Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 49

Thread: Senate to Vote Next Week on Concealed Carry Reciprocity and other Gun Amendments

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lees Summit
    Posts
    183

    Senate to Vote Next Week on Concealed Carry Reciprocity and other Gun Amendments

    Latest email from Gun Owners of America.....

    Senate to Vote Next Week on Concealed Carry Reciprocity and other Gun Amendments
    -- Sen. Crapo moves to ‘Choke’ Operation Choke Point

    Not a GOA member yet? Make sure to join Gun Owners of America!

    Next week, there will be more gun votes on the floor of the United States Senate than there will be for the rest of the year put together.

    The Senate will vote on an amendment by Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) on whether to eliminate the Operation Choke Point program -- designed by the Obama administration to squeeze the financial life out of the firearms industry.

    In addition, the Senate is expected to vote on whether or not to implement national concealed carry reciprocity. It could vote on whether ATF's ban on AR-15 ammunition should be permanently prohibited. It could vote on whether to make it illegal for the Senate to push semi-auto or magazine bans -- or universal gun registries.

    The vehicle will be the Concurrent Budget Resolution. And it’s perhaps the only time when senators can -- and do -- offer amendments on ANYTHING THEY WANT. And they offer hundreds of amendments.

    But -- and this is an important “but” -- despite the fact that there will be hundreds of amendments, these votes will freeze senators into a “pro-gun” or “anti-gun” position. And, when reciprocity or Choke Point come up again in two or three months, senators will find it almost impossible to shift from the positions they will take on the Budget Resolution next week.

    Remember the UN Arms Trade Treaty? The first vote we forced on this issue was an amendment to the Budget Resolution. And because a majority of senators voted against it on the Budget Resolution, we were able to boomerang this vote into an appropriations rider prohibiting Obama from implementing it by executive fiat.

    So, here's what's going to happen next week.

    We have been authorized to tell you that Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho will offer an amendment to cut off funds for Operation Choke Point. Choke Point, as you remember, was an effort by Eric Holder and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to shut down the firearms industry by cutting off credit from gun dealers and eliminating credit card processing for the Second Amendment community.

    Although Holder, under pressure, removed guns from the list of “high risk” industries that included pornographers, drug paraphernalia, and payday lenders, he is apparently using Choke Point to destroy gun dealers on a case-by-case basis.

    The Crapo amendment is aimed at shutting the program down.

    In addition, we continue to work with senators like Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and others to ensure that the Senate will be forced to vote on reciprocity, ammo bans, and semi-auto and magazine bans. We will e-mail you again as senators authorize us to notify you of their amendments.

    ACTION: Contact both of your senators. Demand that they support Senator Mike Crapo's amendment to prohibit Eric Holder from shutting down the gun industry by cutting off its credit.

  2. #2
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Why? The monkey will just veto it, even on "must pass" legislation. He has an insatiable lust to disarm.

    It is all but impossible to move the ball at the federal level. It hasn't been moved since 1986, and with that move we lost new fully automatic firearms. There are some things that could be changed in light of Heller and I don't understand why nothing has. Bush I's Import Ban EO of 1990 is explicitly unconstitutional. Is Miller still good law? If so, full auto's are not "dangerous and unusual" (whatever neocon Scalia meant by that) and the Hughes amendment is unconstitutional.

    If a neocon is installed as POTUS, then maybe reciprocity will be a possibility. I think it should be a priority. I think legislation saying you can't have gun bans on guns and accessories more strict than federal law would also be worthwhile (the kourts should do this per Heller, but are too corrupt, especially the kourts for places like Kalifornia, Nazi York, Nazi Jersey, etc). Why pushes in these two areas? I think it would give the gun culture a big boost in slave states like Ca, NY, etc. Unfortunately, we need cultural inertia, that's what will keep the anti's up at night, and kill their legislative agendas.
    Last edited by 77zach; 03-23-2015 at 04:53 PM.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    " The monkey will just veto it, "
    Dude, your hood is showing.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    We've discussed this before. Since then a lot of folks (here on OCDO as well as just about everywhere else except perhaps Babysitting in France) and my opinion has not been swayed.

    National reciprocity is a bad thing.

    I say that for the same reasons I said it before, even though I have read everything and considered every opinion offered, as opposed to just checking to see who agreed with me and which stupid poopy-heads did not agree with me.

    It's the federal control, folks. What Congress gives Congress can take away. What Congress says today Congress can amend tomorrow.

    Even though the Concealed Carry crowd seems to be larger than the Open Carry crowd (they have magazines and games and business enterprises devoted to the subject) the combined gun rights crowd is really very small. The NRA may be the big beast in the room, but I don't see how they and their rating system are going to be able to stand up against all the other special interest groups that will be flinging poo and falsehoods. Go to your local gun shop/gun show and start conversations about national reciprocity with the folks who should know better - far too many of them have swallowed the Kool Aide that if it passes felons and domestic violence misdemeanants will be able to get carry permission slips. Ask the folks at the local indoctrination center or their national union headquarters - they will tell you that if it passes folks will be able to carry in schools. Open a discussion with the guy behind to counter at your local adult beverage establishment - and find out that not only will folks be able to drink while strapped but the management will not be allowed to cut them off.

    The fear of any or all of those things coming true will be transmitted to the voters - especially the low-information ones dependent on the free cheese - who will see national reciprocity as a looming threat to their way of life. The community of those who are in favor of some part of the right to have a gun for their own special reason is not likely to come together against just the anti-rights crowd, let alone everyone else who is pushing for national reciprocity.

    More states are changing over to recognizing the permission slip of any other state as being valid. They don't even need to pass a law to do that. And yes, what they do administratively today can be withdrawn tomorrow. But if that happens it will effect just that state, not the whole country at once. If ay two (or 3, or 4, or 47) states want to get together and agree to recognize each other's permission slips they can create an interstate compact just like they did for driver's licenses - and Congress will have the same problems trying to force changes in an interstate compact on permision slips as they have run into when it tried to change the one about driver's licenses.

    While I'd love to not need to spend the dollars and jump through the hoops in order to carry in each of the 57 states while needing one permission slip, I do not see a federal law on natinal reciprocity as the way to get it.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Yep, and congress would obviously delegate rule making authority to which ever agency (ATF?) that would oversee this program.

    No thanks, yet another infringement on states rights. Much simpler to just force the states to abide by the 2nd amendment to the US constitution that they agreed to and was incorporated to them. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
    Last edited by notalawyer; 03-23-2015 at 09:15 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    National reciprocity is a bad thing.



    It's the federal control, folks. What Congress gives Congress can take away. What Congress says today Congress can amend tomorrow.



    stay safe.
    Not sure why people cannot understand this.

    GET RID OF THE ATF!!!!!
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    A couple of counter thoughts:

    0-The use of the term used above to describe the POTUS is needlessly offensive and inflammatory. It gives easy ammo to our opponents to paint gun owners as racist rednecks. "Tyrant-in-chief" or similar terms will convey all of the legitimate disagreements with his grossly unconstitutional over-reach as well as his seemingly anti-American personal views, without handing our opponents such as easy way to dismiss us.

    1-We have made progress since 1986. The federal rule change to allow carry in national parks per the laws of the State in which the park is located was made when? Early 2000s? And it was Obama himself who signed the law into effect that made this statutory. Yes, it was included in a "must sign" credit card law. But it was included, and it was signed.

    2-National reciprocity could be either good or bad, depending on how it is done. Under the combined authority of the 2nd and 14th amendments as held in Heller and McDonald, it is entirely within Congress' power to protect the RKBA against State level infringement just as they have protected 1st amendment freedom of religion against State and local infringements with laws protecting the ability of religious institutions to build houses of worship despite local zoning that would prevent it.

    Since passing various federal freedom of religion protection laws I'm not aware of a single instance of those being taken away, much less being replaced with something bad.

    I'm not aware of ADA laws being rolled back, much less any federal laws that would harm the disabled by requiring businesses not to accommodate.

    With the greatest of respect to Skid, I think his expressed concern about the feds giving and thus taking away being the classic case of the logical fallacy of "slippery slope."

    Congress can pass a law tomorrow restricting concealed carry in all kinds of places including school zones, near sub stations, or anywhere else they think they can get half a justification for "interstate commerce". In addition to how the courts may react to such broad bans in a post-Heller/McDonald world, we also have to remember how congress itself reacts to overt attacks on RKBA in a post 1994 congressional election world.

    It is not the lack of any law about nationwide respect for RKBA that protects us from bad laws from congress. It is the political consequences of bad laws, and to a much smaller degree, federal courts that provide the protection. And I recall something about a good offense being the best defense.

    Ideally, of course, congress would pass a law imposing federal criminal penalties on any State or local official who passed or attempted to enforce any law infringing our RKBA, including any law requiring a permit to carry. And agency or jurisdiction having or attempting to enforce such a law would lose 100% of all federal funding for everything.

    But since I believe incrementalism is a proven strategy for political gains, I would be thrilled if congress would start by requiring States to recognize permits to carry with some minimum standard of where one could carry and States free to have looser laws if they wanted. I can imagine that the bare minimum federal standard would require States to decriminalize carry in public while allowing them to maintain bans on actual school grounds, in government buildings, in bars, and perhaps in businesses that affirmatively posted no guns. That isn't great, but it keep us from becoming felons just for stopping for gas or a night's sleep in one of the People's Republics.

    If a national reciprocity bill is introduced that imposes bad stuff on the good States, we and every other pro-RKBA group opposes it and it fails.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  8. #8
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    Yep, and congress would obviously delegate rule making authority to which every agency (ATF?) that would oversee this program.

    No thanks, yet another infringement on states rights. Much simpler to just force the states to abide by the 2nd amendment to the US constitution that they agreed to and was incorporated to them. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
    The problem is philosophical arguments don't matter anymore. This could be done without involving the ATF at all. Their involvement would certainly not be necessary. I would only support a bill if the ATF were banned from being involved.

    It is simpler to force the states to abide by the 2nd amendment, which would mean national permitless open carry. This will not be done legislatively, probably ever. I think we Floridians know how the court system works. See Norman vs State, which, I was very sad to be proved right about. Presumably you know a lot more about the legal landscape than I do, but I was right, and still maintain that route is a dead end should the Florida Supreme Ct (or even SCOTUS) hear it.

    You get national reciprocity, I think that leads to shall issue in New York and California. Out of their combined 60 million people, you could make a lot more friendlies to guns.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    A couple of counter thoughts:


    Since passing various federal freedom of religion protection laws I'm not aware of a single instance of those being taken away, much less being replaced with something bad.

    I'm not aware of ADA laws being rolled back, much less any federal laws that would harm the disabled by requiring businesses not to accommodate.

    With the greatest of respect to Skid, I think his expressed concern about the feds giving and thus taking away being the classic case of the logical fallacy of "slippery slope."
    Charles -

    Religious freedom and protection of the handicapped are hot-button issues, especially for the low-information voter crowd. Congress knew that when those laws were drafted and knows that repealing them will be a vote-losinng move. But as for being "rolled back"? Would you accept amendments that reduce the numbers of those required to comply with either RFIP/RF or ADA?

    I'm more familiar wit ADA so will stick to that - used to be that any archictectual change to a public building/public accommodation
    required coming into compliance with all ADA standards. Now there is a dollar threshold as well as only requiring complying with ADA in the area effected by the architectual change.

    Congress can pass a law tomorrow restricting concealed carry in all kinds of places including school zones, near sub stations, or anywhere else they think they can get half a justification for "interstate commerce". In addition to how the courts may react to such broad bans in a post-Heller/McDonald world, we also have to remember how congress itself reacts to overt attacks on RKBA in a post 1994 congressional election world.
    I'm very interested in how Congress has reacted to overt attacks on RKBA in the post-1994 election world. Please enlighten me.

    It is not the lack of any law about nationwide respect for RKBA that protects us from bad laws from congress. It is the political consequences of bad laws, and to a much smaller degree, federal courts that provide the protection. And I recall something about a good offense being the best defense.
    This happens at the state level, primarily because it is easier for citizens of any state to change the makeup of their legislature than it is for the citizens of several states to change the political makeup of Congress. California, New York, Florida and Illinois hold great sway in Congress by virtue of the sheer number of Representatives they send. How many states will it take to counter just one of those powerhouses? And which states are ripe for doing so with Representatives who will be staunch RKBA-focused voters - even when it means voting against bringing several billions of dollars and thousands of jobs to their district/state?

    Ideally, of course, congress would pass a law imposing federal criminal penalties on any State or local official who passed or attempted to enforce any law infringing our RKBA, including any law requiring a permit to carry. And agency or jurisdiction having or attempting to enforce such a law would lose 100% of all federal funding for everything.
    Really? Another law on top of all the existing laws that already cover that territory? What is that - an admission that we just need to do it betterer and with more feeling this time?

    [/quote]But since I believe incrementalism is a proven strategy for political gains, I would be thrilled if congress would start by requiring States to recognize permits to carry with some minimum standard of where one could carry and States free to have looser laws if they wanted.[/quote]

    And just how are you going to do that within the constraints of what Congress can do or the territory they can control? Is that "Commerce Clause I hear? Are you willing to let Congress use that to get its foot in the door of private businesses when so far SCOTUS has only upheld RKBA in defense of the home? How else would Congress justify an intrusion into private business practices as they did with most of the early civil rights legislation prohibiting discrimination based on race? If the only RKBA you have is to defend your home how can you claim that any privvate business is discriminating against you?

    I can imagine that the bare minimum federal standard would require States to decriminalize carry in public while allowing them to maintain bans on actual school grounds, in government buildings, in bars, and perhaps in businesses that affirmatively posted no guns. That isn't great, but it keep us from becoming felons just for stopping for gas or a night's sleep in one of the People's Republics.
    As above, how is Congress going to claim the authority to do that?

    While SCOTUS continues to claim schools are "sensitive areas" they base that on historical precedent as opposed to anything else.

    Government buildings are "The People's house" and "any legislative body that fears armed citizens ought to itself be feared". If you (the general "you" if not you specifically) are going to claim that one of thje reasons we have a RKBA is to be able to counter an oppressive and unresponsive government then why allow that government to avoid remembering that reason for the RKBA?

    If a national reciprocity bill is introduced that imposes bad stuff on the good States, we and every other pro-RKBA group opposes it and it fails.

    Charles
    Can you guarantee that to me, my friends, and all of our decendants? Keep in mind that the antis breed faster than we do, garner support from the low-information voters through the use of emotionalism and hysteria while we are reduced to facts and reason, and that for the most part we are involved in holding the line as opposed to any actual restoration of rights previously infringed.

    In closing - it is not a "slippery slope" I fear. It is the realization that putting this into the hands of a body that historically is more concerned about getting reelected and about increasing its power is not a Good IdeaTM (c). As I said and continue to ay, it is easier to change the balance of power in a state legislature than in a national legislature.

    stay safe.
    Last edited by skidmark; 03-24-2015 at 10:50 AM.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  10. #10
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    National Reciprociy Does not Give th

    2-National reciprocity could be either good or bad, depending on how it is done. Under the combined authority of the 2nd and 14th amendments as held in Heller and McDonald, it is entirely within Congress' power to protect the RKBA against State level infringement just as they have protected 1st amendment freedom of religion against State and local infringements with laws protecting the ability of religious institutions to build houses of worship despite local zoning that would prevent it.

  11. #11
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    National Reciprociy Does not Give the Federal Government any more Power

    "2-National reciprocity could be either good or bad, depending on how it is done. Under the combined authority of the 2nd and 14th amendments as held in Heller and McDonald, it is entirely within Congress' power to protect the RKBA against State level infringement just as they have protected 1st amendment freedom of religion against State and local infringements with laws protecting the ability of religious institutions to build houses of worship despite local zoning that would prevent it."

    Exactly correct. A national reciprocity law does not give the Congress any more power than it already has. To claim that it does is disingenuous. The Federal government has the authority, under the 14th amendment to protect citizens from infirngement of their rights by the States.

    It is the old "all or nothing" argument. With all due respect to Skidmark, I have to disagree with him on this one.

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    I'm more familiar wit ADA so will stick to that - used to be that any archictectual change to a public building/public accommodation required coming into compliance with all ADA standards. Now there is a dollar threshold as well as only requiring complying with ADA in the area effected by the architectual change.
    Skid,

    Thank you for the solid example of a law being rolled back, slightly. Now for the operative question. Did this very slight rollback of the ADA makes things worse for the handicapped than before any ADA was ever passed at the federal level?

    Did the rollback force States and individuals to make things worse for the disabled? Or did it merely allow them to do a little less?

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    I'm very interested in how Congress has reacted to overt attacks on RKBA in the post-1994 election world. Please enlighten me.
    They have reacted much less strongly than we would like, no doubt.

    But even as weak as their reactions have been, they are, seemingly, sufficient to re-start used military brass sales into the civilian market, end fast and furious, and prevent ATF ammo bans. When Obama moved to overturn the rule respecting RKBA in National Parks, congress codified the rule in statute.

    Obviously, we'd all love to have a lot more. But what we have had from Congress hasn't been harmful to RKBA.

    Counter examples welcome.


    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Really? Another law on top of all the existing laws that already cover that territory? What is that - an admission that we just need to do it betterer and with more feeling this time?
    I'm not a huge fan of the 14th amendment, the way it was passed, nor even the most unfortunate history that opened the door to it. I'm really not pleased with how even its broad original intent is being grossly ignored to force my State to grant marriage benefits to conduct that is not marriage.

    But so long as the 14th amendment stands and it is used to justify federal protection of all manner of newly invented "civil rights", can you give me any good reason why we shouldn't be happy to see that power (already grossly misused), used appropriately to protect our RKBA from gross infringements in a few bigoted hold outs?

    Let us remember that it isn't just that Illinois, NY, NJ, Cali, and others infringe our rights while within their borders. But they slap us with a felony for doing what is perfectly legal on the other side of a line on the map and suddenly we've lost our RKBA for life, nationwide. And yes, we need to repeal that lifetime loss of RKBA at the federal level.

    But we also need to enforce our RKBA with at least as much devotion as protect freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the of the press, our rights to an attorney and so on. If NJ were locking people up without benefit of counsel or due process, would anyone really have heartburn with the feds enforcing the 4th and 5th amendments against them? If the Utah Mormons were refusing to let Protestants build churches or the Texas Evangelicals forcing the children of atheists to participate in school prayers, would anyone object to the feds enforcing the 1st amendment in these States?

    Why are we so reticent to have the feds do for the 2nd amendment what they have done for the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th?


    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    And just how are you going to do that within the constraints of what Congress can do or the territory they can control? Is that "Commerce Clause I hear? Are you willing to let Congress use that to get its foot in the door of private businesses when so far SCOTUS has only upheld RKBA in defense of the home? How else would Congress justify an intrusion into private business practices as they did with most of the early civil rights legislation prohibiting discrimination based on race? If the only RKBA you have is to defend your home how can you claim that any privvate business is discriminating against you?
    14th amendment.

    And I believe congress has overstepped its bounds in some areas like anti-discrimination laws that affect privately owned businesses. I would not open the door to such congressional power. But make no mistake, that door is long since opened and congress has waltzed through with a team of camels. And so, until such time as it can be reversed, I expect no more for RKBA than we already have for race, religion, political affiliation, and so on. So far as I know, the bill under consideration does not add RKBA to list of attributes protected from private discrimination. It simply prevents States from imposing criminal sanctions on me for peacefully carrying a gun in public.

    Any all of my musings on what might be an acceptable first step is merely a nod toward practical political realities, not any grand principle.


    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Can you guarantee that to me, my friends, and all of our decendants?
    No one can make any such guarantees. You cannot guarantee that not passing this law helps us. Eternal vigilance.



    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    In closing - it is not a "slippery slope" I fear. It is the realization that putting this into the hands of a body that historically is more concerned about getting reelected and about increasing its power is not a Good IdeaTM (c). As I said and continue to ay, it is easier to change the balance of power in a state legislature than in a national legislature.

    stay safe.
    They have the power already. They have long exercised it. And while the anarchists, libertarians, and even some conservatives can easily bemoan the loss of some individual property rights as a result, the precedence is quite clear that congress protects against discrimination, it does not pass laws requiring racial discrimination (except insofar as "affirmative action" may be considered discrimination); congress requires accommodation for the disabled, it does not prohibit accommodations; it requires a minimum level of safety for workers, it does not set a maximum level of safety; it protects the ability to build churches and meet for services, it does not make those things more difficult.

    I understand and agree with a general dislike of government exercising additional powers. But under Heller and McDonald and the long established principle of incorporation, what we seek on the 2nd amendment is no more than what congress has long done for the rest of the bill of rights when individual States can't see their way clearly to respect individual, enumerated rights.

    All the best.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    [QUOTE=ccwinstructor;2133748
    Exactly correct. A national reciprocity law does not give the Congress any more power than it already has. To claim that it does is disingenuous. The Federal government has the authority, under the 14th amendment to protect citizens from infirngement of their rights by the States.

    It is the old "all or nothing" argument. With all due respect to Skidmark, I have to disagree with him on this one.[/QUOTE]

    Then explain to me why we need national reciprocity. As asked before, how will this new law make things more betterer?

    While I agree that the law does not give Congress any more power (Consitutionally) than it already has, the power to federalize the issue and place implementation under one (or more) of the alphabet agencies gives Congress control via the purse strings. Just look at what they have tried to do/are trying to do with HHS, Education, Energy, Homeland Security and every other Cabinet-related agency. Constitutionally Congress can either pass laws to levy taxes and declare a budget, to make agencies come into existence, make things illegal, or to declare war. Constitutionally Congress cannot tell the Executive Branch how to run an agency once they create it, but look at how many activities it is trying to control by threatening not to allocate taxes in support of specific activities established by the Executive Branch.

    If We The People want reciprocity between our state and all/some of the other stats the enter into a compact - one tye Congress cannot meddle with. We The People seem to be getting along swimmingly without Congressional intervention regarding reciprocity of driver's licenses, child custody decisions, child support decisions and several other areas. Contrast those matters with, for instance, the federal regulation of migratory waterfowl hunting.

    If the States cannot come to an agreement amongst temselves on an issue that effects a significant segment of the population (for example water rights) it may become necessary for Congress to step in and authorize some Executive agency to deal with what was previously outside their charge and authority. But it seems that doing so has taken a situation where some prospered and some suffered and turned it into a system wher all suffer, but still not equally.

    Let's come back to "The Federal government has the authority, under the 14th amendment to protect citizens from infirngement of their rights by the States" in order to close. Is it that Congress just has not been doing that right up until this point? And even if they have not, why do we need a new law in order for them to finally begin doing it right?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Then explain to me why we need national reciprocity. As asked before, how will this new law make things more betterer?
    It keeps a growing number of decent people from facing felonies for driving across a State line.
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    If We The People want reciprocity between our state and all/some of the other stats the enter into a compact - one tye Congress cannot meddle with. We The People seem to be getting along swimmingly without Congressional intervention regarding reciprocity of driver's licenses, child custody decisions, child support decisions and several other areas. Contrast those matters with, for instance, the federal regulation of migratory waterfowl hunting.
    This is not about mere reciprocity. This is about a minimum regard for our RKBA. In the instances you noted, each State needs the cooperation of other States. If NJ wants help enforcing child support against its citizens who move to Colorado, then it is going to have to give Colorado some help enforcing its child support judgments against those who move to NJ.

    But what does Texas, Virginia, or Utah have to offer NJ in order to persuade NJ to respect the RKBA or our citizens while in NJ?

    If NJ were using the rack to execute people, nobody would say we should leave it to the States to work out. Ditto if NJ made it a crime to belong to the Baptist church. Exactly the same if NJ were refusing let suspects access an attorney.

    When Mississippi didn't let blacks vote, or couldn't manage to stop lynchings of blacks, the feds stepped in. For all the problems excessive federal power causes, would any of us today really suggest that Mississippi, Virginia, or South Carolina should have been left free to ignore the enumerated constitutional rights of black citizens?

    It is precisely to protect the (unpopular) rights of (unpopular) minorities that the Bill of Rights exists. To paraphrase the Supreme Court jurist, popular rights enjoyed by the majority do not need constitutional protections.

    A minimum level of recognition for carry permits, mandated by congress, is not a perfect solution to protecting RKBA. But it is a starting place for congress to enforce Heller and McDonald against those States that obstinately refuse to respect RKBA even after the SCOTUS has clearly ruled.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    It keeps a growing number of decent people from facing felonies for driving across a State line.
    Removing the current situation requiring personal responsibility to know where you can and cannot do stuff? Really?

    This is not about mere reciprocity. This is about a minimum regard for our RKBA.
    No. it is all about reciprocity. It has nothing to do with any regard for RKBA. It does nothing to protect or advance RKBA - the only thing it does is force some other state to accept your permission slip as valid.

    In the instances you noted, each State needs the cooperation of other States. If NJ wants help enforcing child support against its citizens who move to Colorado, then it is going to have to give Colorado some help enforcing its child support judgments against those who move to NJ.

    But what does Texas, Virginia, or Utah have to offer NJ in order to persuade NJ to respect the RKBA or our citizens while in NJ?
    Stop confusing and conflating the acceptance of the permission granted by one state being foist/forced o other states with RKBA.

    To go over the ground once again - SCOTUS says you have the right to keep and bear arms in your house in order to provide degense of your house. They remain silent on anything outside the house, including standing up against/actually opposing an oppressive and unresponsive government.

    If NJ were using the rack to execute people, nobody would say we should leave it to the States to work out. Ditto if NJ made it a crime to belong to the Baptist church. Exactly the same if NJ were refusing let suspects access an attorney.

    When Mississippi didn't let blacks vote, or couldn't manage to stop lynchings of blacks, the feds stepped in. For all the problems excessive federal power causes, would any of us today really suggest that Mississippi, Virginia, or South Carolina should have been left free to ignore the enumerated constitutional rights of black citizens?
    1 - NJ would be guilty of cruel and unusual unishment and the feds ought to be obligated to step in and put an end to that.

    2 - Not since the enactment of the 1964/65/68/69 civil rights laws. Remember that SCOTUS was not all that incensed about Massive Resistance following Brown v Board of Ed. And what's wrong with any of us suggesting that? The problem is only when the government ignores SCOTUS.

    It is precisely to protect the (unpopular) rights of (unpopular) minorities that the Bill of Rights exists.
    Pardon my French but the heck it does! All it does is tell the federal government what it cannot do. It was not until the 14th Amendment that the Constitution - including the BoR - was enforced against the states.

    To paraphrase the Supreme Court jurist, popular rights enjoyed by the majority do not need constitutional protections.

    A minimum level of recognition for carry permits, mandated by congress, is not a perfec solution to protecting RKBA. But it is a starting place for congress to enforce Heller and McDonald against those States that obstinately refuse to respect RKBA even after the SCOTUS has clearly ruled.

    Charles
    One more time because I just absolutely love to hear the sound of my posting - National Reciprocity has nothing - not one darned thing - to do with RKBA as that is currently defined via Heller and McDonald - which happen to be about keeping and bearing arms in your own house and nowhere else!

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Skid,

    Thank you for the solid example of a law being rolled back, slightly. Now for the operative question. Did this very slight rollback of the ADA makes things worse for the handicapped than before any ADA was ever passed at the federal level?
    Yes. what other answer did youexpect/

    Did the rollback force States and individuals to make things worse for the disabled? Or did it merely allow them to do a little less?
    Of course it merely allowed thjem to do a little less. Would you be OK if Congress, after passing National Reciprocity, rolled it back so it only applied on odd-numbered days east of the Mississippi and even-numbered days west of the Mississippi?

    They have reacted much less strongly than we would like, no doubt.

    But even as weak as their reactions have been, they are, seemingly, sufficient to re-start used military brass sales into the civilian market, end fast and furious, and prevent ATF ammo bans. When Obama moved to overturn the rule respecting RKBA in National Parks, congress codified the rule in statute.

    Obviously, we'd all love to have a lot more. But what we have had from Congress hasn't been harmful to RKBA.

    Counter examples welcome.
    Every gun control law since and including NFA of 1934.

    I'm not a huge fan of the 14th amendment, the way it was passed, nor even the most unfortunate history that opened the door to it. I'm really not pleased with how even its broad original intent is being grossly ignored to force my State to grant marriage benefits to conduct that is not marriage.

    But so long as the 14th amendment stands and it is used to justify federal protection of all manner of newly invented "civil rights", can you give me any good reason why we shouldn't be happy to see that power (already grossly misused), used appropriately to protect our RKBA from gross infringements in a few bigoted hold outs?

    Let us remember that it isn't just that Illinois, NY, NJ, Cali, and others infringe our rights while within their borders. But they slap us with a felony for doing what is perfectly legal on the other side of a line on the map and suddenly we've lost our RKBA for life, nationwide. And yes, we need to repeal that lifetime loss of RKBA at the federal level.

    But we also need to enforce our RKBA with at least as much devotion as protect freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the of the press, our rights to an attorney and so on. If NJ were locking people up without benefit of counsel or due process, would anyone really have heartburn with the feds enforcing the 4th and 5th amendments against them? If the Utah Mormons were refusing to let Protestants build churches or the Texas Evangelicals forcing the children of atheists to participate in school prayers, would anyone object to the feds enforcing the 1st amendment in these States?
    Jeeze Louise - how many times do I need to explain just how limited ypur RKBA is as SCOTUS currently defines that right? How many times do I have to explain that National Reciprocity has nothing to do with RKBA. IT'S A FREAKING EXECUTIVE ADJUSTMENT TO THE CRIMINAL CODES OF THE SEVERAL STATES - and nothing more! (And yes, I'm yelling.)

    Why are we so reticent to have the feds do for the 2nd amendment what they have done for the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th?
    Just see above and repeat it, OK?

    14th amendment.

    And I believe congress has overstepped its bounds in some areas like anti-discrimination laws that affect privately owned businesses. I would not open the door to such congressional power. But make no mistake, that door is long since opened and congress has waltzed through with a team of camels. And so, until such time as it can be reversed, I expect no more for RKBA than we already have for race, religion, political affiliation, and so on. So far as I know, the bill under consideration does not add RKBA to list of attributes protected from private discrimination. It simply prevents States from imposing criminal sanctions on me for peacefully carrying a gun in public.

    Any all of my musings on what might be an acceptable first step is merely a nod toward practical political realities, not any grand principle.

    No one can make any such guarantees. You cannot guarantee that not passing this law helps us. Eternal vigilance.
    Wanna bet? DHS, BATFEIEIO, EPA, Dept of Commerce, Dept of Education. Want me to go on?

    They have the power already. They have long exercised it. And while the anarchists, libertarians, and even some conservatives can easily bemoan the loss of some individual property rights as a result, the precedence is quite clear that congress protects against discrimination, it does not pass laws requiring racial discrimination (except insofar as "affirmative action" may be considered discrimination); congress requires accommodation for the disabled, it does not prohibit accommodations; it requires a minimum level of safety for workers, it does not set a maximum level of safety; it protects the ability to build churches and meet for services, it does not make those things more difficult.

    I understand and agree with a general dislike of government exercising additional powers. But under Heller and McDonald and the long established principle of incorporation, what we seek on the 2nd amendment is no more than what congress has long done for the rest of the bill of rights when individual States can't see their way clearly to respect individual, enumerated rights.

    All the best.

    Charles
    Sweet Shivering Shiva on a Pogo Stick! Heller and McDonald limit the RKBA to inside the home, and say nothing about antwhere outside the home. When are you going to understand that?

    I'm purposely ignoring the rest of your rambling as I really don't feel like i should need tp teach you basic civics.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  17. #17
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    I have to say I'm not following your argument Skid, which obviously does not mean it is wrong. I understand the part about Congress making rules or allowing agencies to make rules, but that is not a necessity.

    The core of the right to bear arms is openly carrying a firearm without a permit, and concealed carry (stupidly IMHO) is not protected by the right to bear arms, historically. I see national recognition of concealed carry permits as Congress actually going above and beyond our legal tradition protecting the right to carry. Go figure!!
    Last edited by 77zach; 03-24-2015 at 09:52 PM.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    I have to say I'm not following your argument Skid, which obviously does not mean it is wrong. I understand the part about Congress making rules or allowing agencies to make rules, but that is not a necessity.

    The core of the right to bear arms is openly carrying a firearm without a permit, and concealed carry (stupidly IMHO) is not protected by the right to bear arms, historically. I see national recognition of concealed carry permits as Congress actually going above and beyond our legal tradition protecting the right to carry. Go figure!!
    Show me where the National Reciprocity Bill deals with the unencumbered open carry of a handgun (since it totally ignores all other variations of "firearm").

    I am wearying of comments that talk about RKBA or openly carrying without a permit when those issues are not addressed by the proposed legislation.

    Thread drift is one thing, but completely missing the boat while claiming to be on topic is symptomatic of both poor understanding and poor reasoning.

    Perhaps you could explain why so many want to go to those areas instead of addressing the specific bill as it has been proposed.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Yes. what other answer did youexpect/

    Of course it merely allowed thjem to do a little less. Would you be OK if Congress, after passing National Reciprocity, rolled it back so it only applied on odd-numbered days east of the Mississippi and even-numbered days west of the Mississippi?
    So the precedence is that having undertaken to protect various "rights", congress does not then exercise that authority to turn around and restrict rights more than they were before ever touching that right. So, concerns about this opening a door that congress would then use to force States to restrict RKBA or even privileged possession of guns are unwarranted at a non-emotional level. Just to be clear.

    And I think the question isn't whether we'd get even- odd- days but more like whether restaurants that serve booze get added to the list of locations States don't have to permit guns if they don't want to.

    Clearly, it is a step in the right direction to protecting our rights. Yes, our rights because by protecting us from criminal prosecution for having a gun pursuant to a permit, we are protected from lifetime loss of RKBA for a felony conviction.

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Every gun control law since and including NFA of 1934.
    Come on. You're better than that. How many have there been since '94?

    Even the gun owners protection law of '86 hasn't gotten worse over time has it? Yes, some bad provisions in it originally. But that part about safe journey hasn't been made worse at any point has it?

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Jeeze Louise - how many times do I need to explain just how limited ypur RKBA is as SCOTUS currently defines that right? How many times do I have to explain that National Reciprocity has nothing to do with RKBA. IT'S A FREAKING EXECUTIVE ADJUSTMENT TO THE CRIMINAL CODES OF THE SEVERAL STATES - and nothing more! (And yes, I'm yelling.)
    I trust you're aware of how limited homosexual rights were under Lawrence vs where they are now and where conventional wisdom says they will be before the end of the year.

    You know how recognition of rights proceeds. A narrow court ruling, changes in laws and culture, followed by a wider court ruling.

    If you'd rather, view this is a minor expansion of the gun owner protection act of '86, allowing us safe passage in and through hostile States while carrying our guns in usable manner.

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Wanna bet? DHS, BATFEIEIO, EPA, Dept of Commerce, Dept of Education. Want me to go on?
    Nope. But I want you to stay on topic with laws that specifically protect some "right" rather than random federal powers.

    Where has ADA ever created precedence used to make access more difficult?

    When have federal anti-discrimination laws been used to require discrimination (except in the case of affirmative action)?

    When have federal voting rights laws been used to force States to make voting more difficult for minorities?

    Has the safe passage provision of the Firearms Owners Protection Act of '86 been used to make it more difficult for States to recognize RKBA or to grant permits to carry? Even the much hated federal GFSZ contains provisions deferring to States on whether those with permits can carry guns into schools.

    Has the law requiring national parks to follow State laws on guns been used to make State gun laws worse for us?

    Yes, the federal government has grossly exceeded its power in many cases. And I'm very open to arguments about them growing their power when given an inch.

    But they already have and exercise power regarding RKBA. Most of that exercise has been in the wrong direction. I do not see where an exercise in the direction that protects gun owners from unjust prosecution in places like NJ hurts us, nor do I see any examples to back up fears that such a law would turn into a reason to force bad gun laws on States.

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Sweet Shivering Shiva on a Pogo Stick! Heller and McDonald limit the RKBA to inside the home, and say nothing about antwhere outside the home. When are you going to understand that?
    Admitted, acknowledged, and mostly irrelevant to the long term view. I shouldn't have to teach you how jurisprudence on rights typically evolves in this nation. See again Lawrence and resulting history.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Show me where the National Reciprocity Bill deals with the unencumbered open carry of a handgun (since it totally ignores all other variations of "firearm").

    I am wearying of comments that talk about RKBA or openly carrying without a permit when those issues are not addressed by the proposed legislation.
    Bear in mind that many of us use "RKBA" as a shorthand for being able to legally possess a gun. I fully acknowledge the difference between the true RKBA and the permitted privilege addressed by this bill. But I'm more than verbose enough without substituting many words about permits for "RKBA".

    Question. How much of your opposition to the bill is based on the concerns you've expressed thus far about it setting a precedence that let's congress force States to infringe RKBA, and how much is based on the fact that the bill deals with permits to carry, rather than unencumbered RKBA?

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Bear in mind that many of us use "RKBA" as a shorthand for being able to legally possess a gun. I fully acknowledge the difference between the true RKBA and the permitted privilege addressed by this bill. But I'm more than verbose enough without substituting many words about permits for "RKBA".
    When one discusses laws one must be fully aware of the fact that words mean what they mean. Throwing around "RKBA" willy-nilly merely confuses the issue. How much more verbose is it to say "federally imposed exemption to the state law against carrying a concealed handgun"?

    Question. How much of your opposition to the bill is based on the concerns you've expressed thus far about it setting a precedence that let's congress force States to infringe RKBA, and how much is based on the fact that the bill deals with permits to carry, rather than unencumbered RKBA?

    Charles
    So you are saying that all this law does is address a federally imposed exemption from the state crime of carrying a concealed handgun? Finally?

    "[U]nencumbered RKBA"? Where? When? And when did I suggest that this bill would "force States to infringe RKBA"? I have, apparently, been laboring under the misapprehension that the bill would allow the federal government to impose conditions on the States and that the federal government has a history of not to be trusted when it does that in any area.

    As far as P4P, it's been known that I consider them an onerous and odious bane, and that I am wiling to sell my soul in order to gain the convenience they offer. The fact that I do not use the permission slip very often has nothing to do with anything.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  22. #22
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Permission slips be damned. That is all.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by The Truth View Post
    Permission slips be damned. That is all.
    Then why are you supporting the bill? Seems to me the way to get rid of permission slips is to stop supporting them.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  24. #24
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Then why are you supporting the bill? Seems to me the way to get rid of permission slips is to stop supporting them.

    stay safe.
    Not only do I NOT support the bill, I do not and will not ever possess a permission slip for a natural right. Not sure where you got the idea that I support the bill. Where did I say that? I even made a comment about disbanding the ATF!
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by The Truth View Post
    Not only do I NOT support the bill, I do not and will not ever possess a permission slip for a natural right. Not sure where you got the idea that I support the bill. Where did I say that? I even made a comment about disbanding the ATF!
    Mea culpa. Got you and someone else confused.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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