John Kerry and CCW?


PDA






greyhound
May 19, 2005, 09:48 PM
I know its old stuff, but it also goes to the heart of party policies....did they ever press John Kerry or the other Democratic primary candidates on their feelings on CCW laws? I know they all spouted the nonsense about "hunters and sportsmen" and I even recall John Edwards mentioning "self defense" but were they ever pressed on CCW? I can't find any evidence of the individual candidates views on CCW; I know it wasn't mentioned on the party platform.

To be fair, while President Bush signed the CCW law while Governor of Texas, does anyone know if he has addressed the subject while President? I can't recall an example....

If 35+ states have shall issue (not even counting my AL with its technically "may issue" but in practice "shall issue") this is going to become a national issue if the rank and file population realizes that other citizens are "allowed" to carry (which IMHO most people are not even aware of the massive increase of "shall issue" states since FL in 1987).

If you enjoyed reading about "John Kerry and CCW?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
PromptCritical
May 19, 2005, 11:06 PM
Well, Jeb Bush did sign the Florida law, I would presume that he discussed it with G.W. If not for political advice or tactics, but it probably came up. Just a guess. If the Prez thought it was a bad idea, I'm sure he would say so.

Standing Wolf
May 19, 2005, 11:25 PM
...were they ever pressed on CCW? I can't find any evidence of the individual candidates views on CCW; I know it wasn't mentioned on the party platform.

Both the Republicrats and Democans are doing everything possible to avoid saying the word "gun" aloud.

allen268
May 19, 2005, 11:36 PM
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place Suite 102
Springfield VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

Tuesday, March 8, 2005


Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) will soon be reintroducing his national reciprocity bill that protects the right of citizens to carry their firearms into other states.

http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm

(something more on a national level)

280PLUS
May 20, 2005, 06:22 AM
Thanks Allen - Done

TonkinTwentyMil
May 21, 2005, 02:58 AM
Greyhound raises a good question.

We'll know that Hillary is a serious '08 candidate when we see her trying the same awkward "I'm an old hunter" photo-ops that Kerry tried (to fool the uninformed, easily duped "moderates").

We'll know that ANY candidate is genuinely serious about 2-A gun rights when we see him/her doing photo-ops with a HANDGUN... practicing self-defense pistol-craft! I'd pay big bucks to see the MSM/Press cover THAT... if the candidate was a Democrat!

Rebar
May 21, 2005, 12:24 PM
if the candidate was a Democrat!
Never happen. Even with the rediculous Kerry goose hunting nonsense, he wouldn't carry the bird, in fear of offending the animal-rights nuts.

Look, it's more than obvious, that the democrats are anti-RKBA. Period. They lie and mislead, stating that they're not "against hunting". But then you read about their "anti-sniper" program and realise it would include just about every rifle and shotgun made.

pythonguy
May 21, 2005, 12:43 PM
Last President big on hunting was Bill "slick willy" Clinton. He could hunt and track down a piece of tail like a bloodhound, and for proof of shooting skills, look no further then Monica's black dress. :evil:

allen268
May 21, 2005, 01:25 PM
Look, it's more than obvious, that the democrats are anti-RKBA. Period

Not only that, but they also talk like the "right to bear arms" was intended to protect the rights of "hunters"??? and not the rights of handguns to be used by citizens for self-protection.

NHBB
May 21, 2005, 01:31 PM
sent in my letter... not sure how much it will do but any measure we can take to oppose the anti gun BS is worth a few seconds of your time.

LadySmith
May 21, 2005, 01:37 PM
Pythonguy, that was just nasty...but it was funny, tho'! :D

GEM
May 21, 2005, 01:43 PM
GWB has not had a high profile on proactively pushing for gun rights. He will say he supports the 2nd but that's about it. He also will say he supports the AWB.

George doesn't do public shooting anymore. He was burned when in TX, he shot down a forbidden birdie and come some flack for it. Kind of like Kerry's ridiculous goose hunt.

It is common for a politician to take out a O/U shotgun and claim to be a sportsperson. From both GOP and Dems - on the presidential level this is baloney.

I would like to see a speech like Condi's recent one or them explicitly supported the 2nd and not birdie shooting.

lunaslide
May 21, 2005, 02:52 PM
Until I see one of them out at a target match with an AR or at a defensive handgun course, it's all the same old ????. We all know the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

As far as this whole fight is concerned, both sides are fighting a war of attrition, and the side that is already entrenched ALWAYS wins a war of attrition. We need to start taking this fight to them, introducing legislation like a repeal of the 1989 and 1986 import and machine gun bans. And we win by introducing it every single legislative session until it wins. We slip it onto unrelated, must-pass bills. We take the offensive and we don't stop until we have what we want. This attitude of "that will never pass" needs to go. When the antis first started out, sentiment was very much against them. What changed things for them was persistence.

Most of the politicians in DC, Republican as well as Democrat, do not want the people to be able to own weapons that are comparable to the military. They are exactly the type of people Jefferson warned us about. The concession the founders made in allowing Congress to raise an Army was that the militia be armed just as well as that Army to check their power.

There are only a very few people in Congress who understand the full implications of the 2nd amendment and are willing to fight for it. We have to make sure that they know they are supported in their efforts and that when they do introduce these bills consistently until they pass, that they will not loose their jobs in doing so.

gunsmith
May 21, 2005, 02:58 PM
100% Correct!

allen268
May 21, 2005, 02:59 PM
The truth is that the government should not be able to regulate or change our 2nd amendment in any way whatsoever given Its actual intent. Why on earth should those who the 2nd amendment was intended to protect us against be able to regulate or restrict it in any fashion?

gunsmith
May 21, 2005, 03:00 PM
yeah,that was funny :cool:

TonkinTwentyMil
May 21, 2005, 03:01 PM
For the next elections, we'll demand ANY political candidate claiming to "support gunrights" ALSO:

1. State that they explicitly support armed self defense against criminal attack.

2. Allow themselves to be photographed while actually shooting a handgun (not just posing with it, holding it upside-down, or -- like Dianne Feinstein -- with a finger on the trigger).

3. Specifically reject any bleats of protest from Sheeple, Soccer Moms, and the MainStreamMedia/Hollywood wing of the Dem-Donkey party.

Further, we'll press the NRA and other pro-gun orgs to push this litmus test hard -- real hard -- in rating and supporting candidates for office.

The Second Amendment ain't about duck-hunting. Those who believe it is must be publicized, marginalized, and punished -- exactly what they've been trying to do to us for years.

No compromising "for the common good", sniveling or equivocating. Period.

Vernal45
May 21, 2005, 03:04 PM
John Kerry and CCW?



Isn't that an OXYMORON.



pythonguy,

Right on target about slick willy. :D

TonkinTwentyMil
May 21, 2005, 03:33 PM
Lunaslide:

Bravo! Not bad for a New Guy.

You got my vote, man.

Boss Spearman
May 21, 2005, 05:46 PM
I read Kerry was going to sign the UN international handgun ban treaty, so if that's true, I'd say that states his position on ccw.

pythonguy
May 21, 2005, 06:32 PM
Quote:
"John Kerry and CCW? Isn't that an OXYMORON."

I don't know about the oxy part, but moron sure applies. Same old democrats, do or say anything to get into power, even if its not true. I think they call that a Clintonian democrat

Rebar
May 22, 2005, 01:14 AM
Actually, lunaslide is wrong.

The real fight isn't legislation, it's where that legislation is interpreted - the courts. It was the liberal activist courts that have restricted the RKBA, and it's the courts where it will either be restored, or taken away forever.

Bush is appointing the right kind of judges, strict constructionalist who will rule based on the clear meaning of the 2nd amendment. That's why the left wing is going berzerk over Bush's judges right now. They know it's the courts where the real power is. The two judges he appoints to the supreme court will have a million times more impact on the RKBA then any legislation.

Kerry would have, without a doubt, appointed the wrong judges, who would have deep-sixed the RKBA. Those who are nitpicking Bush's gun stance need to take this into account.

lunaslide
May 22, 2005, 04:16 AM
Actually, lunaslide is wrong.

Actually, I'm not wrong. The power of the federal government resides in three branches. While we must pay attention to all three, our influence is most strongly felt in the legislative branch. My post was only addressing the legislative branch. As the representative branch, this is where our wishes are supposedly advanced by the people there who represent us. If we're not doing everything we can to push our own cause aggressively, we aren't doing enough.

In fact, these are the same people we should be pushing to stop obstructing judicial nominations for the reasons that you mention in your post. We cannot directly affect the choices of who will be on the Supreme Court, nor can we choose which cases they will decide to hear. Our power resides in electing a President who will choose strict constructionists and talking to our elected officials to make sure they know where we stand on judicial nominations.

But really, you just wanted to provoke an argument with that sentence, didn't you. We have to stop fighting amongst ourselves if we're going to get the RKBA agenda advanced in a meaningful way.

MichaelEzekiel
May 22, 2005, 08:56 AM
The right to keep and bear arms will be decided on the battle field...and no where else.

Rebar
May 22, 2005, 10:46 AM
But really, you just wanted to provoke an argument with that sentence, didn't you.
No. Your statement stated there's no real difference between the democrats and republicans, when there is a stark and drastic difference. There are three branches, yes, but the judicial branch has become the more powerful one, certainly where the 2nd amendment is concerned.

The real fight is in the courts, in order to win the fight, the republicans need to have the presidency and the senate. If putting off our gun legislation for the time being allows for this majority, then that's a sacrifice we should be willing to make. The judges Bush is pushing through, and the eventual Supreme Court nominations, will be well worth the wait. A single unambiguous RKBA ruling from the Supreme Court would be worth a 100 years of legislation.

lunaslide
May 22, 2005, 06:21 PM
Your statement stated there's no real difference between the democrats and republicans, when there is a stark and drastic difference.

No, what I said was:

Most of the politicians in DC, Republican as well as Democrat, do not want the people to be able to own weapons that are comparable to the military.

That is quite different than saying that "there's no real difference between the democrats and republicans". Most Republicans will support private firearm ownership up to a point. They are fine with supporting hunters and people who own and carry for self-defense. Get them on the topic of machine guns and DDs and their legs go to jelly. They start talking about "reasonable restrictions" and "public saftey". Most of them do not have the stomach for supporting the primary purpose of the second amendment.

The real fight is in the courts, in order to win the fight, the republicans need to have the presidency and the senate. If putting off our gun legislation for the time being allows for this majority, then that's a sacrifice we should be willing to make. The judges Bush is pushing through, and the eventual Supreme Court nominations, will be well worth the wait. A single unambiguous RKBA ruling from the Supreme Court would be worth a 100 years of legislation.

I am not arguing with your point that the courts are an extremely important battleground for the RKBA. What I am saying is that it is not the only battleground. Neglecting to engage on one battleground in favor of another leaves our flanks open. Putting off our gun rights legislation in order to focus on judicial nominations will do nothing for our cause. Waiting for the court to decide on this matter and not pressing the issue on the legislative front has only lost us ground. You have to push forward on all fronts at the same time. The antis didn't get the 1986 amendement to FOPA by convincing the public or even Congress that it was a good idea. They slipped it onto that bill through the backdoor by being persistent and exploiting a moment when no one was paying attention.

The real fight is everywhere on every front. Education, media, local community, etc. While it is true that one good ruling on the second amendment from the Supreme Court would change the landscape drastically in our favor, what will you do if they rule against our interests? There are plenty of examples of judges being nominated to the bench that have drifted to the left over the course of their tenure there. Do you want to leave the entire future of our RKBA to them?

You seem to put a lot of faith in the Republicans to push for our rights. But some of the most heinous gun control was passed under Republican presidents and one was even an executive order to make the import ban permanent. We cannot simply rely on the idea that if we get enough Republicans into office, they will do the right thing. Think about so-called Republicans like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The first two are names that are already being thrown around as possibilities for the '08 tickets. Look at their records on gun rights and tell me they should be our greatest hope for regaining our rights.

You are correct in your assertion that one good ruling from the Supreme Court would be worth 100 years of legislation, and the last SCOTUS case to touch on the issue of militia style weapons, U.S. v. Miller, supports that assertion. That was in 1939. This issue simply is not visited often by the Supreme Court and cases that meet the right conditions for them to be a vehicle are very rare. Furthermore, if a knowlegable advocate had simply showed up to argue the case and explained to the court that short-barrelled shotguns had been used for military purposes since before the War Between the States, the NFA might have been overturned right then and there. This demonstrates how iffy the prospect of a court ruling is. While there have been many cases that directly or indirectly asserted that the second amendment refers to an individual right, cases that directly affect the true intention of the second amendment are few and far between.

thorn726
May 22, 2005, 06:42 PM
i think lunasldie is right, but there is also some truth to what Rebar is saying-

somewhere some idiot in a court let the 2nd turn into a debate about hunting, and many interpretations are hurting us

Most Republicans will support private firearm ownership up to a point. They are fine with supporting hunters and people who own and carry for self-defense.

exactly. its lip service nothing more.

i personally can't hope some waffle might some day admit guns are for protecting me from THEM.

you guys really think the republican agenda of "homeland security" is gonna ever allow for MORE arms???

Rebar
May 22, 2005, 11:36 PM
In a perfect world, perhaps pushing for machineguns etc., would be a good idea. However, I submit that in this imperfect world, all that would do is assure the republicans minority status, leaving the real gun grabbers in charge. And letting them get their judges in, who are guarenteed to vote against the RKBA. At least we have a chance with the republicans, we know what the democrats want: total civilian disarmament.

And really, is there a choice? Libertarians? They can barely get a few people on city councils, never mind the rediculous tilting-at-windmills every four years. While the republicans are lukewarm about guns, the democrats are dead-set on taking them.

Gordon Fink
May 23, 2005, 01:39 AM
Most of the politicians in DC, Republican as well as Democrat, do not want the people to be able to own weapons that are comparable to the military.

A good reason to make sure the military stays with the 5.5645mm cartridge.

~G. Fink

GEM
May 23, 2005, 12:19 PM
I think the discussion makes clear that the power structures in GOP really do not think that the RKBA is an issue that they are committed to and will fight for. They will make supportive statements but do little proactive as part of a grand strategy for that party.

Certainly the Democrats are worse. However, until some group wants to make it a cause they will push for, nothing will get done and we may see erosions of rights.

Most progress comes from the local levels in state legislatures that are closer to the people.

I think the GOP used to pay more overt attention to the RKBA when it served their purposes to get conservative voters. I fear that they now have other cultural issues that they feel have more appeal to the social conservative and thus the RKBA is on the back burners, if at all.

They get more play out of mobilizing the base on the courts and their relation to things like gay marriage, Schiavo, the Pledge, etc. These issues are used to rile up the base more than the RKBA.

If you enjoyed reading about "John Kerry and CCW?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!