Why I Oppose Cornyn's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill - and Why You Should, Too - Page 9
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 98

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

  1. Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    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




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  2.   
  3. #82
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by mikestone967 View Post
    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..

    [/IMG]
    Then you can leap back in time to 1813 and tell the states that (if you have a time machine), because as I pointed out earlier in this discussion thread, it was the STATES, not the federal government, that began the process of limiting concealed carry. I've pointed out ceaselessly here in this discussion thread and elsewhere that I support the concept of natural right and that expressing and exercising them doesn't require permission, but that there are legal consequences to violating laws that do exist so we have a responsibility to deal with those laws and either change or repeal them. That's common sense.

    Simeon North produced pistols for the government (repeating myself here, but tl;dr) from 1799 to 1829 or so. In about 1813 he began to produce pistols with "hooks" or "clips" attached to them, more easily enabling attachment to belt(s) or slings and concealment, even though the original use of these clips (attached to pistols) was for navy use, many of his pistols made their way into civilian use. Other concealable pistols a few years prior produced in other countries likely resulted in a negative "response" from states, again, those restrictive laws began to be put on the books in 1813.

    No sense in appealing to states that gradually put laws on the books restricting or even eliminating concealed carry and then only allowing them as a privilege. I'd rather ask the federal government to use the Supremacy Clause to (1) pass H.R. 38 and (2) pass an even better law using the Supremacy Clause also, which would make all state, federal and local gun laws null and void.

    Blues said earlier in the discussion,

    "True Constitutional Carry is only achieved by the absence of state law imposed on any aspect of keeping and bearing arms." I agreed with him there, but again, as I pointed out, given that the courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court) have ruled on such issues, AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO, it does fall to Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court to undo what has been done in the past..

    (By the way, as I pointed out before, 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)

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

    Please sign and share.
    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

  4. #83
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Bold added by me for emphasis....

    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?
    Because communication with someone is a better use of your time than producing memes and ad-hominem fallacies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    "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.
    Ah, that's nice. I gather there's no peace to be had, so you are apparently going to go out in a blaze of something. Go to it then. Ciao. You are so convinced you should be fighting? What are you doing here reading my comment?
    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. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    -snip-
    No sense in appealing to states that gradually put laws on the books restricting or even eliminating concealed carry and then only allowing them as a privilege. I'd rather ask the federal government to use the Supremacy Clause to (1) pass H.R. 38 and (2) pass an even better law using the Supremacy Clause also, which would make all state, federal and local gun laws null and void.

    Blues said earlier in the discussion,

    "True Constitutional Carry is only achieved by the absence of state law imposed on any aspect of keeping and bearing arms." I agreed with him there, but again, as I pointed out, given that the courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court) have ruled on such issues, AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO, it does fall to Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court to undo what has been done in the past..

    (By the way, as I pointed out before, 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. -snip-
    Oddly enough there have been quite a few states where pro gun rights groups have been successful in gaining permit free concealed carry WITHOUT a Congressional bill designed to give the federal government the power to regulate carry permits.

    You are neglecting to mention that in order for the Supremacy Clause to be invoked the federal government must first enact statutes (laws) for the Supremacy Clause to be supreme about. And in order for the federal government to enact those statutes it must have some kind of Constitutional authority before it can have that power. That is where the Commerce Clause comes in and Daddy Fed has historically proven it will use and abuse that authority/power regardless of what it pertains to. That abuse is what those of us who oppose any national reciprocity based in the Commerce Clause are warning about. After all, once Daddy Fed has the power to give Daddy Fed also has the power to take away.

    But you just keep on engaging in the mental masturbation that appealing to Daddy Fed for his permission to be given the privilege of carrying concealed across state lines is somehow supporting 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

  6. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Bold added by me for emphasis....

    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?
    Because communication with someone is a better use of your time than producing memes and ad-hominem fallacies.
    Perhaps it would have been a better use of your time had you communicated with Heller and discovered what he really meant and what, if anything, he was implying instead of presenting your assumptions about his meaning and implications as fact to us on the forum?

    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    "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.
    Ah, that's nice. I gather there's no peace to be had, so you are apparently going to go out in a blaze of something. Go to it then. Ciao. You are so convinced you should be fighting? What are you doing here reading my comment?
    There are many folks who have successfully fought to support the actual right to bear arms by getting their states to get rid of being required to get permission (a permit) in order to exercise the right to bear arms in a concealed manner. Those folks have shown that it isn't necessary to run to Daddy Fed hoping to get his "Yes" permission in order to override Mommy State's "No." If they can do it in their state then we ALL can do it it ALL states effectively gaining the ability to carry concealed across state lines without needing Daddy Fed's permission in the form of national reciprocity.

    Fighting to get rid of the laws that require folks to ask permission from Mommy state to carry concealed is supporting the actual right to bear arms. Begging Daddy Fed for a law that allows folks to carry concealed across state lines is supporting infringing the actual right to bear arms by asking for Daddy Fed's permission to carry across state lines.

    It is the need to ask permission from Daddy Fed or Mommy State that must be done away with in order to regain the ability to exercise the true right to bear arms. And begging Daddy Fed to pass a law .. permitting.. concealed carry across state lines IS asking for Daddy Fed's permission.

    And just for me.... I would rather use my energy and resources supporting the actual right to bear arms in my daily life, including on the internet, by trying to eliminate infringing laws already on the books rather than supporting government infringing even more with yet another law that only solidifies the government's control over the bearing of arms in a concealed manner.

    As far as my being here reading your comment? Why are you here reading mine? Could it be we both are "fighting" for what we believe is the solution to national reciprocity with the only difference being our beliefs as to which method is best are diametrically opposed?
    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

  7. #86
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    You are neglecting to mention that in order for the Supremacy Clause to be invoked the federal government must first enact statutes (laws) for the Supremacy Clause to be supreme about. And in order for the federal government to enact those statutes it must have some kind of Constitutional authority before it can have that power. That is where the Commerce Clause comes in
    No, it doesn't.

    More accurately, it (the Commerce Clause) doesn't need to be utilized. At all. Technically it could be in that situation, but any bill author could write a bill without relying upon it.

    And where you say "it must have some kind of Constitutional authority" before fedgov can have the power (to utilize Supremacy Clause), the Supremacy Clause IS that Constitutional authority. It IS part of the Constitution.

    You made another point about states enacting laws without a Congressional bill. Indeed they have. Those same states began regulating concealed carry beginning in 1813 and then later on some of those states decided they were going to give you permission to concealed carry without having to get a permit from the state anymore.

    Which brings me back to why should we have had to appeal to any states in the first place, since states HAVE NO RIGHTS TO DENY RIGHTS. Never did. Indeed, states have powers, but they have NO RIGHTS. We should not have to appeal to states, instead we should find ways to overturn their sad and unconstitutional claims to limit or permit us in the context of our exercise of (natural, or, constitutionally expressed) rights.

    Hence my argument that the Supremacy Clause needs to be used at the federal level to override federal, state, and local laws.

    See https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...estoration-act for an example of that.

    Until that happens, I continue to support H.R. 38 which as others have pointed out here they have objections to for various reasons, but I will support H.R. 38 as a reasonable intermediary step.
    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

  8. Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    Until that happens, I continue to support H.R. 38 which as others have pointed out here they have objections to for various reasons, but I will support H.R. 38 as a reasonable intermediary step.
    Again, when attempting to remove government regulatory authority, passing laws establishing increased regulatory authority to the government is a step in the wrong direction, not a reasonable intermediary step.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    Then you can leap back in time to 1813 and tell the states that (if you have a time machine), because as I pointed out earlier in this discussion thread, it was the STATES, not the federal government, that began the process of limiting concealed carry. I've pointed out ceaselessly here in this discussion thread and elsewhere that I support the concept of natural right and that expressing and exercising them doesn't require permission, but that there are legal consequences to violating laws that do exist so we have a responsibility to deal with those laws and either change or repeal them. That's common sense.

    Simeon North produced pistols for the government (repeating myself here, but tl;dr) from 1799 to 1829 or so. In about 1813 he began to produce pistols with "hooks" or "clips" attached to them, more easily enabling attachment to belt(s) or slings and concealment, even though the original use of these clips (attached to pistols) was for navy use, many of his pistols made their way into civilian use. Other concealable pistols a few years prior produced in other countries likely resulted in a negative "response" from states, again, those restrictive laws began to be put on the books in 1813.

    No sense in appealing to states that gradually put laws on the books restricting or even eliminating concealed carry and then only allowing them as a privilege. I'd rather ask the federal government to use the Supremacy Clause to (1) pass H.R. 38 and (2) pass an even better law using the Supremacy Clause also, which would make all state, federal and local gun laws null and void.

    Blues said earlier in the discussion,

    "True Constitutional Carry is only achieved by the absence of state law imposed on any aspect of keeping and bearing arms." I agreed with him there, but again, as I pointed out, given that the courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court) have ruled on such issues, AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO, it does fall to Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court to undo what has been done in the past..

    (By the way, as I pointed out before, 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)

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

    Please sign and share.
    This is where it started...

    And with the help of dimwits like yourself who actually believe that if you play by "their rules" that you'll come out ahead....

    You are a man who is so deluded that you actually WANT government in your business...

    The Federal Government is Prohibited from passing any laws and or resolutions that would INFRINGE on that Naturally Endowed Right. Period.

    "We" don't need their grubby hands on our daily affairs but weak men such as yourself, appear to not be able to form a coherent thought on your own.

    A free man doesn't ask whether a thing is "legal" to do, only if its right.

    Only a slave asks for permission to be treated as a human.
    I am no mans slave.

    What say you, old man?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  10. #89
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    No, it doesn't.

    More accurately, it (the Commerce Clause) doesn't need to be utilized. At all. Technically it could be in that situation, but any bill author could write a bill without relying upon it.

    And where you say "it must have some kind of Constitutional authority" before fedgov can have the power (to utilize Supremacy Clause), the Supremacy Clause IS that Constitutional authority. It IS part of the Constitution.

    You made another point about states enacting laws without a Congressional bill. Indeed they have. Those same states began regulating concealed carry beginning in 1813 and then later on some of those states decided they were going to give you permission to concealed carry without having to get a permit from the state anymore.

    Which brings me back to why should we have had to appeal to any states in the first place, since states HAVE NO RIGHTS TO DENY RIGHTS. Never did. Indeed, states have powers, but they have NO RIGHTS. We should not have to appeal to states, instead we should find ways to overturn their sad and unconstitutional claims to limit or permit us in the context of our exercise of (natural, or, constitutionally expressed) rights.

    Hence my argument that the Supremacy Clause needs to be used at the federal level to override federal, state, and local laws.

    See https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...estoration-act for an example of that.

    Until that happens, I continue to support H.R. 38 which as others have pointed out here they have objections to for various reasons, but I will support H.R. 38 as a reasonable intermediary step.
    Without federal statutes (laws) regulating concealed carry permits there isn't anything for the Supremacy Clause to be "supreme" about. Period. And without showing where the Constitution grants the federal government the power to enact those laws then Daddy Fed cannot make any laws to be supreme about.... hence the need for Daddy Fed to rely on yet again abusing the Commerce Clause in order to justify having that power.

    The Constitution is intended to be the authority above Daddy Fed. Daddy Fed is supposed to be governed, and limited, by the Constitution but Daddy Fed doesn't like having the power to control being limited and must find a sneaky way around the limitations on his power contained within the Constitution. And that is why Daddy Fed uses the loophole called "The Commerce Clause" to cover any and all need for regulatory power of anything and everything Daddy Fed wants to control.

    Ask yourself... why is Daddy Fed basing national reciprocity bills in the Commerce Clause instead of the 2nd Amendment? I'll give you a hint. Using the 2nd Amendment as a basis for national reciprocity bills (laws) affirms the right of "we the people" to bear arms but using the Commerce Clause as that basis affirms Daddy Fed's power to control (infringe upon) the right to bear arms.

    The difference between you and I is that you want Daddy Fed to give you permission to exercise the government controlled privilege of carrying concealed across state lines (HR 38 for example) and I want Daddy Fed and Mommy State to leave the right to bear arms in any manner I, or YOU!, might wish completely and totally alone without imposing any restrictions (infringements) like carry permits or penalties (infringements) for doing so.
    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. "Congress hereby declares that requiring a legal resident of the United States to obtain government permission to carry a firearm for legal purposes in the form of any permit or license is an infringement of the People's right to bear arms as set forth in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Congress hereby further declares that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitutions prohibits State and lower divisions of government from infringing upon the right of the People to bear arms as well as the Federal government by incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Therefore Congress declares that upon the day this law is enacted by the President of the United States or by other authorized act of congress, the Federal government, any State government, and any subdivision of any State government is hereby prohibited from enacting any law requiring any permit or license or obtaining permission from that government in any other form to keep and bear a firearm for legal purposes. Any currently existing law, statute, ordinance or regulation requiring such a permit, license or permission is declared Unconstitutional and immediately revoked, and is null and void."

    Then the Attorneys General of states like Washington and Hawaii would immediately file a lawsuit in a liberal Federal Court and a stay against enforcement of the law would immediately be granted.
    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.

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 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