Downr@nge
Member
Really, how much chance does this thing have of passing the Senate?
House Panel clears National Carry
- Thread starter usmarine0352_2005
- Start date
- Status
Millwright
Member
Do we - as gun owners - really want the "feddies" to have jurisdiction over where we can/can't carry ? Perhaps this is another case of "be careful what you wish for !" >MW
Prince Yamato
Member
This bill is only concerned with reciprocity.
I stick by what I said, the authority is rooted in the 14thA, which gives Congress power to enact laws to enforce it.
This is hardly a stretch, btw. The notion that private businesses like hotels and restaurants cannot discriminate also took hold because the test case for this involved a hotel in GA that catered to interstate travellers.
It is a paranoia or conspiracy theory on the part of some people. If the Fed.Gov proposes legislation to restrict guns, then they are anti-gun. If they propose legislation taht expands gun rights, then they are still anti gun and there's an angle we haven't figured out yet.
It's psychotic thinking.
FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
So your saying that after being allowed to carry in other states that they are gonna take that away again? How would that even be bad? They aren't interferring with the state you live in and you could still get your permit if this bill was done away with.
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
The 14th Amendment took effect 143 years ago, and it has never regarded concealed carry before, so it seems like a stretch to me.
And the bill respects that States can deny concealed carry, so how can it at the same time claim that it's a right protected by the 14th Amendment? It seems to stretch things beyond reason.
No, my concern is not that we will get reciprocity and then have it taken away ... my concern is that we will get reciprocity, and then with that precedent the Congress will go on to legislate that every State must have CCW, and then with that precedent they will go on to make the CCW laws more uniform ... I think this is what some of y'all here desire, that HR822 be a stepping stone to more and more federal involvement.
Prior to the civil rights movement it never applied to private accomodations either. Do you agree that a citizen of one state ought to have the same rights as a citizen of another state? That's what the 14thA is about, and RKBA fits in perfectly with that. It wasn't applied because there was no clear ruling the 2A applied to individuals and was binding on states.
It's called a "slippery slope fallacy" for a reason.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Bubba613 said:
Fixed it for ya!
Woody
FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
They are making is so they all honor each others permits, licensing requirements are up to the states as that doesn't effect out of state.
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
No, I absolutely do not agree that a citizen of one State should have the same rights as a citizen of another State. I find such a political view to be radical and antithetical to our federal system.
If we look at the legislative history of the 14th Amendment, including the preceding Freedmen's Bureau Bill and the Civil Rights Act, the word "rights" was removed and replaced with the term "privileges and immunities" in order to narrow the scope.
I think the proper interpretation is that we have dual citizenship, State and US citizenship, and some privileges/immunties are a part of US citizenship, and others are a part of State citizenship. Basically, the US P&I regard life/liberty/property ... I think there are aspects of the RKBA which fit here, such as the right to keep a gun for home defense, and some right to carry a gun outside the home ... but I think that CCW is a P&I of State citizenship, something that varies from State to State ... HR822 seems to recognize this by respecting that States don't have to allow CCW ... yet at the same time they claim that they have federal jurisdiction over CCW reciprocity because of the 14th Amendment.
Maybe the 14th Amendment means that if a State doesn't allow CCW then they must allow open carry, I can begin to get some traction on that argument. But I don't see any integrity in the assertion that the 14th Amendment requires CCW permit reciprocity.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
One of the immunities we have is our Right to Keep and Bear Arms from infringement. That is what the Second Amendment is all about. Simply stated, our RKBA is immune from infringement. No law - municipal, state or federal - can infringe upon our RKBA. No permits or licenses are needed or should ever be required. The power granted to Congress in the Fourteenth Amendment is to remove those infringements, not to recognize them, and incorporate them into federal law!
There are no "aspects" of the Second Amendment that would fit anywhere except in the prevention of government from infringing the RKBA, and, with the Fourteenth Amendment, the removal of any infringements that have been place there contrary to the Second Amendment. Period. It has been thusly written and ratified, so let it be abided.
Woody
There are no "aspects" of the Second Amendment that would fit anywhere except in the prevention of government from infringing the RKBA, and, with the Fourteenth Amendment, the removal of any infringements that have been place there contrary to the Second Amendment. Period. It has been thusly written and ratified, so let it be abided.
Woody
FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
This is a step in the right direction, I can't imagine them voting yes on a bill that removes all restictions in this century. It is the way it is and we have to work with it.
DoubleTapDrew
Member
If that happened, what about everyone that already has a CCW? Would they all become null and void until they met these new federal requirements? Just wondering.
Prince Yamato
Member
Exactly. I'd love all restrictions removed. It's not going to happen anytime soon. In the meantime, I'll put up with this.
piratelooking@40
Member
Absolutely.
Does anyone have a shred of evidence that this bill is intended as an anti-gun Trojan horse?
piratelooking@40
Member
He never had any. Just baseless suspicions.
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
I imagine that these new federal requirements would have to be met by some given date, giving the states a chance to comply.
And that's all it is. First someone imagines that a bill to expand rights is really designed to diminish them. THen they imagine that having expanded them, suddenly elected representatives would vote to take them away. Then they imagine that no one will notice. What's next? Imagining Barney Frank dressed in Stormtrooper regalia knocking at your door demanding your guns "or else"?
oneounceload
member
Somehow the following two quotes come to mind with this bill:
"If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is”
(was a catchphrase used by the Better Business Bureau to alert the public to shady business practices. The phrase was used since at least 1954; in 1962, the BBB produced a short film titled Too Good To Be True.)
'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'
(Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner's, 1905, page 284")
"If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is”
(was a catchphrase used by the Better Business Bureau to alert the public to shady business practices. The phrase was used since at least 1954; in 1962, the BBB produced a short film titled Too Good To Be True.)
'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'
(Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner's, 1905, page 284")
Birch Knoll
Member
When you find yourself agreeing with Chuck Schumer, the Brady Campaign, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence instead of the NRA, GOA and CCRKBA, it's time to recalibrate your sensors.
beatledog7
Member
NRA-ILA supports this bill, that's true. But that does not mean every NRA member must do so also.
Birch Knoll
Member
I never meant to imply that it did. Clearly many do not.
- Status
