Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

carry amendment

Discussion in 'Legal' started by patentmike, Jul 9, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. patentmike

    patentmike Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2004
    Messages:
    415
    Location:
    Texas
    Am I missing something?
    Since 36 states "shall issue" carry permits (and another 10 have some restricted right to carry), why not get 2/3 of the states to pass a new consititutional amendment to expressly allow concealed carry?
     
  2. Dbl0Kevin

    Dbl0Kevin Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Messages:
    1,183
    Location:
    SC
    I think part of the problem is that certain states, even though they have RTC laws, have turned back over to the democrats and would be hard pressed to pass RTC again let alone constitutional amendment. Just my thoughts though.
     
  3. patentmike

    patentmike Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2004
    Messages:
    415
    Location:
    Texas
    I don't buy it. 39 states have recently passed a "Protection of Marraige Act".
     
  4. buy guns

    buy guns Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2004
    Messages:
    992
    Location:
    Florida
    its because the politicians have no balls.
     
  5. Black Snowman

    Black Snowman Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,507
    Location:
    Kansas City, KS
    Because it would be redundant. We already have "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." and obviously it is being infringed because we are not allowed to bear arms to protect ourselves even though protecting ourselves, our loved ones, and our property is our responsability.

    We don't need a new amendment, we need to have all of these faciasts violating the Constitution to be arreseted and tried for treason. But even treason only gets you a slap on the wrist now :cuss:
     
  6. patentmike

    patentmike Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2004
    Messages:
    415
    Location:
    Texas
    Sure, it would be redundant, it could be worded to reflect the fact that it is intended to undo the misinterpretation of the second amendment by the courts.
     
  7. Zedicus

    Zedicus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,976
    Location:
    Idaho
    Nicely Put!:D
     
  8. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    I've never looked, so I'll have to reserve judgement; I can assure you, however, they've made it abundantly clear for decades they have neither brains nor spines.

    What's actually needed isn't more legislation, but a single Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Second Amendment. That saidâ„¢, I'm not holding my breath while waiting for it to be announced.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page