FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
FOPA is what you're thinking of I'm guessing?
House Panel clears National Carry
- Thread starter usmarine0352_2005
- Start date
- Status
FOPA is what you're thinking of I'm guessing?
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Bubba613 said:
Not at all!
FIVETWOSEVEN said:
That works for me. We lost the ability to purchase a machine gun manufactured after the 1986 date the FOPA passed. That's the kind of "progress" we can do without.
Woody
"Revolution is the Right of the People to preserve or restore Freedom. Those vested with power shall neither deprive the People the means, nor compel such recourse." B.E.Wood
DoubleTapDrew
Member
Well hopefully we'll be able to watch this one more closely and make sure there aren't any hinky late night votes on amendments, and if there are, DEMAND (this time) they are removed or kill the bill.
Truthseeker
Member
Bubba, you're right.
Reid has been OK on guns, but the Senate is at the point where you need 60 votes to avoid a filibuster and there's no way the Dems will pass this. It will never get out of the Senate.
Reid has been OK on guns, but the Senate is at the point where you need 60 votes to avoid a filibuster and there's no way the Dems will pass this. It will never get out of the Senate.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
That's easy. Add the Respect for Marriage Act onto it, and it'll pass like National Parks carry.
Iramo94
Member
Call it the "Assurance of Personal Freedom Act of 2011".
I can see that happening.
crossrhodes
Member
Pipe dream
It will never happen!!!...unless it's attached to the health care bill. LOL
It will never happen!!!...unless it's attached to the health care bill. LOL
230therapy
Member
It really depends upon whether or not they attach conditions to the permit. As soon as they do that--it's over for me. Once conditions are established, there is no limit to what they can add. I refuse to submit to any psychological examinations...or anything else...just for "national" carry.
EXACTLY!
GCA 1968 uses the commerce clause in the Constitution to VIOLATE the Second Amendment!
EXACTLY!
GCA 1968 uses the commerce clause in the Constitution to VIOLATE the Second Amendment!
Last edited:
Prince Yamato
Member
I think 3 people in total have actually read this bill. The rest of you seem to have "read" it in your minds. Read the bill. It's pretty clear about what it does and doesn't do.
The bill is a GOOD thing. It's also backed by the NRA.
The bill is a GOOD thing. It's also backed by the NRA.
crossrhodes
Member
If it sounds to good to be true.......
tyeo098
Member
It seems we are our own worst enemy.
Last edited:
Birch Knoll
Member
It doesn't seem nearly too good to be true. It's just pretty good.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Prince Yamato said:
The biggest "doesn't do" is abide the Constitution. As for this bill being backed by the NRA, it wouldn't be the first time the NRA has made a bad call. Everyone needs to look beyond their eagerness. Hansel and Gretal had to kill the witch to escape the Gingerbread House, or don't you remember?
Beware politicians bearing "gifts". That's right, "gift". We're not looking for a handout from Congress, we're looking for Congress to unfetter our rights and freedoms. Don't settle for less, because all you'll ever get from the Federal Government is less.
Woody
Dnaltrop
Member
Cowboy, the way I look at it....
Most states already have a permit process in place we are extremely unlikely to see abolished.
If the bill truly only forces acceptance of each states ID, which is how the bill has read to my eyes....
As long as the visitor conforms to the laws of the state they visit, and without that state's laws being forced to either loosen, or restrict their own permit process further...
To me it reads as a federal open admission of the 2nd amendment right to Carry, not just the right to possess being extant in all 50 states, and a step CLOSER to your dream of permit free carry.
We'll see license free driving before we see firearm cards of any kind abolished. Just being realistic there.
Most states already have a permit process in place we are extremely unlikely to see abolished.
If the bill truly only forces acceptance of each states ID, which is how the bill has read to my eyes....
As long as the visitor conforms to the laws of the state they visit, and without that state's laws being forced to either loosen, or restrict their own permit process further...
To me it reads as a federal open admission of the 2nd amendment right to Carry, not just the right to possess being extant in all 50 states, and a step CLOSER to your dream of permit free carry.
We'll see license free driving before we see firearm cards of any kind abolished. Just being realistic there.
Birch Knoll
Member
Stepwise gains in our gun rights aren't pure enough for everyone. If we can't have it all, and right now, it's tainted, and we should reject it. With vigor. At least, that seems to be the theory.
wally
Member
Much as I like the idea, I don't think its fundamentally any better an idea than a law to force all States to accept MA, NY, & CA gay marriages would be.
But, perhaps therein lies the compromise to get it through the Senate and signed by the O.
Prince Yamato
Member
Yep. That's how I see it too.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
dnaltrop said:
Congress has recognized the Second Amendment before this, and this bill does not take one step toward permit-less carry. It does, in fact, RECOGNIZE and INCORPORATE all those unconstitutional state requirements forcing We the People to obtain a permit or license to carry a gun concealed. It's Congress saying that it is constitutional for the several states to require those permits flush in the face of the Second Amendment's prohibition on government from infringing our RKBA.
Does the real freedom we unfettered in Heller and McDonald mean nothing to you folks who are for this bill? Congress is trying to get a lock on our RKBA and this bill will open the door to do just that.
Some of you say this bill includes no requirements, but it does. This bill states you must not be a prohibited person. This bill states that you must have a state permit or license even if your state does not issue one. Even though you are the one to acquire the permit, the gun you carry has to have traveled in interstate or foreign commerce.You can't carry a gun in a state that doesn't allow its residents to carry a gun (Illinois). You must be carrying a government issued ID along with your permit.
Other bills that "promised" to unfetter our rights did no such thing. The FOPA put requirements on how we must transport a gun across state lines. Is that unfettering our RKBA? The FOPA prohibited us from buying any new machine gun manufactured after a certain date in 1986. Is that unfettering our RKBA? The NICS "improvement" bill that passed recently expanded the list of "prohibited persons".
The Lautenburg Amendment that was attached to some other bill added to the list of prohibited persons.
ANY bill that adds to the list of prohibited persons will affect concealed carry because this bill specifically includes that list. All Congress has to do is pass a law that would include more people on that list and now you have more restrictions.
This bill does not unfetter one bit of infringement on our RKBA. It buries it under a layer of federal intervention. It'll placate too many of us into silence who are willing to sacrifice any ability to exercise a right freely in the future for a little limited instant privilege.
There is compromise in this bill that will be-spoil all that those who have fought and died to birth this country and keep her safe and free. The only relevant RKBA compromise was argued and settled 220 years ago when the Second Amendment was ratified. WE HAVE ALL WE WANT AND ALL WE NEED WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT. FIGHT TO GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR RKBA AND SETTLE FOR NOTHING LESS! Now, if we have to remove one infringement at a time, so be it. Congress has the power to that AND ONLY THAT with its power in the Fourteenth Amendment. Push for that and don't be suckered in by this bill. It's nothing more than a placation. Look beyond your desires for immediate gratification. Oppose this bill and make Congress come up with something - ANYTHING - that removes infringements, no matter how small.
Y'all know there are many powerful people in Congress, the Administration and on the Court who would love to strip you of your arms, or at the very least make it damned near impossible for you to keep and bear any arms at all. If this bill has so much support in Congress, why are you not suspicious of this bill? I certainly am! Not only is it unconstitutional, it's the first step for the federal government to see how much federal involvement you'll stand for. If it sticks, they'll go for more. Kill it before it becomes law and grows.
The feds have the NFA, the GCA, and the FOPA already, and the only bill they've passed in favor of the RKBA was the bill that stopped and prevents further frivolous law suits aimed at destroying the arms industry. And, I believe Congress had an ulterior motive in passing that law. It protects the industry that supplies our military and the ever-expanding government agencies with arms.
Kill HR 822 before it becomes law and grows.
Woody
So lemme see: Heller "unfettered" our rights, even while acknowledging that states could put legitimate restrictions on firearms.
This bill recognizes "unconstitutional" permits, even though Heller, which supposedly unfettered our rights, says permits are perfectly Constitutional.
The issue appears to be people wanting to say that this or that is constitutional or unconstitutional because, well, I say it is. Unfortunately the law doesn't work that way, and permits are constitutional not because some keyboard kommando on the internet says one way or another but because the Supreme Court says so.
This bill recognizes "unconstitutional" permits, even though Heller, which supposedly unfettered our rights, says permits are perfectly Constitutional.
The issue appears to be people wanting to say that this or that is constitutional or unconstitutional because, well, I say it is. Unfortunately the law doesn't work that way, and permits are constitutional not because some keyboard kommando on the internet says one way or another but because the Supreme Court says so.
henschman
Member
This is just another example of how there isn't much philosophical difference between republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals. They both may harp on principles and the Constitution when it favors one of their arguments, but ultimately it is all about scoring political points and supporting their agenda at all costs, and either side of the statist coin will violate the constitution and the natural rights of man in order to get their agenda enacted.
I am and always have been strongly opposed to the limitless construction of the Commerce Clause, and I will absolutely not support a law that relies on such a construction just because it falls into a category I usually support, that being "pro-gun legislation."
I am and always have been strongly opposed to the limitless construction of the Commerce Clause, and I will absolutely not support a law that relies on such a construction just because it falls into a category I usually support, that being "pro-gun legislation."
mortablunt
Member
So, any good news from the front?
- Status
