Why I Oppose Cornyn's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill - and Why You Should, Too - Page 8
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 98

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

  1. Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    oh my land, are you all still trolling this thread typing furiously about your wild assumptions that others here are "wanting the government to control our rights," foxes and henhouses?

    Apparently so.

    Some folks have nothing better to do I guess.

    Anyway, in case anyone is still reading here (besides those who are just trolling this and making unconstructive remarks) I have a revised text for my proposed Second Amendment Protection Act, thing, which is basically a proposed bill to repeal certain unconstitutional legislation.

    If you don't know what the USML categories contain, which I refer to in my proposal, don't whine about it here, go look it up.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...estoration-act




    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  2.   
  3. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by mikestone967 View Post
    Congratulations... now explain that to the brain dead SR9 HHK and Cornholeious...

    I take personal attacks from you and your TROLL MINIONS as a badge of honor. I hope to piss you off on a regular basis. Frequently.

  4. #73
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Interesting addition to this thread (which kicked off by explaining why I oppose Cornyn's concealed carry reciprocity bill, and why I support H.R. 38, the House Concealed Carry Reciprocity bill).

    2ick Heller (you know, from the Heller case... USACARRY censors his name when I try to spell out his actual name, so I put 2 in place of the first letter of his name) is now on twitter. He states that we need national concealed carry reciprocity.

    However, and this is what's really relevant to this particular USACARRY thread, Heller also states on his twitter that he does NOT support Cornyn's concealed carry bill.

    I'm glad to hear Heller (like me) has expressed opposition to Cornyn's bill.

    Just figured that would be an interesting addition to the 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

  5. Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    2ick Heller (you know, from the Heller case... USACARRY censors his name when I try to spell out his actual name, so I put 2 in place of the first letter of his name) is now on twitter. He states that we need national concealed carry reciprocity.
    You are absolutely hilarious! I actually clicked on the link YOU provided and guess what it REALLY says?

    "We need NATIONAL constitutional carry!"

    So you are either intentionally lying to us or you don't know the difference between "constitutional" carry and reciprocity. Guess what, pal.... "constitutional" carry means NO PERMIT REQUIRED! It has nothing to do with which permits are recognized and which aren't. So which is it, freethink? Are you an intentional liar or ignorant? Ignorant: lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  6. #75
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    You are absolutely hilarious! I actually clicked on the link YOU provided and guess what it REALLY says?

    "We need NATIONAL constitutional carry!"

    So you are either intentionally lying to us or you don't know the difference between "constitutional" carry and reciprocity. Guess what, pal.... "constitutional" carry means NO PERMIT REQUIRED! It has nothing to do with which permits are recognized and which aren't. So which is it, freethink? Are you an intentional liar or ignorant? Ignorant: lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.
    Hey Navy, Heller did say "NATIONAL constitutional carry," but he did so while appending an article to his tweet, which referred to the proposal in Wisconsin for constitutional carry legislation.

    Heller's response to that article (incorporated as part of his tweet) was, as you said, "We need NATIONAL Constitutional carry!" Although it is not always easy to express yourself in the limited number of characters that twitter limits you to, I assume that Heller meant that the "constitutional carry" legislation of the variety contemplated in Wisconsin or something like it, should be provided across the nation, or in a nationwide bill. He actually didn't say in his tweet whether or not he felt that a federal bill would be necessary to establish national constitutional carry, but he did seem to imply it.

    I don't think you can have nationwide constitutional carry unless there is also reciprocity established for those who do have permits -- unless of course a nationwide constitutional carry bill were designed and written in such a way so as to ensure that no matter how you carry you will not have to be concerned about a reciprocity issue.

    For example, if you were a bill author and you were writing a federal bill intended to convey constitutional carry (that is for all people in all 50 States, its territories, and D.C.) in an ideal world you would write it in such a way so that there would not be documents that firearm owners would ever have to carry to prove anything to anybody in any state, thus the reciprocity issue would not be an issue.

    Obviously, in order for that to work, you would need a preemption provision (which is based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution) written somewhere in the bill, otherwise states challenging your bill in court would prevail.

    However, if your position is that a federal bill is unnecessary and shouldn't be written, then you will see the piecemeal approach continue where different states continue to deal with firearms issues in different ways...

    If you wanted to know exactly what Heller wants or hopes to see happen, you could always ask him on twitter.
    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 NavyLCDR View Post
    You are absolutely hilarious! I actually clicked on the link YOU provided and guess what it REALLY says?

    "We need NATIONAL constitutional carry!"

    So you are either intentionally lying to us or you don't know the difference between "constitutional" carry and reciprocity. Guess what, pal.... "constitutional" carry means NO PERMIT REQUIRED! It has nothing to do with which permits are recognized and which aren't. So which is it, freethink? Are you an intentional liar or ignorant? Ignorant: lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.




    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  8. Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    Hey Navy, Heller did say "NATIONAL constitutional carry," but he did so while appending an article to his tweet, which referred to the proposal in Wisconsin for constitutional carry legislation.

    Heller's response to that article (incorporated as part of his tweet) was, as you said, "We need NATIONAL Constitutional carry!" Although it is not always easy to express yourself in the limited number of characters that twitter limits you to, I assume that Heller meant that the "constitutional carry" legislation of the variety contemplated in Wisconsin or something like it, should be provided across the nation, or in a nationwide bill. He actually didn't say in his tweet whether or not he felt that a federal bill would be necessary to establish national constitutional carry, but he did seem to imply it.

    I don't think you can have nationwide constitutional carry unless there is also reciprocity established for those who do have permits -- unless of course a nationwide constitutional carry bill were designed and written in such a way so as to ensure that no matter how you carry you will not have to be concerned about a reciprocity issue.

    For example, if you were a bill author and you were writing a federal bill intended to convey constitutional carry (that is for all people in all 50 States, its territories, and D.C.) in an ideal world you would write it in such a way so that there would not be documents that firearm owners would ever have to carry to prove anything to anybody in any state, thus the reciprocity issue would not be an issue.

    Obviously, in order for that to work, you would need a preemption provision (which is based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution) written somewhere in the bill, otherwise states challenging your bill in court would prevail.

    However, if your position is that a federal bill is unnecessary and shouldn't be written, then you will see the piecemeal approach continue where different states continue to deal with firearms issues in different ways...

    If you wanted to know exactly what Heller wants or hopes to see happen, you could always ask him on twitter.




    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  9. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    Hey Navy, Heller did say "NATIONAL constitutional carry," but he did so while appending an article to his tweet, which referred to the proposal in Wisconsin for constitutional carry legislation.

    Heller's response to that article (incorporated as part of his tweet) was, as you said, "We need NATIONAL Constitutional carry!" Although it is not always easy to express yourself in the limited number of characters that twitter limits you to, I assume that Heller meant that the "constitutional carry" legislation of the variety contemplated in Wisconsin or something like it, should be provided across the nation, or in a nationwide bill. He actually didn't say in his tweet whether or not he felt that a federal bill would be necessary to establish national constitutional carry, but he did seem to imply it.
    Bold added by me for emphasis....

    So your assumptions as to what someone else meant and what you considered to be implied were presented by you as being fact. Got it.

    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    I don't think you can have nationwide constitutional carry unless there is also reciprocity established for those who do have permits -- unless of course a nationwide constitutional carry bill were designed and written in such a way so as to ensure that no matter how you carry you will not have to be concerned about a reciprocity issue.

    For example, if you were a bill author and you were writing a federal bill intended to convey constitutional carry (that is for all people in all 50 States, its territories, and D.C.) in an ideal world you would write it in such a way so that there would not be documents that firearm owners would ever have to carry to prove anything to anybody in any state, thus the reciprocity issue would not be an issue.

    Obviously, in order for that to work, you would need a preemption provision (which is based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution) written somewhere in the bill, otherwise states challenging your bill in court would prevail.

    However, if your position is that a federal bill is unnecessary and shouldn't be written, then you will see the piecemeal approach continue where different states continue to deal with firearms issues in different ways...

    If you wanted to know exactly what Heller wants or hopes to see happen, you could always ask him on twitter.
    Why should any of us bother to ask Heller what he wants or hopes to see happen when we have you to ... assume.. what he meant and interpret what he might have ... implied?

    There is no need to get the Federal government involved by handing Daddy Fed the power to regulate concealed carry using the Commerce Clause to create Federal statutes that then allow invoking the Supremacy Clause because nationwide constitutional carry is possible IF folks from all around the country would pressure each and every individual state whether they lived in that state or not to institute constitutional carry on the state level. Getting rid of carry permits entirely on the state level in all the states would be returning to the actual right to bear arms instead of running to Daddy Fed begging to be given the privilege and permission to bear arms across the nation.

    "We the people" should be fighting to regain the ability to exercise the actual right to bear arms without infringements instead of begging the government to be .. permitted.. to exercise the right to bear arms.
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J. C. Watts

  10. #79
    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
    Hey Navy, Heller did say "NATIONAL constitutional carry," but he did so while appending an article to his tweet, which referred to the proposal in Wisconsin for constitutional carry legislation.

    Heller's response to that article (incorporated as part of his tweet) was, as you said, "We need NATIONAL Constitutional carry!" Although it is not always easy to express yourself in the limited number of characters that twitter limits you to, I assume that Heller meant that the "constitutional carry" legislation of the variety contemplated in Wisconsin or something like it, should be provided across the nation, or in a nationwide bill. He actually didn't say in his tweet whether or not he felt that a federal bill would be necessary to establish national constitutional carry, but he did seem to imply it.

    I don't think you can have nationwide constitutional carry unless there is also reciprocity established for those who do have permits -- unless of course a nationwide constitutional carry bill were designed and written in such a way so as to ensure that no matter how you carry you will not have to be concerned about a reciprocity issue.

    For example, if you were a bill author and you were writing a federal bill intended to convey constitutional carry (that is for all people in all 50 States, its territories, and D.C.) in an ideal world you would write it in such a way so that there would not be documents that firearm owners would ever have to carry to prove anything to anybody in any state, thus the reciprocity issue would not be an issue.

    Obviously, in order for that to work, you would need a preemption provision (which is based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution) written somewhere in the bill, otherwise states challenging your bill in court would prevail.

    However, if your position is that a federal bill is unnecessary and shouldn't be written, then you will see the piecemeal approach continue where different states continue to deal with firearms issues in different ways...

    If you wanted to know exactly what Heller wants or hopes to see happen, you could always ask him on twitter.
    If Heller was advocating for a law instituting NATIONAL constitutional carry, I'll bet my bottom dollar that he was advocating for a law based on the Second Amendment and not on the Interstate Commerce Clause. He's a pretty bright guy. If he was advocating for reciprocity legislation and is/was unaware of the implications and probable ramifications of passing such a law under the Commerce Clause's authority of government to regulate, I'd also bet my bottom dollar that he'd be receptive to warnings, scholarship and the reams of precedent that prove their veracity contained in the many examples of deprivation of our rights when they're put under its auspices. Ďick Heller lives and works in D.C. and already knows that fedgov-types won't lift a finger to protect his rights under the Second Amendment. He wanted to exercise his 2A rights, which is precisely why the first-ever full-on Second Amendment case in history bears his name. I'd bet anything that he wouldn't fight for government's authority to regulate his rights after what he went through just to simply be able to keep a loaded/assembled/unlocked/accessible gun in his home without facing prison time.

    It is absolutely ludicrous to assume that he meant one thing when he actually said another. Makes one wonder what you've erroneously assumed about settled law surrounding the Supremacy Clause or other legal subjects. You blew it this time in any case.

    Blues

    ETA: Thanks to Navy for clicking on his link and finding the lie or display of ignorance, whichever it was. Good catch.
    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...

  11. #80
    2 more House members signed on to HR 38, bringing the total now to 187 co-sponsors.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...rt=lastToFirst

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 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