Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017

  1. #11
    grower's Avatar
    grower is offline Tree of Liberty Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The South
    Posts
    17,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherree View Post
    Federal law imposing itself on State's rights?
    Kind of like this?

    ~ Let's pause and say hello to the rogue intelligence agencies currently monitoring these threads. Was the money worth it? ~

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    8,029

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grower
    Kind of like this?

    Yeah. I don't like the idea of the Fed Gov imposing their will over state's rights. It may seem a good thing in this instance, but it could go terribly wrong in the future. Either we stand for state's rights or we don't.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NEMS
    Posts
    4,943

    Default

    I have to say grower, the second one down on the right, just doesn't come across as conceal carry. There's 4 guys standing around it and you can still see it. LOL

    Is the third one down on the left Atlanta? And is a good example of Federal anything.

    The next one over is some of the gang going hunting, right?

    LOL just poking at you.
    Wise Men Still Seek Him

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    5,058

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherree View Post
    Federal law imposing itself on State's rights?
    They take a big bite out of the words " and bear" in 2A then give a few crumbs back in the form of a regulation and call it freedom.
    There is a great danger that people are taking refuge in magical thinking, which today takes one of four forms: the far right, the far left, religious extremism and aggressive secularism. The far right seeks a return to a golden past that never was. The far left seeks a utopian future that will never be. Religious extremists believe you can bring salvation by force. Aggressive secularists believe that if you get rid of religion there will be peace. -Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    8,029

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiskey Reb
    They take a big bite out of the words " and bear" in 2A then give a few crumbs back in the form of a regulation and call it freedom.
    Yep.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiskey Reb View Post
    They take a big bite out of the words " and bear" in 2A then give a few crumbs back in the form of a regulation and call it freedom.
    And we're "OK" with it. They keep taking because we don't stand up and say, "ENOUGH!"

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    5,058

    Default

    Most everyone i know who carries is giddy about it. Thankful for the win....
    There is a great danger that people are taking refuge in magical thinking, which today takes one of four forms: the far right, the far left, religious extremism and aggressive secularism. The far right seeks a return to a golden past that never was. The far left seeks a utopian future that will never be. Religious extremists believe you can bring salvation by force. Aggressive secularists believe that if you get rid of religion there will be peace. -Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    N.E. Ohio
    Posts
    17,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grower View Post
    Kind of like this?

    You do have a way about you, grower. Well done, IMHO.
    ---------------------------------------------------
    And, it's gone!

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories, Former USA
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    This isn't a gun forum, so I will do my best not to condescend about what the problems with the reciprocity bill are for those who carry in the first place, or cross state lines often enough for the bill to give them any benefit, if indeed, there are any benefits to be had in the second place.

    First, the following language clearly establishes HR 38 not as a bill steeped in adherence by government in The Peoples' rights under the Second Amendment, but as one firmly planted in the authority of government to regulate under the Interstate Commerce Clause:

    ....a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

    ....(the rest at link above)
    The problem as I see it is not so much about states' rights as it is about unwitting gun owners not realizing that when they support this bill, they are supporting a defacto repeal of the Second Amendment that will be consumed by government's powers of regulation under the Commerce Clause. As literally every ruling which expanded the very limited intended authorities of the Commerce Clause quite clearly demonstrates, government never stops at simply getting its camel's nose under the tent, in fact, they don't even stop once the whole camel gets inside that tent, they only stop once another bureaucracy is created that has total control over the issue(s) that seemed so innocuous and limited in scope when it was first passed and/or ruled on by the Supremes. As the Commerce Clause can give, so too can it taketh away. Passage of this bill will eventually strip the Second Amendment of all power and meaning once the Supremes uphold it, and after the baseline case upon which all Commerce Clause overreach has been based ever since, the Commerce Clause will do to gun owners and (perhaps especially) carriers what Wickard v. Filburn did to intrastate family farming, which I'm sure several members here can attest that it quashed many of their previously-enjoyed freedoms.

    There are no rights being expanded or protected within HR 38. It's just another among many Trojan Horses government has created intending to get gun owners to volunteer to have their rights (such as they are) replaced by the authority of government to regulate. Don't be fooled. Don't consent. Don't cheer if/when HR 38 passes, mourn the death knell for the Constitution that passage will represent. I am not engaging in hyperbole here. Research how abused the Commerce Clause has been if you don't already know. You will rue the day this passes without your strong and loud voices against it.

    Blues
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to Police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    5,058

    Default

    As a human being, business person, farmer and American, I'm not aware of many greater enemies as the commerce clause as currently interpreted.
    There is a great danger that people are taking refuge in magical thinking, which today takes one of four forms: the far right, the far left, religious extremism and aggressive secularism. The far right seeks a return to a golden past that never was. The far left seeks a utopian future that will never be. Religious extremists believe you can bring salvation by force. Aggressive secularists believe that if you get rid of religion there will be peace. -Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •