Why I Oppose Cornyn's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill - and Why You Should, Too - Page 6
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 98

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

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    Lots of text, no common sense.
    I know...Huh? Some people want to place control of where and when people can carry concealed guns in the hands of some bureaucrat in Washington DC. Go figure....
    “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

  2.   
  3. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Focusing on my referring to the federal government as "Daddy Fed" is not a rebuttal.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
    QFT, and to say that it appears that not-so-freethink has bailed on trying to uphold his self-image as a master-debater, and crossed over to a selfish advocate of an unconstitutional law that will benefit him (at least temporarily) because he lives in CA, just like SR9 who rejects all valid constitutional analysis in favor of supporting something that has the potential to decimate the Second Amendment shortly after temporarily allowing him to carry across state lines in the worst concentration of gun control states in the nation, the Northeast. It's not that either one of them can't see that the Commerce Clause is one of the most-abused and usurped clauses in the entire Constitution, and national reciprocity certainly won't be immune from said abuse and/or usurpation, it's that both of them refuse to see it, and all I can figure is that it is because of their perceptions of their own selfish interests being served that makes them slam their eyes shut to the danger of Second Amendment issues being swallowed up by Commerce Clause jurisprudence. A selfish motive is all I can conclude, because nothing else makes sense.

    Meanwhile, Bikenut, Navy, myself and others argue in favor of actual rights being upheld, or at least leaving things at a place where The People maintain the potential to get them back to being upheld. Those rights that we are motivated by serve everybody, not just ourselves. There is nothing to be gained by us by simply being contrarians. We believe deeply in the rightness and correctness of the positions we promulgate. Not one single post of mine is ever intended to derail, unless someone posts a bunch of misleading and inaccurate analysis, in which case you're damned skippy, I then do purposely derail their ability to leave misleading and inaccurate garbage out there without rebuke. And I will continue no matter who doesn't like it or how loudly they whine about being disagreed with.

    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. #53
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330

    Underlying reasons

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    (....)

    Meanwhile, Bikenut, Navy, myself and others argue in favor of actual rights being upheld, or at least leaving things at a place where The People maintain the potential to get them back to being upheld. Those rights that we are motivated by serve everybody, not just ourselves. There is nothing to be gained by us by simply being contrarians. We believe deeply in the rightness and correctness of the positions we promulgate. Not one single post of mine is ever intended to derail, unless someone posts a bunch of misleading and inaccurate analysis, in which case you're damned skippy, I then do purposely derail their ability to leave misleading and inaccurate garbage out there without rebuke. And I will continue no matter who doesn't like it or how loudly they whine about being disagreed with.

    Blues
    Blues, the reason your position makes zero sense at all is not because you are arguing in favor of actual rights being upheld. If you read carefully through my posts here and in the other related thread on this where there have been far more replies, you will see that I am indeed in favor of actual permitless concealed carry which respects not only one's constitutional right but the recognition that the right does not emanate from the Constitution, but is (as has already been rightly pointed out and beat to death in threads) a natural right. I could go further about where I consider the right to be conferred from beyond that but I won't here, it's probably out of scope of this discussion.

    That's not the reason your position makes zero sense... As I said, I agree with you on such points as above.

    The real problem and the underlying reasons your position makes no sense is because if you are going to assert that we have a right that does not depend on the whims of a magistrate and does not flow from the Constitution itself, you must at least acknowledge as I am sure you probably do, that the laws themselves restraining our exercise of the right are at the very least unconstitutional and void. But you will also acknowledge that these laws exist and that people can be thrown in jail for violating them even if they are largely unaware that they exist (case in point, Shaneen Allen getting arrested for crossing state lines, and a million others).

    Hence the need to repeal these laws. And not just repeal them but include preemption provisions written in such a way so that laws like them can never be passed again.

    You can sit here and argue all day long about this and say Daddy Fed shouldn't act to do this or that but at the end of the day until SOMEONE introduces a bill that can do that (repeal all the unconstitutional federal and state laws), then I am supporting H.R. 38; and the Hearing Protection Act, both of which contain provisions for preemption.

    MY PREFERENCE for the language of a repeal bill would be this (I am absolutely sure you will hate this too, but I throw it out here for consideration):
    Note: In Congress right now we have a D.C. Second Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 1537 / S.162) and a Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 1181). The latter one already has passed the House.

    So why should we not have a REAL SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT that simply repeals all the stupid garbage laws that have been passed over the years? This is my proposal for Congress (note that it would require you to get a permit from the feds for things like nuclear warheads, chemical weapons and whatnot so there ARE safeguards but most things, under my proposal, would no longer require regulation of any kind - my proposal does allow for you to have a warship without a permit, for example, personal protective gear and land-based armored vehicles without a permit, weapons up to 50 cal with no permit, and so on and so forth, but it does require permit for things like directed energy weapons, rocket launchers, nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, and a whole other slew of things):

    SECTION 1 "Except as provided in Section 5, any and all federal, state, regional, and local laws which in any way infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, including, but not limited to, any laws which would require serialization or registration of guns or ammunition, are hereby repealed, and no further laws of this type shall be considered to have any effect, whether they be federal, state, regional, or local laws.

    SECTION 2 Similarly, any laws which would require serialization or registration of any firearm parts, or of any objects which would later on be made part of a firearm (whether or not the object would upon being finished become a regulated part of a firearm), are also deemed to be null and void, and no further laws of this type shall be considered to have any effect. Any laws which would regulate the making of firearms where individuals make a firearm or firearms for their own purpose (not to sell or transfer) are hereby null and void, and no further laws of that type shall be considered to have any effect, and no law shall ever be considered valid which regulates the transmittal of information relating to firearms.

    SECTION 3 All laws which have resulted in registries corresponding to gun ownership or ammunition are hereby determined to be null and void, and said registries shall be permanently destroyed within one year of the effective date of the end of said laws.

    SECTION 4 No government (local, regional, state, or federal) shall be able to require a permit for people to carry concealed, but states may establish a standard for concealed carry training. States may establish hunting permits and tags, but may not restrict the type of ammunition or guns utilized by hunters."

    SECTION 5 In order that certain types of unusual weapons are kept from common use, the following types shall require a permit from the federal government:

    A) Any CATEGORY II, IV, V, VI, VIII, XIV, and XV items on United States Munitions List that are actually weapons or weapons-grade materials. Such items as technical data do not qualify. These categories shall not ever be amended to include arms in common use and which can be found in the civilian market.

    B) ALL CATEGORY XVI and XVIII items on United States Munitions List. These categories shall not ever be amended to include arms in common use and which can be found in the civilian market.

    SECTION 6 Notwithstanding any of the preceding, a law of a State or a political subdivision of a State that violates Section 1 of this Act, shall be considered to be null and void, as though it were never made.
    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. #54
    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
    Blues, the reason your position makes zero sense at all is not because you are arguing in favor of actual rights being upheld. If you read carefully through my posts here and in the other related thread on this where there have been far more replies, you will see that I am indeed in favor of actual permitless concealed carry which respects not only one's constitutional right but the recognition that the right does not emanate from the Constitution, but is (as has already been rightly pointed out and beat to death in threads) a natural right. I could go further about where I consider the right to be conferred from beyond that but I won't here, it's probably out of scope of this discussion.

    That's not the reason your position makes zero sense... As I said, I agree with you on such points as above.

    The real problem and the underlying reasons your position makes no sense is because if you are going to assert that we have a right that does not depend on the whims of a magistrate and does not flow from the Constitution itself, you must at least acknowledge as I am sure you probably do, that the laws themselves restraining our exercise of the right are at the very least unconstitutional and void. But you will also acknowledge that these laws exist and that people can be thrown in jail for violating them even if they are largely unaware that they exist (case in point, Shaneen Allen getting arrested for crossing state lines, and a million others).

    Hence the need to repeal these laws. And not just repeal them but include preemption provisions written in such a way so that laws like them can never be passed again.

    You can sit here and argue all day long about this and say Daddy Fed shouldn't act to do this or that but at the end of the day until SOMEONE introduces a bill that can do that (repeal all the unconstitutional federal and state laws), then I am supporting H.R. 38; and the Hearing Protection Act, both of which contain provisions for preemption.

    MY PREFERENCE for the language of a repeal bill would be this (I am absolutely sure you will hate this too, but I throw it out here for consideration):
    Note: In Congress right now we have a D.C. Second Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 1537 / S.162) and a Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 1181). The latter one already has passed the House.

    So why should we not have a REAL SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT that simply repeals all the stupid garbage laws that have been passed over the years? This is my proposal for Congress (note that it would require you to get a permit from the feds for things like nuclear warheads, chemical weapons and whatnot so there ARE safeguards but most things, under my proposal, would no longer require regulation of any kind):

    SECTION 1 "Except as provided in Section 5, any and all federal, state, regional, and local laws which in any way infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, including, but not limited to, any laws which would require serialization or registration of guns or ammunition, are hereby repealed, and no further laws of this type shall be considered to have any effect, whether they be federal, state, regional, or local laws.

    SECTION 2 Similarly, any laws which would require serialization or registration of any firearm parts, or of any objects which would later on be made part of a firearm (whether or not the object would upon being finished become a regulated part of a firearm), are also deemed to be null and void, and no further laws of this type shall be considered to have any effect. Any laws which would regulate the making of firearms where individuals make a firearm or firearms for their own purpose (not to sell or transfer) are hereby null and void, and no further laws of that type shall be considered to have any effect, and no law shall ever be considered valid which regulates the transmittal of information relating to firearms.

    SECTION 3 All laws which have resulted in registries corresponding to gun ownership or ammunition are hereby determined to be null and void, and said registries shall be permanently destroyed within one year of the effective date of the end of said laws.

    SECTION 4 No government (local, regional, state, or federal) shall be able to require a permit for people to carry concealed, but states may establish a standard for concealed carry training. States may establish hunting permits and tags, but may not restrict the type of ammunition or guns utilized by hunters."

    SECTION 5 In order that certain types of unusual weapons are kept from common use, the following types shall require a permit from the federal government:

    1) Any CATEGORY II, IV, V, VI, VIII, XIV, and XV items on United States Munitions List that are actually weapons or weapons-grade materials. Such items as technical data do not qualify.

    2) ALL CATEGORY XVI and XVIII items on United States Munitions List.

    SECTION 6 Notwithstanding any of the preceding, a law of a State or a political subdivision of a State that violates rule one, shall be considered to be null and void, as though it were never made.
    Just for the record, I wasn't sitting here all day since my last post waiting for you to reply just so I could jump on it. It was just a coincidence that I just finished the major project I got goin' on outside and sat down to relax in front of the 'puter for awhile, and noticed your reply appear while doin' so.

    Otherwise, here's my reply: Blah blah blah.

    Carry on.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  6. #55
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    (...)

    Otherwise, here's my reply: Blah blah blah.

    Carry on.

    Blues
    I've tweaked my language a bit, so please re-read.

    But TL;DR: Laws are still on the books and need to be repealed.
    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. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post


    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
    Bravo!!

  8. Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    Lots of text, no common sense.
    You would know...


  9. #58
    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
    I've tweaked my language a bit, so please re-read.

    But TL;DR: Laws are still on the books and need to be repealed.
    My reply wasn't a comment on your language or as another way of saying TL;DR. It was a comment on how you would read any reply of mine that I bothered to create if it didn't just bow to your superior knowledge of The Constitution or agree that H.R. 38 is great for gun owners. My knowledge of The Constitution is pretty substantial, and I bow to no one else's that doesn't include significant degrees of historical perspective, which you have chosen to refer to as "arcane" when it comes to the many abuses and usurpations of the Commerce Clause, as well as other more general ways of dismissing the same position. I also believe that H.R. 38 will end up being the worst mistake gun owners (like you) have ever made if it does pass, which it's looking like one or the other will pass before too awful long, but whether 38 or another Commerce Clause-based reciprocity law, it will be a mistake which odds are would dictate my own carry privileges in my chosen state of residency will be reigned in thanks to y'all's ignorance and/or dismissals of Commerce Clause abuses being applied on national reciprocity issues once the feds get their hooks into the Second Amendment via the Commerce Clause. I think when you read arguments such as these, you hear "Blah blah blah" in your pea-brain, and that's what my last reply was saying.

    Believe me, if my privileges are curtailed one iota because of y'all's boneheaded support for this attack on the Second Amendment, you will pine for the days when all you got from me was something you mistakenly read as "TL;DR" or "Blah blah blah" as applying to something you wrote. You and SR9 will be reminded daily, if not hourly, that you share the responsibility with tyrant politicians and SCOTUS for our privileges being diminished, and try as you might, no dismissals of our historical perspective of Commerce Clause usurpations coming to fruition surrounding our current-day carry privileges will save you the embarrassment that rightly rains down on you.

    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...

  10. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    My reply wasn't a comment on your language or as another way of saying TL;DR. It was a comment on how you would read any reply of mine that I bothered to create if it didn't just bow to your superior knowledge of The Constitution or agree that H.R. 38 is great for gun owners. My knowledge of The Constitution is pretty substantial, and I bow to no one else's that doesn't include significant degrees of historical perspective, which you have chosen to refer to as "arcane" when it comes to the many abuses and usurpations of the Commerce Clause, as well as other more general ways of dismissing the same position. I also believe that H.R. 38 will end up being the worst mistake gun owners (like you) have ever made if it does pass, which it's looking like one or the other will pass before too awful long, but whether 38 or another Commerce Clause-based reciprocity law, it will be a mistake which odds are would dictate my own carry privileges in my chosen state of residency will be reigned in thanks to y'all's ignorance and/or dismissals of Commerce Clause abuses being applied on national reciprocity issues once the feds get their hooks into the Second Amendment via the Commerce Clause. I think when you read arguments such as these, you hear "Blah blah blah" in your pea-brain, and that's what my last reply was saying.

    Believe me, if my privileges are curtailed one iota because of y'all's boneheaded support for this attack on the Second Amendment, you will pine for the days when all you got from me was something you mistakenly read as "TL;DR" or "Blah blah blah" as applying to something you wrote. You and SR9 will be reminded daily, if not hourly, that you share the responsibility with tyrant politicians and SCOTUS for our privileges being diminished, and try as you might, no dismissals of our historical perspective of Commerce Clause usurpations coming to fruition surrounding our current-day carry privileges will save you the embarrassment that rightly rains down on you.

    Blues

    Amen brother...


  11. Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    Nobody said they were. But it is also well known that the Founders didn't explicitly confer a right to carry concealed when they crafted the Second Amendment.
    Nope, they just confirmed they exist in all of us..naturally. Bestowed upon us at birth, by our creator.
    They DID say that "the Right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms" though..

    To "bear" is to "carry... while nothing specifically states concealed, you'd have to be one dense mother f*cker to not see that..

    See, "our" problem stems from the likes of "men" such as yourself who have no regard for his fellow man, or his Rights. You only care about YOUR ability to carry any where you can, screw the rest of us... and once you get that "right"... you'll die the selfish happy bastard that you are..

    The level of stupidity within you and SR9 is immeasurably massive. The very fact that you want to GIVE Government a power that by the very fabric of our founding documents, is DENIED to them is nothing short of mental instability at best... selfishness on your part at least.

    YOU are the reason this country is going into the shitter, fact.

    How about you don't obey the unjust laws?
    How about you stand up for "OUR RIGHTS" and oppose this crap?
    Carry every day, every place you choose and let the "laws" be damned?



Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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