Section 2(a), § 926D of H.R. 38 AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN AND PROPOSED.)

    IF H.R. 38 were written in such a way that it would curtail our rights or make more people even less able to exercise them, I would understand and your argument would have validity as applied to H.R. 38, but as it stands you just don't have any real argument here, because obviously as H.R. 38 is written it is not curtailing or removing rights, it is offering people a chance to access and utilize them to an extent we previously have not been able to.


    Now a logical person might ask, won't the states simply challenge the use of the preemptive language in § 926D of H.R. 38 in court and thus overturn it? The answer is "of course they will challenge it," but they will not win. And I will go so far as to say, THEY WILL NOT EVEN WIN AT THE LOWER COURTS - Not even in the liberal Ninth Circuit!

    PROVE IT TO ME, you might say, SHOW ME.

    O.K., here you go.

    In February 2016, none other than the Ninth Circuit actually acknowledged and supported the Preemption Defense as described here in the National Law review.

    And in November 2016, the Ninth Circuit held that preemption arguments should be weighed strongly in a few different cases.

    Even if the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (or "the Circus" as people call it who have to take cases to that court) ends up making more political decisions against federal law(s) relating to concealed carry, the U.S. Supreme Court (which will soon have nine members and a conservative majority) is anticipated to overrule any politicized decisions of the lower liberal courts, and act to preserve people's rights rather than limit them. H.R. 38, because it DOES HAVE a preemption provision, would be upheld on appeal if challenged in court.

    As a final note, it strains credulity when you suggest, Blues, that we are somehow "trusting government" by asking for and supporting something like H.R. 38. We are the same people (or at least, I am) who also support the idea of maintaining the ability of the people to build and own firearms without serialization or registration. I support court efforts to overturn the unconstitutional law, AB 857 and similar California laws like it. And we are even working (here in CA of all places) for an eventual State Constitutional amendment that would change it so that the State would never again be allowed to make any laws which would attempt to create registries for guns and ammunition (I am a member of the 2AforCA effort). So again, the notion or claim that we "trust government" with respect to our rights merely because we support the idea of a national concealed carry reciprocity law such as H.R. 38, is truly a ridiculous claim at best.

    I understand you personally don't like H.R. 38, Blues, but your arguments are largely baseless in light of the demand of the vast population of the United States that wants nothing more than to exercise their rights without unfair restraint.

    I support H.R. 38 (Hudson's bill), I ask all others reading this to support H.R. 38, and I will continue to ask the Second Amendment Caucus to introduce a new Senate bill with the same language as H.R. 38 (so as to hopefully exclude Cornyn's bill from consideration).
    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

  2.   
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    Hudson's bill HR 38 up to 176 co-sponsors now. This is the better of the 2 bills.
    But it still puts control of CC in the hands of a Federal Bureaucrat.
    “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

  4. #33
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    But it still puts control of CC in the hands of a Federal Bureaucrat.
    No, it actually doesn't.

    It utilizes federal preemption provisions (see Section 2(a), § 926D of H.R. 38 as currently proposed) as an anticipatory defense of the rest of the law, which essentially expands the ability of the people to exercise rights they are currently denied access to by the States.

    That is what it does.

    And nowhere in the law would any concealed carry permit holder or applicant (or person in a state which has constitutional concealed carry) be required to appeal to a federal bureacrat for anything.

    Read more on the subject here.
    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

  5. #34
    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
    ....Various of these reasons have led some of us to recently call for [ask for, beg for, submit a friendly request for - it's all the same meaningless drivel with you] a vote of no confidence in Ryan and to ask our Representatives to have him replaced as Speaker.
    How about firing your RINO representatives? It seems most people, including you, are perfectly comfortable with usurping tyrants running your lives. A slave doesn't ask his master for freedom, he either escapes slavery to somewhere that it doesn't exist, or he takes it by force. Reasoning with tyrants will get you nowhere except the occasional bone thrown your way to keep you placated. National Reciprocity is one such bone.

    Like I said earlier, you're big on talking about rights as you look to government fix all of your problems with government.

    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    A question I raise, however, is when one element of the Constitution can be preserved (in terms of the ability of the population of all states to be able to access and have full use (and exercise) of the right or rights provided), by means of the skillful use of another element of the Constitution, why should we not do so?
    Because the Commerce Clause is a granted authority of government to regulate and the Second Amendment is one of The Peoples' fundamental, natural rights which prohibits government from regulating it. How on Earth a power to regulate by government can "preserve" a natural right of The People is just brain-dead, Pollyanna nonsense. WAKE UP!

    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    That is the situation we find ourselves in now.
    Bullcrap. If we follow yours and others' way of doing things, we will find ourselves in the situation that the Commerce Clause supersedes our fundamental, natural rights under the Second Amendment. You're saying "Yay government regulation!" and we're saying "Hands off our Second Amendment!"



    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    2) You mentioned the Tenth Amendment, too. Very interesting you brought that up. I want to address that shortly.
    Well let me head you off at the pass before you get there then - I didn't make a states' rights argument - I made an argument against volunteering to put our rights in more peril than they've already suffered from NFA34, GCA68, FOPA with the Hughes Amendment and unconstitutional meddling by presidents via Executive Orders, not to mention state and local level usurpations of them, rather than standing firmly on our Second Amendment rights by not begging government for the privilege of exercising them. When it comes to restoring rights that have already been decimated by unconstitutional regulation and usurpation, the very last place we go to fix that is the very government who has already regulated the right to death and usurped The Constitution with impunity! The Tenth Amendment was mentioned because the Second Amendment falls under its auspices in the part where it says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to... the people."

    Not only is the power to regulate issues of keeping and bearing arms not "...delegated to the United States by the Constitution," regulation is unequivocally and preemptively prohibited from it, yet you want to hand over regulatory authority to government not only in spite of that prohibition, but on the ridiculous basis that the authority to regulate an uninfringable, fundamental, and natural right just *might*, miracles of all miracles, serve to restore the right that has already been decimated by the same government you're now empowering to take usurping to the next level! WAKE UP!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    You argue that the Commerce Clause, and your understanding that the government tends to abuse it, is sufficient to negate any benefit which might be afforded by H.R. 38.
    I "argue" no such thing. I reject outright the notion that trading an authority to regulate by government for any fundamental, natural right that we're created by God already possessing carries any potential whatsoever for "benefit" to The People. I "argue" nothing about what government "tends to abuse," I offer documented and irrefutable examples of what government always does when we volunteer our rights away to its authority, whether under the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, or any other phrase or clause of the Constitution which is taken by all three branches of government separate and apart from the known meanings and contexts of the Framers when the phrase or clause was written and subsequently ratified. I analyze and report my findings that come directly from historical events and facts. I don't "argue" anything on this specific issue, because I'm so confident in the accuracy and rightness of my analysis and findings that there is no valid argument to be had. If there were a valid argument to be had, you wouldn't need to resort to calling what I write here "whining" or bleat arguments about states' rights that I've never once promulgated or fail to acknowledge that volunteering God-given rights to the usurped powers of government is always a recipe for disaster concerning those specific rights. WAKE UP!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    I argue the opposite.
    You argue in favor of government-granted privileges, which is not the opposite of the rights I always, 100% of the time advocate vociferously for. You argue the state of mind of a slave to government. I advocate from the same state of mind, and for the same founding principles, that Jefferson, Madison and Samuel Adams devoted their lives to securing for perpetuity to endless generations. Those principles rejected the notion that government has any authority whatsoever to regulate our preexisting rights. WAKE UP!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    It is a comfortable position for someone to take, I suppose, especially if you are in a state where you already have concealed carry (without a permit) allowed as "constitutional carry" by way of state law.
    You really don't get it at all. True Constitutional Carry is only achieved by the absence of state law imposed on any aspect of keeping and bearing arms. It may be that Vermont is the only state that can say it still has Constitutional Carry, but the other ones that limit by law any time, place, method or qualification to carry is certainly not compliant with the idea of "...shall not be infringed." It is an axiom of constitutional law, whether state or federal, that the absence of law regulating a given issue leaves the issue in the hands of The People to do with as each individual sees fit. "By way of state law" is exactly the wrong way to institute constitutional carry.

    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    But there are only nine states that expressly and absolutely allow that at present. (Some people will say ten, but the way I consider constitutional concealed carry as it should be, I don't count Arkansas as one; it's what you call "disputed status," and for that reason I place the count of states that truly offer constitutional concealed carry at nine.)
    Yeah, this is great right here. You're actually promulgating the notion that the governments of only 9* states can be trusted to protect and uphold constitutional rights under the Second Amendment, so you want to give the biggest, baddest, most corrupt and usurpative central government in the history of history the authority to regulate those states concerning a documented and incorporated individual right of The People. Do I have that about right? Only 9 states according to your estimate, have governments capable of controlling their tyrannical impulses to infringe on that which shall not be, and you think bringing Daddy Fed in under the auspices of the Commerce Clause is a good plan to rectify that situation? Color me underwhelmed over such a ridiculous thought.

    I've suggested this before here, but how about those Congress-critters who claim to have our best Second Amendment rights-interests at heart simply write a one-sentence law to buttress the Second Amendment? The law could read something like this:

    "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    You know, they could call it "The Second, Second Amendment" or something catchy like that. Under the heading of Congress' constitutional authority to act in this manner, they could cite the Second Amendment, not the Commerce Clause. If they need definitions and expert parsing and definitions of the words, they can refer to Black's Law Dictionary to make sure they, and we, understand the oh-so-complicated legal phraseology such as, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Are ya with me? Let's get out there and legislate and vote our way back to Second Amendment Utopia! It beats the Hell outta begging government to grant privileges that they are prohibited by the First Second Amendment from having any authority whatsoever to regulate!

    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    If I were to accept all your arguments...
    If you were simply to understand the source and motivations for my advocacy, I would be thrilled, but when you fail to understand, that's when you start to fill in the blanks for yourself for what you don't understand about what I'm advocating. It is frustrating to say the least.

    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    That brings me to another point. Some people are under the impression that states' rights are of some kind of vital importance here
    If you're going to address an unspecified grouping of "some people," then don't include me in that reply. I have never made a states' rights argument on this issue because that's not the basis of my disagreement with Commerce Clause-based National Reciprocity. For that reason, the nonsense from "the real write winger" is going to be snipped in this reply. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I've said about national reciprocity.

    In fact, the rest of your nonsense is hereby snipped from this reply too. Ignorance can be addressed and fixed. Stupid can't.

    Blues

    *Changed "41" to "9". It was a case of transposed numbers. Oops. It happens.
    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...

  6. #35
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330

    Singin' the Blues

    Blues, you asked how about about firing RINO reps? Well why not? Each election you get a chance to at least weigh in on who you think should or shouldn't be there.

    You claim that I "argue in favor of government-granted privileges." No, I simply point out that we are already in a condition in which in some parts of the United States, concealed carry is recognized as a valid part of how people exercise their Second Amendment right, and in other parts of the country, it's not. I would love to have constitutional concealed carry in California (or in any other of the 41 states that don't have it), plus legal recognition that I won't be arrested by some overzealous cop when I cross a state line carrying. But that condition doesn't exist. H.R. 38 proposes to help remedy it, but it doesn't preclude feds or state in the future from adopting constitutional concealed carry.

    By the way, if you live in one of the nine states where it's expressly recognized that you have constitutional concealed carry, this (constitutional concealed carry) came from a "government granted privilege," meaning a state made a decision without which it wouldn't have legally considered it right for you to do... it would be great if there was never any contention over the issue and never any need for the issue to even be addressed by the states or by the court in the first place (you know what I mean, ideally, there would be that condition in which everybody everywhere simply assumed that concealed carry was in fact, part of the Second Amendment right, being as the Second Amendment states in part, "AND SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED," but since the courts over the years (not just lower courts, which can usually be ignored, but the U.S. Supreme Court) has interpreted things differently (to allow state regulation of concealed carry), it falls to Congress or to the U.S. Supreme Court to undo what you and I would both agree are errors of the past.


    You said, "True Constitutional Carry is only achieved by the absence of state law imposed on any aspect of keeping and bearing arms." I agree with you here, but again, given that the courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court) have ruled on such issues, it does fall to Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court to undo what has been done in the past..

    (By the way, the only way that we could possibly make sure that NO STATE would ever again pass another gun control law, would be to draft a CONGRESSIONAL BILL literally designed to preclude the passage of ANY STATE GUN CONTROL LAW, with an express preemption provision included in the Congressional bill. Until that happens, the best bet is to include preemption provisions in all pro-2A bills going through Congress so that the States can't succeed in court when they sue to overturn them. Which once again brings me back to my petition which I urge you to sign if you haven't already (it needs another 125 signatures to show up on the front page of the White House 'We the People' petition site). (A similar effort - the Repeal the NFA petition - has already met the required number of signatures to get a response from the White House.)

    You stated you feel that I'm "actually promulgating the notion that the governments of only 41 states can be trusted to protect and uphold constitutional rights under the Second Amendment," and that's not true, as I suggested no such thing. I merely pointed out that currently only nine have state-granted constitutional concealed carry, and 41 don't. You then said, "so you want to give the biggest, baddest, most corrupt and usurpative central government in the history of history the authority to regulate those states..." No, I'm simply acknowledging that the federal authority under the Supremacy Clause (WHICH IS PART OF OUR CONSTITUTION BY THE WAY) already EXISTS and that they are free to use it. (As they have been from time to time in the context of preemption provisions added to various federal laws.) I'm thankful the Supremacy Clause exists. If you don't like the fact that it exists, I'll tell you the same thing that I tell everyone who doesn't like our Second Amendment... GO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION AND SEE IF YOU CAN GET IT PAST THE STATES!

    You stated, "I've suggested this before here, but how about those Congress-critters who claim to have our best Second Amendment rights-interests at heart simply write a one-sentence law to buttress the Second Amendment? The law could read something like this: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.""

    Not necessary, no. Why?

    Because (as I think you know) the Constitution is the highest law of the land and writing a "law" (even in the same language as that) is less than the U.S. Constitution itself. Unfortunately people over the years have degraded the full and true meaning of the U.S. Constitution (and certain rights within it) by passing an abundance of laws, or by making certain decisions in the highest court of the land, which arguably never were necessary or were simply inconsistent with our Constitution. I didn't do that, I find myself here and wondering how we might move to restore or amplify people's access to the rights they are presently denied.

    Rather than ranting on ceaselessly, Blues, if you don't like H.R. 38, just write your Reps and tell them so.

    As for me, I'm supporting H.R. 38, writing my Congresscritters to ask them to support it, and am asking the Second Amendment caucus to introduce a Senate bill which will simply copy and paste H.R. 38. You're free to do what you want, but you aren't going to change my mind on this issue.

    Thanks for your remarks on this thread.
    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. #36
    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
    You stated you feel that I'm "actually promulgating the notion that the governments of only 41 states can be trusted to protect and uphold constitutional rights under the Second Amendment," and that's not true, as I suggested no such thing.
    The "41" was a transposed number. I meant "9". I fixed the error and noted the change in my post above. Perhaps you would like to respond to the fixed statement, or not, whatever, but it's abundantly clear that with the error fixed, it accurately describes your position on trusting the fedgov to fix carry infringements when 41 states full of other politicians have consistently refused to do so. The fedgov is made up of politicians hailing from those same 41 states, and many of them "served" at the state level before moving up to fedgov. Voting and writing them won't do a damned thing, but handing them Commerce Clause control over Second Amendment rights sure as Hell will do something(s).

    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...

  8. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    No, it actually doesn't.

    It utilizes federal preemption provisions (see Section 2(a), § 926D of H.R. 38 as currently proposed) as an anticipatory defense of the rest of the law, which essentially expands the ability of the people to exercise rights they are currently denied access to by the States.

    That is what it does.

    And nowhere in the law would any concealed carry permit holder or applicant (or person in a state which has constitutional concealed carry) be required to appeal to a federal bureacrat for anything.

    Read more on the subject here.
    That may be basically factual today, but the fact that the ultimate control will exist on some 'appointed bureaucrat's desk' is all that is needed for the federal government to interject any manner of restrictions, at the whims of the next administration. If passed we will not be able to "un-ring" that bell.

    But riddle me this; What do you expect the governors and AG's of NY, MD, CA, IL, MA, HI and a few other states to do, roll over for a belly rub? It will be fought tooth&nail, and I really expect that state's rights will win the day.
    “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

  9. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    No, it actually doesn't.

    It utilizes federal preemption provisions (see Section 2(a), § 926D of H.R. 38 as currently proposed) as an anticipatory defense of the rest of the law, which essentially expands the ability of the people to exercise rights they are currently denied access to by the States.

    That is what it does.

    And nowhere in the law would any concealed carry permit holder or applicant (or person in a state which has constitutional concealed carry) be required to appeal to a federal bureacrat for anything.

    Read more on the subject here.
    First of all please stop conflating the government issued permission slip called a carry permit with the actual right to bear arms! If one must ask permission get a permit then it isn't a right but is a privilege given, and taken away, at the whim of the one in control.

    Also, talking about carry permits in conjunction with the right to bear arms lends an air of respectability to carry permits by implying that carry permits are part of the right to bear arms. Such is certainly NOT the case since if the government really did recognize the right to bear arms there wouldn't be any restrictions on how arms are borne... concealed or otherwise.

    The federal government using the power of the Commerce Clause to decree that all states must recognize the carry permits of other states sets the precedent for the federal government to regulate carry permits since regulating that all states must recognize all carry permits IS ... regulating! Once it has been established that the federal government has the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate carry permits then future administrations under an anti gun President/Congress elections have consequences! would have the power to also regulate who, when, where, why, and how, those carry permits are qualified for in order to set a standard that will be acceptable for all states.

    And rest assured that many states will balk at national reciprocity... or did folks think that California and other very restrictive states are just going to allow anyone with that little slip of paper from any state to carry in their states without going through the same training, fees, and restrictions the residents of those states have to go through? Did folks think that the residents of those states are just going to welcome everyone with a carry permit or would they go to their state legislatures demanding a "fair" national standard be developed? Quite frankly I would expect those with the same mind set of the folks in favor of national reciprocity would line up hoping to help, nay... demanding!, Daddy Fed develop that "fair" standard.

    The logical outcome of any national reciprocity scheme is after all the dust settles from all the restrictive states complaining to the federal government that national reciprocity just made their standards pointless the federal government will promulgate a set of standards that all applicants in ALL the states must meet before a carry permit is issued by any individual state in order for that permit to be considered acceptable by all the states. And no... the federal government won't be the one folks appeal to because it would be each individual state issuing the permits after complying with the federal standards.

    And since elections have consequences it isn't difficult to realize what someone like Hillary would do with the power to set the standards of qualifying for a carry permit if they were elected.

    For everyone with wet dreams about Daddy Fed giving them the privilege of carrying across state lines please remember he who has the power to give today also has the power to take away tomorrow!
    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. Allowing government at any level to regulate our rights is a never ending process.

  11. #40
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    First of all please stop conflating the government issued permission slip called a carry permit with the actual right to bear arms! If one must ask permission get a permit then it isn't a right but is a privilege given, and taken away, at the whim of the one in control.

    Also, talking about carry permits in conjunction with the right to bear arms lends an air of respectability to carry permits by implying that carry permits are part of the right to bear arms. Such is certainly NOT the case since if the government really did recognize the right to bear arms there wouldn't be any restrictions on how arms are borne... concealed or otherwise.

    The federal government using the power of the Commerce Clause to decree that all states must recognize the carry permits of other states sets the precedent for the federal government to regulate carry permits since regulating that all states must recognize all carry permits IS ... regulating! Once it has been established that the federal government has the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate carry permits then future administrations under an anti gun President/Congress elections have consequences! would have the power to also regulate who, when, where, why, and how, those carry permits are qualified for in order to set a standard that will be acceptable for all states.

    And rest assured that many states will balk at national reciprocity... or did folks think that California and other very restrictive states are just going to allow anyone with that little slip of paper from any state to carry in their states without going through the same training, fees, and restrictions the residents of those states have to go through? Did folks think that the residents of those states are just going to welcome everyone with a carry permit or would they go to their state legislatures demanding a "fair" national standard be developed? Quite frankly I would expect those with the same mind set of the folks in favor of national reciprocity would line up hoping to help, nay... demanding!, Daddy Fed develop that "fair" standard.

    The logical outcome of any national reciprocity scheme is after all the dust settles from all the restrictive states complaining to the federal government that national reciprocity just made their standards pointless the federal government will promulgate a set of standards that all applicants in ALL the states must meet before a carry permit is issued by any individual state in order for that permit to be considered acceptable by all the states. And no... the federal government won't be the one folks appeal to because it would be each individual state issuing the permits after complying with the federal standards.

    And since elections have consequences it isn't difficult to realize what someone like Hillary would do with the power to set the standards of qualifying for a carry permit if they were elected.

    For everyone with wet dreams about Daddy Fed giving them the privilege of carrying across state lines please remember he who has the power to give today also has the power to take away tomorrow!
    A point of clarification,

    No need to lecture me on what a right is or isn't. I'm also aware that the Constitution is not a grantor of rights. If we look at rights (in this case the right of self-defense) in the context of the basic aspects, its origin, we look at it (or at least I do) as a natural right. The Constitution (here in the context of where we discuss the Second Amendment) is mentioning something that is already acknowledged to exist -- the natural right of self-defense, but the Founders fortunately saw fit to elaborate upon it and enshrine it as part of the Constitution (I think), otherwise people would literally be arguing forever that we have no legal right.. they saw this, they understood the sort of tyranny that would continue to occur. So they put it in the Constitution.

    Not sure if I'm making my point very clearly, so I'll just quote from the Tenth Amendment Center article on the subject:

    "the Bill of Rights merely sets limits on the federal government, making clear it has no power to infringe on rights we already naturally possess, or limit traditionally held privileges, such as trial by jury. Except for a few procedural rights specifically for the trial process, the Bill of Rights does not actually bestow rights.

    Many framers considered a Bill of Rights unnecessary. They argued that the nature of the Constitution rendered it redundant. The Constitution itself only grants the government specified powers. Since the Constitution extends the federal government no power to establish a national religion, they argued that it wasn’t necessary to specifically prohibit it. But others felt it necessary to make explicit certain government limitations, to better protect the liberties of the people. The preamble to the Bill of Rights clarifies its purpose.

    THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

    The first eight amendments making up the Bill of Rights specify rights and privileges the federal government may not in any way abridge. It codifies protections of life liberty and property – rights each of us naturally possess – and enshrines specific privileges in the judicial system already accepted in Anglo-American law.

    Finally, the Ninth Amendment makes the limiting nature of the Constitution clear.

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    The framers wanted to make sure everyone understood that the Constitution only grants the feds prescribed, specific, enumerated powers."

    Aha, but what happened then?

    PEOPLE misconstrued what was supposed to be done, or applied their own agendas over time, through an abundance - not just an abundance, really, but an OVERABUNDANCE of laws. And these laws went far beyond the areas which were designated by the "powers" anticipated. As such the Constitution was persistently violated in various ways and continues to be. Of course the Founders knew this would likely happen but they also provided means by which such a situation could be corrected or reversed.

    Were it not for the Supremacy Clause we would have no corrective means to address what has happened over time and no means to even ascertain what law technically is higher than another based on its origin.

    But what of the laws and court decisions?

    So far as I am aware, prior to 1813, there were no laws or regulations of any sort keeping anyone in the republic from concealed carry; curiously, there were limitations that were placed by some of the Founders on guns at the University of Virginia in 1824. But (unless I am mistaken), concealed carry was (while not expressly mentioned in the early years of American history), becoming more common as gun technology progressed to allow for more portability of weapons. Simeon North was the "first official pistol maker" of the United States, something of a patriarch of pistol makers, and from 1799 to 1829 he refined pistol technology and provided pistols for the government; various of these later made their way into general circulation. (Some of his pistols, beginning in 1813, were in fact fitted with a belt hook (firmly mounted on and close to the weapon, much like the Techna Clip or Clip Draw of today), indicating that people did carry them on their person or perhaps on a belt OWB under a greatcoat.) This post describes four different eras of concealed carry laws throughout American history and is as good a source I've found on the progression of laws over time on the subject. It's interesting to note that when Indiana adopted its concealed carry prohibition, in 1820, that was not long after Elisha Collier of Boston invented a flintlock revolver (which occurred in 1814) - the revolver was patented and mass-produced before 1820, and it's quite possible that Indiana legislators might have been aware of it. The first percussion revolver was made by Lenormand of Paris in 1820, and following the introduction of compact revolvers around the world, legislation on concealed carry seemed to accelerate, as well.

    "States have the Tenth Amendment power to pass laws and enact policies to run their individual States the way they see fit to locally respond to the needs of its people, but not at the expense of the rights of the people. That is where the line is drawn, or is supposed to be drawn.

    A power also delegated to the United States federal government is to guarantee a State doesn’t deny people their rights – the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875):

    “The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, but it adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. The duty of protecting all its citizens in the enjoyment of an equality of rights was originally assumed by the States, and it still remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right. This the Amendment guarantees, but no more. The power of the National Government is limited to the enforcement of this guaranty.”

    The right to keep and bear arms is a right that exists without any government stating that it does. If there was no government at all, if there was no Second Amendment, you still have a right to arms. This is what the Ninth Amendment conveys, but luckily the right to arms was recognized as important enough to write down. All our Constitution does though is state that the federal government can’t infringe upon that right, nor can a State."


    But what about the fact that the federal government and the states DO infringe upon that right by their laws? How would a well-meaning person in Congress deal with this issue? Technically speaking a Congressperson who wanted to correct the situation would have to put in a bill to repeal an unconstitutional law or laws that he or she has identified and as part of the bill include express preemption provisions, written in such a way so that no local, state, or federal government would ever be able to pass a similar law again following the repeal of the law.

    That is how you put an end to the "never-ending process" which has been described here. I didn't create it, I'm only pointing out how it can be ended.
    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

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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