Why I Oppose Cornyn's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill - and Why You Should, Too - Page 5
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 98

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

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    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. -snip-
    My point of contention is that when folks talk about national reciprocity laws for concealed carry as something that "allows" folks to exercise their right to bear arms they are implying that one must have a permit in order to have the right to bear arms.

    Concealed carry permits and the right to bear arms are diametrically opposed concepts. Conflating one with the other gives folks the notion that concealed carry permits are the right to bear arms. And that notion is very pervasive since I have had many folks tell me that they know they have the right to carry a gun and all they need do is go get a permit. I am taking issue with perpetuating that notion by folks using the words "right to bear arms" in connection with "concealed carry permit".

    About your considering my post to have been lecturing you. I am well aware that this forum is open to the public and our conversation will be read by more folks than just you and I so I intentionally worded my post in a manner that was intended not just for your benefit but also for everyone who read it. As I suspect your subsequent response (lecture?) was intended for the benefit of everyone and not just me.

    As for this part of your post:

    Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    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.
    You are looking for the bigger bully Daddy Fed to beat up on the lesser bullys of Mommy States to force them into getting rid of unconstitutional laws and to set up Daddy Fed as the end all/be all biggest bully using federal preemption power. In short what everyone who is in favor of federal national reciprocity are championing is trading one bully for another, bigger and potentially nastier, bully.

    However there is a better way that has already been shown to work in several states. It takes longer and requires folks to get personally involved and even financially involved and that is for us as individual members of "we the people" to work together to get each and every state to institute Constitutional carry.
    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. #42
    If you think the right to bare arms doesn't come from the Government, then where does it come from when the government made the constitution and there is nothing about protecting ones self in the Ten Commandments? I'm posing this just to see what weird array of answers I get from you all.

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    If you think the right to bare arms doesn't come from the Government, then where does it come from when the government made the constitution and there is nothing about protecting ones self in the Ten Commandments? I'm posing this just to see what weird array of answers I get from you all.
    Actually I think it is your question that is weird!

    You were born with the right to protect yourself in order to remain alive. The right to bear arms (the word "arms" isn't limited to a handgun but encompasses everything from fists and feet to any weapon you can bear/carry) IS the right to protect yourself. Some say God gave you that right when you were given the gift of life and some say rights are a natural part of being born a human being. But the important thing is... rights exist whether there is a government or not.

    And the Constitution was written in order to define what the government has the power to do and, most importantly, what the government DOES NOT have the power to do. Most folks have that backwards thinking it is the government that tells the people what they can and cannot do but the government only has the power to do what "we the people" allow it to do.

    Sadly "we the people" have allowed the government to run wild... as long as the government gives us free stuff and/or .... LETS ... us have privileges some of us want like national reciprocity.
    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. #44
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330

    States' rights do not exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    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.
    States' rights do not exist, there are only certain powers granted to the states. When they exceed them, the Constitution provides a path for them to be reined in.

    Again:

    "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.”

    It doesn’t take a constitutional scholar to understand the meaning of these things, but maybe a modern interpretation is what’s needed: “just cuz we say people have these rights that we wrote down here, doesn’t mean they don’t have other rights too, and you can’t take those rights away either just cuz we didn’t write them down, bruh.”

    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 they both do, they have done, and, in California’s case, continues to do.

    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."


    And further, in case you are curious how this is done (or can be done) by the federal government, please refer to the Supremacy Clause, which is PART OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, JUST LIKE THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS.

    Specifically, the Supremacy Clause can be found at Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

    In Federalist No. 44, James Madison defends the Supremacy Clause as vital to the functioning of the nation. He noted that state legislatures were invested with all powers not specifically defined in the Constitution, but also said that having the federal government subservient to various state constitutions would be an inversion of the principles of government, concluding that if supremacy were not established "it would have seen the authority of the whole society everywhere subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members."

    I repeat: were supremacy not established, "it would have seen the authority of the whole society everywhere subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members."

    The constitutional principle derived from the Supremacy Clause is federal preemption. Here is how federal preemption is derived from the Supremacy Clause and how Congress is supposed to provide evidence of its intent to preempt; there are guidelines set by the judiciary for how Congress must in most cases make preemption express (explicit) in order for it to survive legal challenge.

    Some commenters on this thread have suggested that the use of federal preemption is simply "Big Daddy Fed" at work. They can say that all they like, but if the federal preemption is utilized in Congressional bills which are expressly written to repeal unconstitutional state or federal laws, that is in fact Congress rightfully exercising its powers under the Constitution.

    Hence we have preemption provisions in H.R. 38 (Concealed Carry Reciprocity), which I support -- but not in Cornyn's Senate Concealed Carry bill (which I oppose), and we also have preemption provisions in both the House and Senate versions of the Hearing Protection Act. Not a bad start. Better would be a single bill that repeals many (or all) unconstitutional state and federal laws (while precluding the possibility of state challenge, by including a preemption provision), but we don't have such a bill offered, yet.
    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

  6. #45
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    My point of contention is that when folks talk about national reciprocity laws for concealed carry as something that "allows" folks to exercise their right to bear arms they are implying that one must have a permit in order to have the right to bear arms.

    Concealed carry permits and the right to bear arms are diametrically opposed concepts. Conflating one with the other gives folks the notion that concealed carry permits are the right to bear arms. And that notion is very pervasive since I have had many folks tell me that they know they have the right to carry a gun and all they need do is go get a permit. I am taking issue with perpetuating that notion by folks using the words "right to bear arms" in connection with "concealed carry permit".

    About your considering my post to have been lecturing you. I am well aware that this forum is open to the public and our conversation will be read by more folks than just you and I so I intentionally worded my post in a manner that was intended not just for your benefit but also for everyone who read it. As I suspect your subsequent response (lecture?) was intended for the benefit of everyone and not just me.

    As for this part of your post:



    You are looking for the bigger bully Daddy Fed to beat up on the lesser bullys of Mommy States to force them into getting rid of unconstitutional laws and to set up Daddy Fed as the end all/be all biggest bully using federal preemption power. In short what everyone who is in favor of federal national reciprocity are championing is trading one bully for another, bigger and potentially nastier, bully.

    However there is a better way that has already been shown to work in several states. It takes longer and requires folks to get personally involved and even financially involved and that is for us as individual members of "we the people" to work together to get each and every state to institute Constitutional carry.
    1) I do not imply that there is a permit required for us to exercise our natural right to self defense, which would include our right to keep and bear arms, and to carry them concealed. I do point out in a society where the law constrains and punishes those for exercising both one's natural and constitutional rights, a legal remedy is needed in order to reverse or mitigate that. If you want to roam about in society without a permit for something you are concealed carrying in a state where concealed carry "by law" requires a permit, be my guest, but then you also of course must be ready to face the consequences of your actions.

    2) If there is a possibility for a legal remedy, and there is, there is no reason why we should not use it. Indeed, as I've pointed out to another commenter here, the Supremacy Clause is PART OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, JUST LIKE THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS.

    Specifically, the Supremacy Clause can be found at Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

    In Federalist No. 44, James Madison* defends the Supremacy Clause as vital to the functioning of the nation. He noted that state legislatures were invested with all powers not specifically defined in the Constitution, but also said that having the federal government subservient to various state constitutions would be an inversion of the principles of government, concluding that if supremacy were not established "it would have seen the authority of the whole society everywhere subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members."

    I repeat: were supremacy not established, "it would have seen the authority of the whole society everywhere subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members."

    The constitutional principle derived from the Supremacy Clause is federal preemption. Here is how federal preemption is derived from the Supremacy Clause and how Congress is supposed to provide evidence of its intent to preempt; there are guidelines set by the judiciary for how Congress must in most cases make preemption express (explicit) in order for it to survive legal challenge.

    You have suggested that the use of federal preemption is simply "Big Daddy Fed" at work. You are free to opine that, but if the federal preemption is utilized in Congressional bills which are expressly written to repeal unconstitutional state or federal laws, that is in fact Congress rightfully exercising its powers under the Constitution.

    I hope this has been an education in the Constitution and what it can do beyond your own personal reading of the 2nd Amendment.

    *Footnote on James Madison: James Madison is generally thought of as the "Father of the Constitution" for his pivotal role in drafting and promoting the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He broke with Hamilton and the Federalist Party in 1791, and he and Thomas Jefferson** organized the Democratic-Republican Party. Notably, Jefferson and Madison drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, arguing that states can nullify unconstitutional laws. So he was not only a defender of the federal government's ability under the Supremacy Clause (as a means of defense of the Constitution), but also was a defender of some state efforts to nullify unconstitutional laws.

    **Footnote on Thomas Jefferson: Jefferson on Politics and Government: Military and Militia (Select Quotes) -- Review for Jefferson's thoughts on how military should be limited. "For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation." --Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482
    Jefferson Quotes, General (All Subjects).
    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. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    -snip-
    I hope this has been an education in the Constitution and what it can do beyond your own personal reading of the 2nd Amendment.
    I hope you understand that Daddy Fed uses the Supreme court's interpretations of the Constitution to further federal power over "we the people" and that is plainly evident by what Daddy Fed has done in the past using the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause (Wickard v Filburn) as a basis for that power.

    It would be much better for "we the people" to address the issue of national reciprocity from the standpoint of getting each individual state to institute Constitutional Carry instead of trying to get Daddy Fed to force Mommy states into recognizing all carry permits simply because once Daddy Fed gets the power to regulate carry permits through the Commerce Clause Daddy Fed will never let go of it but will build upon that power to institute more and more restrictions and control.

    Folks who want national reciprocity are putting their faith in Daddy Fed being honest and not being corrupt in how the power of the Commerce Clause is used while I firmly believe that once Daddy Fed gets the upper hand on the states in regards to carry permits a future election will put anti gunners in power and that administration/Congress will use the foundation of national reciprocity based in the Commerce Clause to build a structure of severe restrictions upon carry permits and will impose those restrictions using the Supremacy Clause.

    Now unless I need to have more "education" on the Constitution.... without the power of the Commerce Clause contained in the national reciprocity bills offered so far the Supremacy Clause can't be used since Daddy Fed must first have the power to regulate with federal statutes before the Supremacy Clause can be used to force those regulations contained within those statutes upon the states.

    And handing Daddy Fed the initial power to regulate through national reciprocity based in the Commerce Clause being a very bad thing is what I, and others, are cautioning.
    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

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    If you think the right to bare arms doesn't come from the Government, then where does it come from when the government made the constitution and there is nothing about protecting ones self in the Ten Commandments? I'm posing this just to see what weird array of answers I get from you all.
    You won the Internet today with that ignorant comment. The Second Amendment does not give you the right to own or carry a gun:


  9. #48
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330

    Yelling "Daddy Fed" all day long isn't an argument. Derailing is rude.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    I hope you understand that Daddy Fed uses the Supreme court's interpretations of the Constitution to further federal power over "we the people" and that is plainly evident by what Daddy Fed has done in the past using the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause (Wickard v Filburn) as a basis for that power.

    It would be much better for "we the people" to address the issue of national reciprocity from the standpoint of getting each individual state to institute Constitutional Carry instead of trying to get Daddy Fed to force Mommy states into recognizing all carry permits simply because once Daddy Fed gets the power to regulate carry permits through the Commerce Clause Daddy Fed will never let go of it but will build upon that power to institute more and more restrictions and control.

    Folks who want national reciprocity are putting their faith in Daddy Fed being honest and not being corrupt in how the power of the Commerce Clause is used while I firmly believe that once Daddy Fed gets the upper hand on the states in regards to carry permits a future election will put anti gunners in power and that administration/Congress will use the foundation of national reciprocity based in the Commerce Clause to build a structure of severe restrictions upon carry permits and will impose those restrictions using the Supremacy Clause.

    Now unless I need to have more "education" on the Constitution.... without the power of the Commerce Clause contained in the national reciprocity bills offered so far the Supremacy Clause can't be used since Daddy Fed must first have the power to regulate with federal statutes before the Supremacy Clause can be used to force those regulations contained within those statutes upon the states.

    And handing Daddy Fed the initial power to regulate through national reciprocity based in the Commerce Clause being a very bad thing is what I, and others, are cautioning.

    Yelling "Daddy Fed" all day long is not an argument.

    It's worthwhile to point out here that courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have repeatedly rejected the theory of nullification. Personally, I'm not saying it can't be useful as a technique to force the hand of the federal government in situations where the federal government itself acts unconstitutionally (passes an unconstitutional law). Even in California, a law was passed in late 2013 that was in fact a nullification effort: Assembly Bill 351, commonly called the California Liberty Preservation Act, was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown making it statewide policy to refuse compliance with federal attempts to enforce “indefinite detention” made (in)famous by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA).

    From the Tenth Amendment Center blog on the subject:

    "The prohibitory language of (AB 351) reads:

    no agency of the State of California, no political subdivision of this state, no employee of an agency, or a political subdivision, of this state acting in his or her official capacity, and no member of the California National Guard on official state duty shall knowingly aid an agency of the Armed Forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of a person within California pursuant to (A) Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), (B) the federal law known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40), enacted in 2001, or (C) any other federal law, if the state agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the California National Guard would violate the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any law of this state by providing that aid.

    By including a caveat at the end of this section – if the state agency, political subdivision, employee… – the bill is not an express prohibition on all agencies, political subdivisions, and employees, including the California National Guard."


    With that example, though (and others), AB 351 (if challenged) would likely not be upheld by a court unless a federal court were to overturn provisions of NDAA 2012 or Congress were to themselves repeal the offending section(s) of NDAA 2012. Courts would be extremely unlikely to do it, because in Hedges v. Obama, the court system showed itself completely unable to challenge the law; one judge was able to, but on appeal another upheld the NDAA, and when Hedges et. al. (plaintiffs) took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, not once, but three times the U.S. Supreme Court declined to so much as consider the case. That means that Congress would be the one that would need to act to overturn the offending (and unconstitutional) provisions that Congress itself created, and that Obama signed into law, in the example I provided above.

    Here's another thing. Those of you who have criticized my points here have not offered real arguments. You've come to a point where you've asserted that you have a natural right to self defense, inclusive of carrying concealed. Yet when I point out the very processes that are available to us to reverse or even eliminate the (unconstitutional) legal requirements that have been imposed on American society, citing use of the Supremacy Clause and preemption as a solution (which come straight from the U.S. Constitution), you scream out "Daddy Fed Daddy Fed" and run back to your hole. There is no argument you have that makes any sense.

    This thread has expanded to a point where I have explained and defended my points thoroughly and well, but you now refuse to acknowledge that I have done so and so you have allowed your own contributions to devolve into meaningless rants that simply make so sense at all.


    If you do not like H.R. 38, tough. I support it. It's headed for passage, and I'm advocating various representatives to create a new Senate bill with the EXACT WORDS of H.R. 38 (Concealed Carry Reciprocity).


    And if you want to be productive, advocate to get your own bill introduced with the help of your Congressperson that would be designed to repeal unconstitutional laws!

    My main thrust with this thread has been (and I feel it's been derailed by a lot of unfounded arguments) to convince people that Cornyn's bill (S.446) is a horrible bill and should not be supported at all. Unfortunately many comments on here have tried to derail meaningful discussion about this very issue and have been trolling on issues of whether or not you should carry with a permit at all, or arcane discussions of the Commerce Clause. It's sad that people can't have a logical discussion here without being attacked.

    At this point it's obvious that the derailing from the point of this thread has gotten extreme and has become rude. If you want to create a thread devoted to your personal philosophy of life and how you hate the idea of the federal government doing anything at all, go create your own thread. This thread is not about that. It's about describing why H.R. 38 makes sense and - more specifically - why we should oppose S.446. If all you can do is hammer against that notion all day long please create your own 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

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    Yelling "Daddy Fed" all day long is not an argument.
    Focusing on my referring to the federal government as "Daddy Fed" is not a rebuttal.

    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    It's worthwhile to point out here that courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have repeatedly rejected the theory of nullification. Personally, I'm not saying it can't be useful as a technique to force the hand of the federal government in situations where the federal government itself acts unconstitutionally (passes an unconstitutional law). Even in California, a law was passed in late 2013 that was in fact a nullification effort: Assembly Bill 351, commonly called the California Liberty Preservation Act, was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown making it statewide policy to refuse compliance with federal attempts to enforce “indefinite detention” made (in)famous by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA).

    From the Tenth Amendment Center blog on the subject:

    "The prohibitory language of (AB 351) reads:

    no agency of the State of California, no political subdivision of this state, no employee of an agency, or a political subdivision, of this state acting in his or her official capacity, and no member of the California National Guard on official state duty shall knowingly aid an agency of the Armed Forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of a person within California pursuant to (A) Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), (B) the federal law known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40), enacted in 2001, or (C) any other federal law, if the state agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the California National Guard would violate the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any law of this state by providing that aid.

    By including a caveat at the end of this section – if the state agency, political subdivision, employee… – the bill is not an express prohibition on all agencies, political subdivisions, and employees, including the California National Guard."


    With that example, though (and others), AB 351 (if challenged) would likely not be upheld by a court unless a federal court were to overturn provisions of NDAA 2012 or Congress were to themselves repeal the offending section(s) of NDAA 2012. Courts would be extremely unlikely to do it, because in Hedges v. Obama, the court system showed itself completely unable to challenge the law; one judge was able to, but on appeal another upheld the NDAA, and when Hedges et. al. (plaintiffs) took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, not once, but three times the U.S. Supreme Court declined to so much as consider the case. That means that Congress would be the one that would need to act to overturn the offending (and unconstitutional) provisions that Congress itself created, and that Obama signed into law, in the example I provided above.

    Here's another thing. Those of you who have criticized my points here have not offered real arguments. You've come to a point where you've asserted that you have a natural right to self defense, inclusive of carrying concealed. Yet when I point out the very processes that are available to us to reverse or even eliminate the (unconstitutional) legal requirements that have been imposed on American society, citing use of the Supremacy Clause and preemption as a solution (which come straight from the U.S. Constitution), you scream out "Daddy Fed Daddy Fed" and run back to your hole. There is no argument you have that makes any sense.

    This thread has expanded to a point where I have explained and defended my points thoroughly and well, but you now refuse to acknowledge that I have done so and so you have allowed your own contributions to devolve into meaningless rants that simply make so sense at all.
    Actually what has happened is you are not willing to accept opposing viewpoints and/or facts as valid.

    Not to mention that you went off on a tangent concerning nullification instead of addressing my contention that Daddy Fed can't use the Supremacy Clause to force the states to recognize all carry permits without Daddy Fed first using the current crop of national reciprocity bills to bestow upon the federal government the ability to use the power of the Commerce Clause in regards to carry permits. In short, no power from the Commerce Clause to create federal regulations/statutes means no regulations/statutes for the Supremacy Clause to be supreme about. But then, perhaps I need more "education" in regards to the Constitution?

    What I have noticed is that you appear to consider any disagreement with your assertion that the best way to deal with unconstitutional state laws is to hand Daddy Fed the power to institute unconstitutional federal laws as a personal affront.

    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    If you do not like H.R. 38, tough. I support it. It's headed for passage, and I'm advocating various representatives to create a new Senate bill with the EXACT WORDS of H.R. 38 (Concealed Carry Reciprocity).
    And I, and others, do NOT support any national reciprocity bills/laws that use the Commerce Clause and we are expressing that here. It is obvious you are having difficulty dealing with a different perspective than your own.

    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    And if you want to be productive, advocate to get your own bill introduced with the help of your Congressperson that would be designed to repeal unconstitutional laws!
    Asking Daddy Fed to institute unconstitutional federal laws doesn't get rid of unconstitutional laws. It merely shifts the power to control using unconstitutional laws from Mommy state to Daddy Fed.

    And for those who truly wish to be productive in furthering their ability to carry across states lines supporting the actual right to bear arms it would be wiser to work to get all states to institute Constitutional Carry instead of trading the control of carry permits from Mommy state for the control of Daddy Fed.

    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    My main thrust with this thread has been (and I feel it's been derailed by a lot of unfounded arguments) to convince people that Cornyn's bill (S.446) is a horrible bill and should not be supported at all. Unfortunately many comments on here have tried to derail meaningful discussion about this very issue and have been trolling on issues of whether or not you should carry with a permit at all, or arcane discussions of the Commerce Clause. It's sad that people can't have a logical discussion here without being attacked.
    And my purpose in this discussion has been to convince people that any national reciprocity bill based on the Commerce Clause will open the door for Daddy Fed to take control of carry permits countrywide.

    And your reference to discussions of the Commerce Clause as "arcane" is rather interesting. Quite frankly, and in my not so humble opinion, I think you started with the premise that national reciprocity is a very good thing and then went through the Constitution finding positive points to support that premise while ignoring anything, like the Commerce Clause and how Daddy Fed has already abused it to increase federal power, that might indicate negative aspects.

    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    At this point it's obvious that the derailing from the point of this thread has gotten extreme and has become rude. If you want to create a thread devoted to your personal philosophy of life and how you hate the idea of the federal government doing anything at all, go create your own thread. This thread is not about that. It's about describing why H.R. 38 makes sense and - more specifically - why we should oppose S.446. If all you can do is hammer against that notion all day long please create your own thread.
    Rude? Please reread your own post!

    As I said above: "It is obvious you are having difficulty dealing with a different perspective than your own."

    What has been presented is an argument cautioning that national reciprocity bills that use the Commerce Clause as justification for Daddy Fed to have the power to regulate opens the door for this, or a future administration elections have consequences, to take complete control of carry permits nationwide.

    And if you don't want others to engage you in discussion then don't open a thread since the whole purpose of an internet forum is to offer folks a platform for discussion.... not just lecturing.
    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

  11. #50
    Lots of text, no common sense.

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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