Birch Knoll
Member
I'm still a prisoner. But I'm more free than I was before.
H.R. 822 Carry Reciprocity Bill
- Thread starter Cavalier Knight
- Start date
- Status
I'm still a prisoner. But I'm more free than I was before.
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
.
Any status updates on this yet?
.
Any status updates on this yet?
.
Ole Humpback
Member
Legislation is law. The fact that this is a new law would make it in and of itself a precedent, the first time there has ever been a Federally mandated reciprocity law.
The legislative branch writes the laws (Congress), the judicial branch defines both the meaning & application as well as approves the law (SCOTUS), and the executive branch enforces the law.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
You're mixing up the general meaning of precedent with the legal concept. For courts, adherence to precedents(ie. Previous decisions) is important in decisions. Precedent holds no such importance to legislatures. The passage of HR 822 doesn't constrain future bills or endorse the passage of future related laws
Sent using Tapatalk
danez71
Member
Woody, what constitutional law would HR822 break?
Woody... seriously....?
If I was on the fence in regards to gun control in general, your posts would be pushing away from the pro 2A group.
These extremely exaggerated analogies arent helping you or our cause IMO.
I've gone from 'Woody's really smart... not sure I 100% agree... but probably someone Id like to have 'beer-gate' with and toss ideas back and forth with' to 'I'm not sure I want to be around Woody with a beer let alone a gun'.
Its the extremist attitudes, whether pro or con, that is drives the masses away.
I know you're better than that.
We need the masses on our side. We need to conduct ourselves to accomplish this.
(some of this was said with tongue in cheek... woody seems like a nice guy from what I can tell)
Prince Yamato
Member
I'll take the blue pill and my Glock 26 and ccw in Central Park. You can stay home and argue literalist details until you're blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that we have to work within our current system of laws.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
danez71 said:
Give me an example of what you would consider a constitutional law in this instance. As far as I know, the only "constitutional" law HR 822 would break would be something in the Constitution itself, like the Second Amendment; and if the Second Amendment didn't exist, it would violate the Tenth Amendment.
danez71 said:
Yeah, I'm a nice guy. And, I'm deadly serious with that 'extremely exaggerated' analogy. It's meant to place what HR 822 would accomplish in a different light so as to more vividly demonstrate the inefficacy of HR 822. You'll end up in a bigger cell - or cage - with more powerful and less friendly gate keepers.
Let's not forget that HR 822 is unconstitutional - as well as dangerous!
Woody
Rail Driver
Member
Look at it this way, using your own analogy... We're already in a cage dude... Anything that "loosens the cuffs" so to speak, is a step in the right direction, even if we have to use less than savory methods to get there. It would take nothing short of revolution to see what you're describing (strict constitutionalist legislation reform on the scale required to repeal the NFA and GCA, wipe out the commerce clause precedents, etc), and there are too many sheep in this once strong nation for that to happen.
I'm solidly FOR HR 822 becoming law. It's a small step with its own risks, but it's a step in the right direction all the same.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Prince Yamato said:
That "current system of laws" includes the Constitution, doesn't it?
HR 822 is to the Constitution as the kid is to his parents when he tells his parents he is going to the library but heads for the local hangout instead. HR 822 says it's going to "... protect against infringement... of ... rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States," but instead it incorporates unconstitutional state laws, giving them false credence, and involving the Federal Government in an arena that those states requiring permits to conceal carry shouldn't even be involved in.
Woody
beatledog7
Member
Little cage, run by the states you live in and to which you travel
or
Great big cage, seemingly less restrictive, but run by the over-zealous feds.
If I have to vote for one or the other, I'll vote for leaving it with the states. When it comes to RKBA, I don't trust the VA lawmakers completely, but I don't trust the Feds at all.
or
Great big cage, seemingly less restrictive, but run by the over-zealous feds.
If I have to vote for one or the other, I'll vote for leaving it with the states. When it comes to RKBA, I don't trust the VA lawmakers completely, but I don't trust the Feds at all.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Rail Driver said:
Then call me a ram. Someone has to stand up to the errant sheepdogs and shepherds. Don't expect me to follow the rest of the flock just because it'll be difficult to take the straight and narrow path to the greener pastures. Sticking with the flock following the shepherd while prodded along by the sheepdog will only get you fleeced from time to time - then you end up on the dinner table long before you make it to the greener pasture.
It looks to me like you understand what's right and what's wrong but you seem to be willing to settle for what only appears to be a crumb. It's not even a crumb, though. It's only a picture of a crumb. Wait until the layers of paint begin to peel and the underlying horror shows through...
Woody
danez71
Member
No no no.... you made the claim; not I. Am asking what constitutionl law do you say HR822 break.
Thats part of what I'm affraid of.
Mission = Fail. The "vivid" picture you paint comes across a little delusional.
The best way I could say it is that the way you're coming across is like the difference between a Muslim and a Muslim extremist.
Most people dont have a problem with Muslims.... but they fear Muslim Extremists.
(dont turn this into a religious discussion, or a Muslim discussion. I could have said Catholic extremist but they dont get the press time.)
Your extremist attitude will drive people away and will have the opposite effect than what you want. History has shown this time and time again.
Your supporting evidence is... what? Please spare the repetitive speculation. Show me real examples.
You have made that claim numerous times.
I have ask 2 times on this threads page and probably two more times earlier in this thread.
You seem very familiar with the constitution but you havent answered that question. When you cant support your claims, you undermine yourself.
What constitutional law would HR822 break?
danez71
Member
Woody... it does no such thing.
You are dragging down us, and this site, as a whole by intentionally and repetitivly making false claims.
FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
You're the one claiming that it's unconstitutional, why is it unconstitutional?
Rail Driver
Member
The thing you fail to realize or simply refuse to accept, Woody, is that ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, the United States Supreme Court gets to decide what is and isn't constitutional, not you and I. The Justices of the Supreme court aren't elected officials, they're appointed by the sitting administration (chosen by the sitting CinC, confirmed/approved by senate). While there is a "conservative" majority, the supreme court is relatively balanced in their politics. Finally, the supreme court itself decides what cases they'll hear and what cases they won't. Now I don't know what ideas you have (if any) to lead or merely incite a great enough portion of the population to speak out in favor of a move to a constitutionalist regime, I can only do what I do now in sharing my ideas and beliefs with you people and others I discuss these issues with, I don't even know if a strict constitutionalist regime would be right for our country. Personally I can see drawbacks to that especially in some of the amendments in existence. This isn't just about RKBA and the 2nd Amendment here. The RKBA movement touches on many of the restrictions our government places on us as citizens due to the way restricting legislation has been passed (most notably anything citing the Interstate Commerce Clause). The entire gun control movement centers not on crimes and penalties, restrictions and legalities, but on money. The agency created to regulate firearms was originally a part of the treasury department as I'm sure you're aware. Because of this we find ourselves in a precarious position... Our bloated government has driven our nation into an incomprehensible amount of debt to the largest communist nation on the planet, less than 2% of the population in our nation controls 90% or more of the "wealth" in our nation (and, not unexpectedly, this trend is world-wide). A large portion of that 2% in control of our country's finances are directly or indirectly involved in all aspects of the government of our country.
Simply put, the people in power have too much and won't give it up without putting up a major fight.
When I joined the Army I took an oath to defend my nation from all enemies, both foreign AND domestic, and I'll stand by that oath until death. It saddens me a great deal to say this, but in standing by my oath I feel a great sense of loneliness. I don't want to "settle for a crumb, or a picture of a crumb" as you call it, but when you're one logical voice in a thousand that simply don't care anymore (if they ever did... career politicians have been a problem since this country was founded, as is evidenced by the history of the constitution itself), it becomes an overwhelming prospect. There is no unifying plan or purpose to the RKBA movement, or what could be called the American Freedom movement (in reference to fighting for all our infringed rights rather than simply the RKBA alone), and the NRA and every other anti-infringement organization in the country are unable or unwilling to truly lead such drastic reform.
I suppose what I'm saying is that we're limited to working within the current law system (constitutional or not is NOT the issue here... we're stuck with what we have right now), we don't have the "intestinal fortitude" to stand up as a people and reclaim our nation. I'm not saying that individuals here and there don't have it, but that without unity, it simply won't happen, and even if we get a good start the media will rip it to shreds by picking out the least desirable examples of the movement and draw as much attention to the worst aspects of the movement, thus keeping the general population confused and indecisive.
Now I'm starting to get into some tinfoil hattery so I'm going to stop here, but I think you see where I'm going Woody. I might be willing to work within the system, but only because for the time being there's no other way. When it's required, I'll be standing proudly to defend my nation.
*Edit to add: These are my own opinions based on my own perception of the way things are. This post in no way reflects the ideas, beliefs or stance of TheHighRoad.org, THR affiliates, Advertisers, members or anyone else. I attempted to keep my post as non-political as possible concerning the subject matter.
Simply put, the people in power have too much and won't give it up without putting up a major fight.
When I joined the Army I took an oath to defend my nation from all enemies, both foreign AND domestic, and I'll stand by that oath until death. It saddens me a great deal to say this, but in standing by my oath I feel a great sense of loneliness. I don't want to "settle for a crumb, or a picture of a crumb" as you call it, but when you're one logical voice in a thousand that simply don't care anymore (if they ever did... career politicians have been a problem since this country was founded, as is evidenced by the history of the constitution itself), it becomes an overwhelming prospect. There is no unifying plan or purpose to the RKBA movement, or what could be called the American Freedom movement (in reference to fighting for all our infringed rights rather than simply the RKBA alone), and the NRA and every other anti-infringement organization in the country are unable or unwilling to truly lead such drastic reform.
I suppose what I'm saying is that we're limited to working within the current law system (constitutional or not is NOT the issue here... we're stuck with what we have right now), we don't have the "intestinal fortitude" to stand up as a people and reclaim our nation. I'm not saying that individuals here and there don't have it, but that without unity, it simply won't happen, and even if we get a good start the media will rip it to shreds by picking out the least desirable examples of the movement and draw as much attention to the worst aspects of the movement, thus keeping the general population confused and indecisive.
Now I'm starting to get into some tinfoil hattery so I'm going to stop here, but I think you see where I'm going Woody. I might be willing to work within the system, but only because for the time being there's no other way. When it's required, I'll be standing proudly to defend my nation.
*Edit to add: These are my own opinions based on my own perception of the way things are. This post in no way reflects the ideas, beliefs or stance of TheHighRoad.org, THR affiliates, Advertisers, members or anyone else. I attempted to keep my post as non-political as possible concerning the subject matter.
Last edited:
No, but it demonstrates a path that can be used to pass other laws.
It is not about constraining or endorsing future bills, but about establishing that there is (once again) no limit on the power of congress.
We used to have actual Congress Critters that at least payed SOME attention to the enumerated powers the Federal government is granted.
Bird was well known for carrying a pocket copy of the Constitution all the time, and actually objecting to bills that he thought did not comply.
Every time a law is passed that exceeds the enumerated powers it further opens the door for the next one.
chubcobear
Member
Senate
will kill it.
will kill it.
It can say what it wants, that does not establish anything beyond what the author decided to put down.
Courts can review it, but it is a long expensive process to get it up to the Supreme Court.
Sorry, I spelled it wrong, but you have never heard of Robert Byrd?
Better hit some newspapers.
You're right. It would need to be challenged in the courts as to its constitutionality. But I don't see any issue with it and I think anyone challenging it will have a tough time.
People here love to claim this or that is "unconstitutional". In this context "unconstitutional" means "it doesnt accord with what I think the Constitution ought to say. That and a quarter won't get you on the bus.
You mean Robert "Sheets" Byrd of WV. Yeah, so what?
People here love to claim this or that is "unconstitutional". In this context "unconstitutional" means "it doesnt accord with what I think the Constitution ought to say. That and a quarter won't get you on the bus.
You mean Robert "Sheets" Byrd of WV. Yeah, so what?
Birch Knoll
Member
But, as Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd, he was perfectly OK with denying blacks their constitutional rights.
Some constitutional hero he was.
Birch Knoll
Member
ttolhurst said:
As promised, I contacted the Maine State Police to ask if the Maryland online course would satisfy Maine's CCW training requirement. The detective I spoke with contacted his colleagues in Maryland and determined that the Maryland course, which is intended solely for the purchase of firearms in Maryland, does not meet the criteria for safety training under Maine's law, and would not be accepted as satisfactory proof of training.
So, no; you cannot get a Maine CCW with a 10- or 20-minute online training course.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Do any of you supporters of this bill realize it has no provisions in it to enforce it, to fund enforcement, or to restrict the Courts from prosecuting anyone arrested who might be in full compliance of this bill but in violation of a law it supersedes?
In such a case, you might have good standing with an affirmative defense, but what will it cost you? Do you believe Bloomberg or any one of his troop of Mayors Against Guns(paraphrased) would let you simply walk by waving this bill around?
Woody
In such a case, you might have good standing with an affirmative defense, but what will it cost you? Do you believe Bloomberg or any one of his troop of Mayors Against Guns(paraphrased) would let you simply walk by waving this bill around?
Woody
- Status
