National CCW for those supporting states right

Status
Not open for further replies.
Isnt the (supposed) requirement of registering to vote to be for the purpose to make sure you are legal to vote (for ex, 18+ and a citizen)?
 
I have to register in order to vote. Does that mean you want me to have to register before I can own firearms?
Click to expand...
Why not, your voter registration could be your "carry permit" The Feds step in all the time to force states to lower the bar for voting rights, if you can vote, you should be able to own and carry a firearm!


Nothing wrong with verifying:

You are who you say you are.
You are 18 for a long gun, 21 for a hand gun.
Not a felon.
A legal citizen.
 
OK, there is now a Federal Law that says, says what? Does it decree Constitutional Carry for all? Does it demand background checks and set fees? Does it say you have to show proof that you took and passed an approved course of training and carry Liability Insurance? Does it grant permits to carry Smart Guns only?
 
boom boom said:
Dog Soldier,
This is a quick and dirty take. The decision that limited the Bill of Right's application to the federal government was Barron v. Baltimore. That, along with other decisions such as Dred Scott, was effectively nullified by the 14th Amendment. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has disfavored actually employing the original meaning of the privileges and immunities clause in the original Constitution and the later wording in the 14th. One of those privileges was firearm ownership according to congressional debates at the time. However, after the Slaughterhouse cases, the Supreme Court effectively wrote that part of the 14th out of the Constitution. Thus, we get the current selective incorporation dance with current Supreme Court jurisprudence--under McDonald v City of Chicago, the 2nd amendment applies to the states--period. Second, given that state restrictions on travelers has effectively been effectively circumvented via the Commerce clause (see Heart of Dixie Motel decision among others), regulations that tend to hinder interstate travel by states can be overcome by congressional legislation using its commerce clause power. So yes, Congress has the power under the Commerce clause to override state regulations for travelers as sufficient nexus has already been established by previous FOPA with the safe passage provisions overriding state laws already. In addition, Congress certainly has the power to stop New York city from harassing travelers with firearms who land at their airports during unscheduled stops and charging them with firearm crimes when they have to take possession of their firearms due to flight delays.
Click to expand...

In what capacity? The right to keep a gun in your home or the right to carry in 50 states regardless of any state staute? Big difference.

In the last 5 years 100 gun control proposals have been introduced in congress. Not a single one has passed. Congress certainly has the power but the senate consists of 2 senators from every state. There is no democracy there, just a republic. If 41 senators can keep a bill from being voted on you can bet your bottom dollar any new gun legislation isn't going to happen. AWB2 was killed in the senate. May it rest in peace.

You would have better luck in court. If you have the expertise of Alan Gura you might have even odds.
 
Last edited:
Coal Train, I am not really sure about your point. However, yes, the federal government can override state criminal laws if a federal constitutional right is involved or even if a valid constitutional federal law is involved. The issue is that Congress must have that constitutional power in the first place. Both the Commerce clause and the Taxing power involved constitutional powers of the Congress that courts have recognized since the framing. However, it must involve Commerce, which interstate travel distinctly does (see Gibbons v. Ogden, the Shreveport Doctrine, the creation of the ICC, FAA, and so on. If Congress chooses to do so, and the subject area is commerce and not exercising a forbidden power, then Congress can effectively abrogate a state criminal statute by making it non-enforceable. For example, under McGowan v. Maryland (an old case involving blue laws restricting what could be sold on Sunday), state blue laws were held to be constitutional. However, if Congress wanted to, it could forbid states from passing those laws or modify what they could forbid as the linkage would be the stream of commerce theory. Under the extreme in Wickard v. Filburn which was reasserted in Raich v. Gonzalez, the federal government fined a farmer for growing wheat in excess of his allotted acres by the U.S.D.A., even though the farmer did not receive any government money nor did he sell the wheat to anyone (he was a subsistence farmer). The logic is that since he fed the excess wheat to his cows, that would lessen his need to buy grain which if enough people did what the farmer did, it would cause reactions in the wheat market. Thus, the government could regulate because the effects COULD extend across state lines.

Here is a partial list of 948 state laws held to be unconstitutional by the federal courts as of 2008.
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/047-state-laws-held-unconstitutional.html
 
Federal government needs to stay out of states business, have had ccw myself in georgia since 1975. All of the states that border ga, recognize our right to carry, with their own ccw
States in the northeast, and on west coast will never go for feds trying to make them recognize out of state ccw Myself, i stay out of unfriendly states and advise anyone else to do the same, if they carry a pistol .Think right now that georgia has aggrements with 19 other states to honor their ccw and we do the same with theirs. If unfriendly states will coddle illegal aliens, with felonies, what can you expect from people that rule these but anarchy.
Think trumps idea was get all carry states to get together and talk amongst themselves. Otherwise federal government, should stay the hell out of 2nd amendment issues. We need less federal government intervention in issues that should be locally controlled.
Personally, think liberals and others (rhinoes) should worry about their own districts. Not worry about what others do. Noticed ashley judd has taken up liberal causes by her actions on tv in washington, during trumps inauguration.



Common sense has flown out the window.
 
Ttexastom said:
Federal government needs to stay out of states business, have had ccw myself in georgia since 1975. All of the states that border ga, recognize our right to carry, with their own ccw
States in the northeast, and on west coast will never go for feds trying to make them recognize out of state ccw Myself, i stay out of unfriendly states and advise anyone else to do the same, if they carry a pistol .Think right now that georgia has aggrements with 19 other states to honor their ccw and we do the same with theirs. If unfriendly states will coddle illegal aliens, with felonies, what can you expect from people that rule these but anarchy.
Think trumps idea was get all carry states to get together and talk amongst themselves. Otherwise federal government, should stay the hell out of 2nd amendment issues. We need less federal government intervention in issues that should be locally controlled.
Personally, think liberals and others (rhinoes) should worry about their own districts. Not worry about what others do. Noticed ashley judd has taken up liberal causes by her actions on tv in washington, during trumps inauguration.



Common sense has flown out the window.
Click to expand...


So if some state decides to start charging a poll tax you're ok with that? Or say Utah decides that everyone who lives in Utah has to pay tithe to the LDS church, you're ok with that?
 
Don't know where you are coming from asking a question like thatl. Who mentioned a poll tax. That sounds like something coming from a liberal.
Tax for what, and to who. We don't pay ridicoulous taxes like that in georgia. We can get along with other states without a tax. Would you want the federal government to control guns. Your response makes me think you are from california not texas. Who mentioned taxes to start with. Why would you even think something like that. Go back and read my comments, guess you would think that colleges playing sports must be taxed. Where are you really from?????
 
The Feds already controls on guns.

I doubt you're upet over the $1.3 Billion GA received in highway funds from the Feds.

It seems you just want to pick and choose when you want the Feds in your states affairs and not that you want the Feds out.

THAT'S a liberals take on the Constitution as well. Pick and choose when and how they want it applied.


Where are you really from?
 
Never asked of anything from federal government. Keep their money and i will keep mine. The reason small towns have dried up and blown away is from federal intervention, in nafta. This came from bush and clinton. Sound like you want federal control also. National gun regristration is the first step in gun confiscation.
Wake up, do you want the federal government controlling guns. Look at what they have done to the post office, veterans hospitals and the economy. Ronald reagan said that the best way was for government to stay out of the way. Look at what the epa has done with lead smelters
 
It sounds like you like to misconstrue what other people say.

Youve never asked the Feds for nothing? Not even to give you back your taxes when you file?

But come on... be realistic.

The fact is the Feds are part of your life and you and your family have relied on them and benefited from them in many ways and at many points in your life whether or not you want to admit it.
 
Highways get paved through excise taxes. Drove a truck for many years thru a lot of states. Sound like you think the government can stand on its own, and we get permission from them to pave roads. Without states money the federal government cannot exist
 
Ttexastom said:
Don't know where you are coming from asking a question like thatl. Who mentioned a poll tax.
Click to expand...
Around here we often use examples and analogies to explain our points of view.

You said that the federal government should stay out of states' business. Cannibul simply raised an example of a matter where the federal government has stepped in to enforce an interpretation of the rights of the citizen protected by the Constitution, when some states didn't want to extend those rights to everyone. A poll tax is a tax a citizen must pay in order to be allowed to vote. Some states liked to use that, many years ago, to prevent poor and other undesirable people from exercising that right. The federal government exercises its power to say that NO, no citizen's right to vote for his/her leaders may NOT be restricted by having to scratch up enough money to pay a tax.

So Cannibul's point is that if we consider the phase "to bear", as found in the 2nd Amendment, to mean that a citizen should be able to carry his or her firearms throughout daily life, then many states are putting restrictions on that, even completely disallowing it, and it would be within the power granted to the federal government to put a stop to such an "infringement." Just as the federal government put a stop to segregation, or slavery, even though various states shouted that those were issues of states' rights.

That's where he's "coming from" and his point is absolutely worth serious consideration, even if you don't agree at first look.
That sounds like something coming from a liberal
Click to expand...
If you want to participate here, you'll need to dispense with name calling. And you'll find that throwing around the term "liberal" doesn't help you win any arguments or convince anyone of anything.
 
Having worked in chicago, los angeles, portland, new york city and boston and many other anti-gun cities. Can't imagine carrying a weapon in there. Bubba sticks out like a sore thumb. If thats what people want to do, hope trump grants the wish. Hope no offense taken, but wonder what people think when the sanctuary cities will not obey immigration laws, do you think they will obey
This law. Without excise tax, heavy road use tax and taxes from gasoline sales, no roads would be paved.!!!
 
Politically speaking it just isn't in the cards. Back in 2008 President elect Obama swept in with 60 Senators in his party, President Trump has 52. He just doesn't have the political ammunition to move anything gun related. He can stop further regulations in its tracks but that's about it.
 
Well maybe? But during Obama's tenure the Left has lost heavily in the Congress and state houses. There are 10 Democrats in states that have gone to Trump.
We can not call the fight before it begins. I suspect many Dems will have to support the 2nd Amendment. :thumbup:
 
Ttexastom said:
Poll tax, why was racism drug into a gun discussion
Click to expand...

An infringement on a constitutional right is being used as an argument for another infringement. It shouldn't really be that tough to grasp the concept. I can't really see how that could go over anyone's head.
 
Poll tax, why was racism drug into a gun discussion
Click to expand...
Please go back and read post 65.

If we are ok with the federal government exercising its power to stop states from doing things we all (now) consider heinous infringements on civil rights, like imposing racist and classist voting restrictions, why are we NOT ok with the federal government (of WE, the people) being asked to use its power to stop states from infringing another very clearly spelled out right, the right to BEAR (not just "keep") arms?

You cannot say that the federal government should NEVER intervene in a matter that might be "states' rights" unless you feel that it was inappropriate for it to force the states to de-segregate schools, and so forth.

Sometimes WE want the federal government to stop states from treading on citizens' freedoms. Sometimes that's the federal government's JOB. That's why the Bill of Rights was written.
 
Ttexastom said:
Myself, i stay out of unfriendly states and advise anyone else to do the same, if they carry a pistol .
Click to expand...
Ok, that's great for you. Do you think that everyone here, or everyone who might like to be able to defend themselves, lives where you live, or in a state like yours? (Not that Texas is particularly gun-friendly, compared to some places.)

Are you actually suggesting that if you want to use your 2nd Amendment rights you really aught to move away from your home to some other place so you can do that?

Having worked in chicago, los angeles, portland, new york city and boston and many other anti-gun cities. Can't imagine carrying a weapon in there. Bubba sticks out like a sore thumb. If thats what people want to do, hope trump grants the wish.
Click to expand...
This might be a surprise, but many of us don't look or act like "Bubba." Many of us live and work in and around major cities and get along quite well there, without sticking out like a sore thumb.

Some of your new friends here at THR are city folks. Some are black, white, Asian, Latino, straight, gay, liberal, conservative, centrist, Ford, Chevy, BMW, Honda ... whatever. We come from all walks.

And we firmly believe that no matter where you live or what you look or act like you should have the right to go armed for your own protection.
 
Sam1911 said:
Around here we often use examples and analogies to explain our points of view.

You said that the federal government should stay out of states' business. Cannibul simply raised an example of a matter where the federal government has stepped in to enforce an interpretation of the rights of the citizen protected by the Constitution, when some states didn't want to extend those rights to everyone. A poll tax is a tax a citizen must pay in order to be allowed to vote. Some states liked to use that, many years ago, to prevent poor and other undesirable people from exercising that right. The federal government exercises its power to say that NO, no citizen's right to vote for his/her leaders may NOT be restricted by having to scratch up enough money to pay a tax.

So Cannibul's point is that if we consider the phase "to bear", as found in the 2nd Amendment, to mean that a citizen should be able to carry his or her firearms throughout daily life, then many states are putting restrictions on that, even completely disallowing it, and it would be within the power granted to the federal government to put a stop to such an "infringement." Just as the federal government put a stop to segregation, or slavery, even though various states shouted that those were issues of states' rights.

That's where he's "coming from" and his point is absolutely worth serious consideration, even if you don't agree at first look.

If you want to participate here, you'll need to dispense with name calling. And you'll find that throwing around the term "liberal" doesn't help you win any arguments or convince anyone of anything.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting what I would have had to post. It seems that Ttexastom might be trolling.
 
Hmmm, lots of good arguments made here. Think i heard the same argument from chuck schumer when he was giving his speech during the trump inauguration. No one believes in the constitution no more than myself. Some of you have elevated yourselves above me, as being, a slow dimwitted redneck, as thinking you had to explain everything to me because i was slow.
If you think that the public will accept, you wearing a gun in places where a gun has been taboo for hundreds of years think again. When you aligned yourself with trump, you became bubba in the general public.
Shame that were both on the same side but you can not see that. Just because you get a permit to wear a gun in new yorkcity, philadelphia, chicago, detroit, that a permit will be magic think again. This is a culture problem, because the general public has been brainwashed, to believe, that anyone with a gun is an automatic lunatic out to mass kill. If you wanted a expert on the constitution affairs, you voted for the wrong man. Ted cruz was who i voted for because he has had vast experience in constitutional affairs. Wonder if my location had been north rather than south, would you have jumped on me so quick. Just remember this, you voted for trump. Now you are bubba to the general public. The masses will view you as the new redneck. A day will come when north and south will have to pull together but attitudes have to change before this can happen.
Gun control is culture problem, not a govermental problem. When the areas affected quit voting in masses for these anti gun politicans, things will change. Go to your public, plead your case and with time maybe they will change.
Not a north vs south problem.
 
You will have to throw the stinkers out of office for this to happen. People were unhappy with Democrats in georgia. Our government was the problem, but it took many years for this to happen. This was done on a grass roots level, not a small task. The general public was not happy with our ruling class, since they representing deseggregation, dening voting rights to minorities. This was done with getting the message out at the water cooler, family reunions, around the dinner table etc. I have been judged for what my ruling class did, not the will of the people. I don't judge anyone on this forum for what pataki, hillary clinton, and elizabeth warren did or giving poison water to people in michigan did because this was what the government did, not the general population that did this.when you look in the mirror and accept responsibility . It took georgia voters 30 years to get rid of the stinkers. Glad to be above judging you on sex crimes and money laundering, thing that your government did not you. When these attitudes change, we can become a unified country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
National CCW reciprocity
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
goon
G
S
  • Locked
Nevada Bill to allow Out of State CCW's Pending
Replies
6
Views
555
Standing Wolf
S
A
  • Locked
How does National CCW Reciprocity work with states that are Constitutional Carry?
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Spats McGee
Spats McGee
T
  • Locked
State statistics on CCW
Replies
4
Views
416
The Unknown User
T
KBintheSLC
  • Locked
HR 197 - Nation-Wide CCW Reciprocity
Replies
3
Views
337
Jorg Nysgerrig
J
Back
Top