Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Feinstein Tries to Thwart National Right to Carry / nra-ila

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    why?
    Posts
    432

    Feinstein Tries to Thwart National Right to Carry / nra-ila

    This week, anti-gun Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif. moonbat ) did her part to thwart passage of national Right-to-Carry laws by putting a "hold" on the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012, and the Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012.

    LINK: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...-to-carry.aspx

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by scott58dh View Post
    This week, anti-gun Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif. moonbat ) did her part to thwart passage of national Right-to-Carry laws by putting a "hold" on the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012, and the Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012.

    LINK: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...-to-carry.aspx
    The must carry photo ID act?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    The "hold" does not prevent passage of the bills; it just prevents the legislation from passing by an already unlikely "unanimous consent" vote.
    So she's posturing for the cameras.

    In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) Feinstein called the bills "dangerous" and said that they would "create potentially life threatening situations for law enforcement officers." She also cited the controversial Trayvon Martin shooting as one of her reasons for trying to sabotage the bills.
    And she's unable to look at evidence, experience from the dozens of states where nothing bad happens when law-abiding people carry however best suits them.

    The only bad stuff that happens is to the criminals, & I can't exactly see that as a problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783
    She is the modern definition of a "liberal" Who believes that the Constitution is a living,breathing document to mold into some european type document,she believes our freedoms come from Gov. NOT our creator,that means they(the Gov.) can take them away.She believes in equality that those who are successful must give a portion of their success to the less successful, but, since she worked so damn hard for her title,she is NOT required to give any of her wealth to any one else, liberals believe our founding fathers were terrorists. So none of this is a surprise. If she didnt try,some other libtard whould stick their nose in it, remember, the libtards know more whats best for us, so we just need to sit down and shut up.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    The must carry photo ID act?
    +1 !!

    Any talk of national right-to-carry is bullhockey spin by somebody, probably NRA. Especially spin if it involves any sort of permit or licensing (which this current proposal does) instead of constitutional carry.

    It can't really be a right-to-carry if it can be licensed or permit-ed, now can it?

    You see, we already have a national right-to-carry. Its called the 2nd Amendment and under Heller is incorporated against the states by way of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. If the fedgov truly wanted to give life to the national right to carry, it would just enforce constitutional carry on the states. It really is that simple. No other machinations needed.
    Last edited by Citizen; 04-22-2012 at 04:23 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    All good points!

    All good points!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    why?
    Posts
    432

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court said,,,

    Grande dame of the Court’s liberal voting bloc,

    “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”

    “[I]ts influence is waning, It is “terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights.”

    Her personal recommendations would instead include “the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the European Convention on Human Rights.”

    http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ar...tution&st=&ps=

    “ just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right "
    Obama, 08'
    Last edited by scott58dh; 04-23-2012 at 12:50 AM.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by scott58dh View Post
    Grande dame of the Court’s liberal voting bloc,

    “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”

    “[I]ts influence is waning, It is “terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights.”

    Her personal recommendations would instead include “the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the European Convention on Human Rights.”

    http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ar...tution&st=&ps=

    “ just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right "
    Obama, 08'
    Oh, really!?!

    On the one hand, she's absolutely right. The constitution guarantees relatively few rights. Certainly, there are no penalties for individual government members who violate the rights it does mention; so by that light it doesn't even really guarantee the ones it does mention. But, there is also no mention of economic rights. No mention of a right to stable money. No mention of a right to use whichever currency the market decides is best. No mention of a right to not have government meddling and screwing up the economy. No mention of a right against government-authorized and aided predation by a banking cartel (Federal Reserve and its member banks.) No mention...

    On the other hand, the Consitution is a fine place to start. No reason lots of rights can't be incorporated into it while giving teeth to the restrictions on government and diluting its power.
    Last edited by Citizen; 04-23-2012 at 02:01 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

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