Mikes law being blocked by NRA
- Thread starter Pelo801
- Start date
- Status
Even if the trucker owns the truck themselves, the company they are hauling for can require no guns.
Also, a LOT of places have no gun rules. Just because you don't prohibit yourself from having a gun does not mean places that you have to deliver to won't do so and some of those prohibited places carry the force of law. What do you do when you show up at a place that has a sign out front saying NO GUNS and you have a gun in the cab.
jdh
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,375
Dear All or Nothing crowd,
The infringements did not all happen at once. They will not be done away with all at once, especially with the current administration. Just as a sculptor does not start with a block of stone and strike it once to reveal the masterpiece contained within we will not do away with all infringements in one legislative act. Like the sculptor we must chip away at it, taking the victories as we can then moving on to the next.
By refusing to support those intermediate steps you may well get your wish of nothing instead of realizing the goal of all.
The infringements did not all happen at once. They will not be done away with all at once, especially with the current administration. Just as a sculptor does not start with a block of stone and strike it once to reveal the masterpiece contained within we will not do away with all infringements in one legislative act. Like the sculptor we must chip away at it, taking the victories as we can then moving on to the next.
By refusing to support those intermediate steps you may well get your wish of nothing instead of realizing the goal of all.
eazyrider
Member
So what, you mixed up the words truckers and Teamsters? Your first post was one thing and now it's just truckers in general.
BSA1
member
Dear jdh,
Why should we risk the very successful "scupltoring" of concealed carry laws which are now legal in all 50 States and some U.S. Territories?
You want more.Federal Government laws and regulations in your life. That's fine but don't look down at the many of us that do not want the expansion of power by the Federal Government in our lives especially where we are winning on the State level.
Why should we risk the very successful "scupltoring" of concealed carry laws which are now legal in all 50 States and some U.S. Territories?
You want more.Federal Government laws and regulations in your life. That's fine but don't look down at the many of us that do not want the expansion of power by the Federal Government in our lives especially where we are winning on the State level.
gc70
Member
I remember the same arguments when LEOSA was being considered a dozen years ago: "a starting point" - "a foot in the door" - "everybody help us now and we will help you later."
How did that work out?
How did that work out?
USAF_Vet
Member
I've got a couple trucker friends. Both have a Michigan CPL. One is an owner/ operator. Both are prior service, one Marine, one Navy. I'd trust them to carry concealed across state lines with reciprocity.
Also, since it was brought up, the Teamsters union covers a wider spectrum than just truck drivers. Last Teamster I met worked for SVS Optical. Go figure.
Incremental gains is the way we've lost our rights, and it's the way we're winning them back.
Also, since it was brought up, the Teamsters union covers a wider spectrum than just truck drivers. Last Teamster I met worked for SVS Optical. Go figure.
Incremental gains is the way we've lost our rights, and it's the way we're winning them back.
BSA1
member
As long as they are removing restrictive gun laws such as the removing suppressors from the NFA I am all for it.
However when they want to add more Federal authority in a untouched area such as conceal carry I am against it.
In case you missed it Obama said in a news conference just the other day that nobody wants to take your guns away. Didn't he say the same thing about not losing your family Doctor when Obamacare was being passed?
USAF_Vet
Member
Personally, I don't want the feds involved in Concealed Carry, unless it's to grant Permitless/ Constitutional Carry nationwide. I think we should have learned by now that compromise, isn't. They gain, we lose, they're happy, we're not. That's not a compromise. Why do we keep trying to give in to their definition of compromise?
BSA1
member
Dear jdh,
It' s possible. I've been accused of other things also.
I was not attacking you. I am criticizing what I believe is your support for a national conceal carry law. If I am incorrect please post your position and I will gladly retract my post with a apology.
It' s possible. I've been accused of other things also.
I was not attacking you. I am criticizing what I believe is your support for a national conceal carry law. If I am incorrect please post your position and I will gladly retract my post with a apology.
jdh
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,375
I said we need to support each and every attempt to repeal the infringements on the second amendment, even the little changes. Those who think everything that has been enacted beginning with NFA34 can be wiped away overnight with one legislative act, and will accept nothing less, are being unrealistic especially with the current occupant of the White House/lack of a super majority in both houses. If they persist in "an repeal it all now" attitude they run the risk loosing all the intermediate gains we could have made.
Concealed carry laws were a step. The "blood will run in the streets" crowd has been proven wrong. LEOSA was a step. Open carry is gaining momentum. Without CC and LEOSA open carry would still be a dream. One more step toward "constitutional carry". In post 2 gc70 asked "Which would you prefer - nationwide reciprocity for everyone or a carve-out for a special group?" My answer would be neither. BUT if we can win one more small step with "Mike's Law" on the way to national reciprocity, on the way to nation wide constitutional carry then we should support the passage of this increment then begin work on the next step.
The Hearing Protection act would never been introduced without out those little steps coming before it. WE need to support this bill. It may lead to the loosening of the restrictions on other NFA items if successful. Possibly even the eventual repeal of NFA34/GCA68.
Take what we can get as we can get them. Lend your support to the battles no matter how small the victory may appear to be, then eventually the war will be won.
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
Concealed carry laws were a step. The "blood will run in the streets" crowd has been proven wrong. LEOSA was a step. Open carry is gaining momentum. Without CC and LEOSA open carry would still be a dream. One more step toward "constitutional carry". In post 2 gc70 asked "Which would you prefer - nationwide reciprocity for everyone or a carve-out for a special group?" My answer would be neither. BUT if we can win one more small step with "Mike's Law" on the way to national reciprocity, on the way to nation wide constitutional carry then we should support the passage of this increment then begin work on the next step.
The Hearing Protection act would never been introduced without out those little steps coming before it. WE need to support this bill. It may lead to the loosening of the restrictions on other NFA items if successful. Possibly even the eventual repeal of NFA34/GCA68.
Take what we can get as we can get them. Lend your support to the battles no matter how small the victory may appear to be, then eventually the war will be won.
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
Last edited:
SBTC,
I see no reason that your bill would have any better chance than any other attempt at federally imposing reciprocity since states that refuse to recognize the carry permits of another state are well aware that they're in violation of the 14th's equal protection clause. The trucker's personal firearm isn't protected under the commerce clause because it is a personal weapon and not involved in commerce so the commerce clause argument is weakened by the personal aspect.
You'd be much better off organizing a trucker's boycott of those states that refuse to recognize other state's carry permits. Cut off the flow of goods, or slow them down, and you'd see more response.
I see no reason that your bill would have any better chance than any other attempt at federally imposing reciprocity since states that refuse to recognize the carry permits of another state are well aware that they're in violation of the 14th's equal protection clause. The trucker's personal firearm isn't protected under the commerce clause because it is a personal weapon and not involved in commerce so the commerce clause argument is weakened by the personal aspect.
You'd be much better off organizing a trucker's boycott of those states that refuse to recognize other state's carry permits. Cut off the flow of goods, or slow them down, and you'd see more response.
Last edited:
BSA1
member
jdh,
Thank you for clarfying your position.
I support the Hearing Protection.Act because it eliminates one less infringement on the 2A.
I will not support Mikes Law as it gives the Federal Government authority to regulate something they do not currently have any say in. Whoever supports Mikes Law supports the expansion of power of the Federal Government. It really is just that simple.
We have won a lot more battles the State level than we have lost. The 10th Amendment is being revived from the dead much to the dismay of the powers that be in Washington, D.C.
So where we disagree is I say no to any gun law that expands the power of the Federal Government in citizens lives.
Thank you for clarfying your position.
I support the Hearing Protection.Act because it eliminates one less infringement on the 2A.
I will not support Mikes Law as it gives the Federal Government authority to regulate something they do not currently have any say in. Whoever supports Mikes Law supports the expansion of power of the Federal Government. It really is just that simple.
We have won a lot more battles the State level than we have lost. The 10th Amendment is being revived from the dead much to the dismay of the powers that be in Washington, D.C.
So where we disagree is I say no to any gun law that expands the power of the Federal Government in citizens lives.
Instead of attacking the NRA (who stated they SUPPORT Mike's Law AND National Reciprocity) we should be calling BS on those who are claiming the NRA is attempting to block this bill without any facts. We should consider how this just might be propaganda used to divide us against each other and in particular, to undermine our support of the NRA, the most powerful group to defend our rights.
I lost respect for the writer criticizing the NRA as soon as the headlines cried about the blood of the dead trucker being on the hands of the NRA, then went on to accuse the NRA of lying instead of questioning the source of their information and contacting the NRA to find out if they actually were blocking this bill and why
I lost respect for the writer criticizing the NRA as soon as the headlines cried about the blood of the dead trucker being on the hands of the NRA, then went on to accuse the NRA of lying instead of questioning the source of their information and contacting the NRA to find out if they actually were blocking this bill and why
JohnBT
Member
"you mixed up the words truckers and Teamsters"
I've known the difference since, oh, 1952. I do predict that will be the perception by both the general public and the people voting on it. Wait and see what happens. Facts don't matter much when it comes to passing laws.
John
I've known the difference since, oh, 1952. I do predict that will be the perception by both the general public and the people voting on it. Wait and see what happens. Facts don't matter much when it comes to passing laws.
John
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked