• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

H.R. 197: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Thundar wrote:
Slayer of Paper wrote:
There is already precedent for preempting state laws that restrict rights: <snip>
Or, the most likely interpretation is that the federal government, including SCOTUS, simply picks and chooses when it will and will not enforce the 10th amendment, according to each SCOTUS's political leanings.
CC is not a right, it is a priveledge. (except maybe for VT and AK) where you need a government permission slip.
CC should be considered as a Right under the 2nd Amendment. Is there a requirement to open carry for it to be "keep and bear?" Are we no longer "keeping and bearing" if the firearm is not immediately visible? I just do not understand the logic behind denying CC as part of the 2nd Amendment Right.

Mike wrote:
There is a large difference between the Congress making somthing unlawful as a matter of federal law. e.g., Raich (home gown marijuana unlawful under federal law), and the Congress invalidating a vaid exercise of police police power (state bans on concealed carry in that state generally).

If a Congressman was serious about passing a bill to encourage CHP reciprocity, then she would introduce a bill requiring states to accept other states CHPs as a condition of receiving certain small percentages of federal fudning. That's how the NICS improvement act works.

So a ban on CC is a "valid exercise of police power?" I would disagree with that, referencing my response to Thundar.

Carrying is "bearing," whether the firearm is visible to others or not. Declaring one method "protected," and not similarly treating the other the same is the realm of special interest, and special treatment, and falls outside of simple "protection of a Right."


If our government were really serious about protecting the Rightthat is articulated in the 2nd Amendment, it would prevent the states from infringing upon the free exercise of thatRight. With that said, I do support restrictions upon carry by felons. Theyhaveacted in ways that infringe upon the Rights of others.

Do "states rights" trump individual rights?
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
imported post

The 14th Amendment is a travesty and a blight on the Constitution. It was illegally enacted without majority representation. Every Amendment after #12 (the last one legally ratified by an elected representative government) should be stricken from the record.
 

darthmord

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
998
Location
Norfolk, Virginia, USA
imported post

wylde007 wrote:
The 14th Amendment is a travesty and a blight on the Constitution. It was illegally enacted without majority representation. Every Amendment after #12 (the last one legally ratified by an elected representative government) should be stricken from the record.
How do you figure? I want to say it was enacted after the required number of states ratified that amendment. The process to amend the Constitution is rather cut & dry.
 

Gordie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
716
Location
, Nevada, USA
imported post

wylde007 wrote:
The 14th Amendment is a travesty and a blight on the Constitution. It was illegally enacted without majority representation. Every Amendment after #12 (the last one legally ratified by an elected representative government) should be stricken from the record.
So you think that#s 13 (Abolition of slavery),15 (Rights Not to Be Denied on Account of Race), 19 (Women's Right to Vote), 20 (Presidential Term and Succession), 22 (Two Term Limit on President), 24 (Poll Tax), should all be thrown out.:shock:

This means that you would support the return of slavery, legalized racism and discrimination, denying women the right to vote, no set rules on presidential terms and succession, no term limits on presidents, and having to pay a poll tax (cover charge) to be allowed in to vote.:uhoh:

Are you nuts?:what:
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

Francis Marion wrote:
Does a law that declares my AZ drivers license valid in all other states violate states rights?
Indeed it would, which is why there is no such federal law.

Drivers' licenses are recognized by interstate compacts, exactly the same way concealed carry licenses are recognized.
 

YllwFvr

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
270
Location
Scranton, Pa, ,
imported post

SteveInAshand wrote:
That is not the basis of my question.

I just want to know if there is an accessible database that I can look up to see how each congress person has voted on key 2nd bill's up or down.

Again does anyone know ?

http://www.govtrack.us/

This may be what your talking about. Enter the name or # of a bill in the upper right and it brings up summary or full text as well as its current progress through the houses, wether its stalled or not, plus at each stage of voting shows every person who voted aye, nay, or abstained.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

wrightme wrote:
Thundar wrote:
Slayer of Paper wrote:
There is already precedent for preempting state laws that restrict rights: <snip>
Or, the most likely interpretation is that the federal government, including SCOTUS, simply picks and chooses when it will and will not enforce the 10th amendment, according to each SCOTUS's political leanings.
CC is not a right, it is a priveledge. (except maybe for VT and AK) where you need a government permission slip.
CC should be considered as a Right under the 2nd Amendment. Is there a requirement to open carry for it to be "keep and bear?" Are we no longer "keeping and bearing" if the firearm is not immediately visible? I just do not understand the logic behind denying CC as part of the 2nd Amendment Right.

Mike wrote:
There is a large difference between the Congress making somthing unlawful as a matter of federal law. e.g., Raich (home gown marijuana unlawful under federal law), and the Congress invalidating a vaid exercise of police police power (state bans on concealed carry in that state generally).

If a Congressman was serious about passing a bill to encourage CHP reciprocity, then she would introduce a bill requiring states to accept other states CHPs as a condition of receiving certain small percentages of federal fudning. That's how the NICS improvement act works.

So a ban on CC is a "valid exercise of police power?" I would disagree with that, referencing my response to Thundar.

Carrying is "bearing," whether the firearm is visible to others or not. Declaring one method "protected," and not similarly treating the other the same is the realm of special interest, and special treatment, and falls outside of simple "protection of a Right."


If our government were really serious about protecting the Rightthat is articulated in the 2nd Amendment, it would prevent the states from infringing upon the free exercise of thatRight. With that said, I do support restrictions upon carry by felons. Theyhaveacted in ways that infringe upon the Rights of others.

Do "states rights" trump individual rights?
I respectfully disagree. Concealed carry has always been interpreted as something that states could regulate, while open carry was the right.

My cite:




[align=center]HANDBOOK[/align]



[align=center]
OF

American Constitutional Law

BY

HENRY CAMPBELL BLACK, M. A.
[/align]


[align=center]
Author of Black’s Law Dictionary, and of Treatises on judgments, Tax
Titles, Constitutional Prohibitions, Etc.
__________________

ST. PAUL, MINN.
WEST PUBLISHING. CO.
1895
[/align]



[align=center]RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.][/align]


[align=center]
144. The second amendment to the federal constitution, as well as the constitutions of many of the states, guaranty to the people the right to bear arms.

[/align]

This is a natural right, not created or granted by the constitutions. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be denied or infringed by congress or the other departments of the national government. The amendment is no restriction upon the power of the several states.[33] Hence, unless restrained by their own constitutions, the state legislatures may enact laws to control and regulate all military organizations, and the drilling and parading of military bodies and associations, except those which are authorized by the militia laws or the laws of the United States.[34]

The "arms" here meant are those of a soldier. They do not include dirks, bowie knives, and such other weapons as are used in brawls, fights, and riots. The citizen has at all times the right to keep arms of modern warfare, if without danger to others, and for purposes of training and efficiency in their use, but not such weapons as are only intended to be the instruments of private feuds or vengeance.[35] And a statute providing that a homicide which would ordinarily be manslaughter shall be deemed murder if committed with a bowie knife or a dagger, is valid. It does not tend to restrict the right of the citizen to bear arms for lawful purposes, but only punishes a particular abuse of that right.[36] This right is not infringed by a state law prohibiting the [Page 404] carrying of concealed deadly weapons. Such a law is a police regulation, and is justified by the fact that the practice forbidden endangers the peace of society and the safety of individuals.[37] But a law which should prohibit the wearing of military weapons openly upon the person, would be unconstitutional.[38]
[33]. U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. 165.
[34]. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 6 Sup. Ct. 580.
[35]. English v. State, 35 Tex. 473.
[36]. Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394.
[37]. State v. Wilforth. 74 Mo. 528; Haile v. State, 38 Ark. 564; Wright v. Com., 77 Pa. St. 470; State v. Speller, 86 N. C. 697.
[38]. Nunn v. State, 1 Kelly (Ga.) 243.



Link: http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/books/BlacksConstitutionalLaw.htm
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Thundar wrote:
wrightme wrote:
Thundar wrote:
Slayer of Paper wrote:
There is already precedent for preempting state laws that restrict rights: <snip>
Or, the most likely interpretation is that the federal government, including SCOTUS, simply picks and chooses when it will and will not enforce the 10th amendment, according to each SCOTUS's political leanings.
CC is not a right, it is a priveledge. (except maybe for VT and AK) where you need a government permission slip.
CC should be considered as a Right under the 2nd Amendment. Is there a requirement to open carry for it to be "keep and bear?" Are we no longer "keeping and bearing" if the firearm is not immediately visible? I just do not understand the logic behind denying CC as part of the 2nd Amendment Right.

Mike wrote:
There is a large difference between the Congress making somthing unlawful as a matter of federal law. e.g., Raich (home gown marijuana unlawful under federal law), and the Congress invalidating a vaid exercise of police police power (state bans on concealed carry in that state generally).

If a Congressman was serious about passing a bill to encourage CHP reciprocity, then she would introduce a bill requiring states to accept other states CHPs as a condition of receiving certain small percentages of federal fudning. That's how the NICS improvement act works.

So a ban on CC is a "valid exercise of police power?" I would disagree with that, referencing my response to Thundar.

Carrying is "bearing," whether the firearm is visible to others or not. Declaring one method "protected," and not similarly treating the other the same is the realm of special interest, and special treatment, and falls outside of simple "protection of a Right."


If our government were really serious about protecting the Rightthat is articulated in the 2nd Amendment, it would prevent the states from infringing upon the free exercise of thatRight. With that said, I do support restrictions upon carry by felons. Theyhaveacted in ways that infringe upon the Rights of others.

Do "states rights" trump individual rights?
I respectfully disagree. Concealed carry has always been interpreted as something that states could regulate, while open carry was the right.

<snip>


And I do not agree with that, as my opinion. Stated as such:

CC should be considered as a Right under the 2nd Amendment. Is there a requirement to open carry for it to be "keep and bear?" Are we no longer "keeping and bearing" if the firearm is not immediately visible? I just do not understand the logic behind denying CC as part of the 2nd Amendment Right.
"Should" is the word I used. I do feel that CC and OC should be treated the same. I realize that they aren't treated the same.
 

Gator5713

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
591
Location
Aggieland, Texas, USA
imported post

Thundar wrote:
[37] But a law which should prohibit the wearing of military weapons openly upon the person, would be unconstitutional.[38]

[SNIP]

Link: http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/books/BlacksConstitutionalLaw.htm





So, A Kimber Desert Warrior 1911, which was designed for SF in Iraq, and has been issued to SF in Iraq, would most definitely be a "military weapon", would it not?
So, being a "Military weapon" I can carry it openly wherever I go, correct? Even though I am in Texas where OC is not YET legal....
 

cbunt1

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
15
Location
Houston, , USA
imported post

OK..so here goes. My first post in the forums after watching and lurking for a while. The opinions represented are my own, and are just that--OPINIONS--not necessarily based on fact or case law....

That being said...

As a general statement, I would like to see our rights as citizens upheld, and the rights of the several states as members of this Union upheld. In short, I support the constitution as a whole, and 2nd Amendment specifically.

I love what this little piece of legislation would do for us as gun owners and carriers; however, it appears to go about it in the wrong way--and it appears to me to infringe on state's rights (a little concept that's pretty near and dear to my heart as a Southerner).

In the end, I'd like to see two things come about, at least on this front, as follows;

1) Multi-state reciprocity, in the same manner as drivers licensing--I think (it does have flaws)

Keep in mind that Drivers licenses, as has been mentioned previously, are state-issued, and generally recognized on a multi-state basis--although, on the Commercial Drivers License (CDL) side, it wasn't always this way. There was a time when it was common for a trucker to have multiple licenses in various states--some of these cases were because out-of-state licenses weren't always recognized for specific vehicles (especially when you're dealing with haz-mat, tankers, double-triple rigs, etc. as opposed to a "common" 18-wheeler). Other states didn't recognize certain states' "Cheauffer's licenses" because you could simply take a road test in your local flower shop's deliver van, and your license would let you drive anything on the road, while others had a different license for an articulated vehicle vs. a pickup truck. As an example, Texas issued a "Cheauffer's License" for any "commercially owned vehicle," while Colorado used a "Classified License" for various types of vehicles (cars/pickups [class-c], 3+ axle single vehicles [Class-B] and articulated (i.e. trailers) vehicles [Class-A].

The system obviously had problems--if your license didn't have the same acquisition requirements as another states, it might not be valid. Multiple licenses from different states meant that you could (possibly) run up violations on one state license, and start using a license from another state until the violations fall off...you can see the problems. Not to mention the administrative nightmare for drivers, companies, and officials.

Eventually, states standardized on what we now know as a "Uniform Commercial Drivers License" -- in short, I go to California (as a resident) to get my CDL, and I'm taking essentially the same written and road tests as I would if I get my CDL in Texas. The licenses are reciprocal, my CDL is good in all states, BUT, I had to surrender any other licenses I had--in short I'm allowed only one, but it's good anywhere.

How this was accomplished, I'm not 100% sure--I know the Federal Department of Transportation is involved, and it is indeed a Federal Question (in the legal sense) since it involves interstate commerce. All states (to my knowledge) have the ablility to restrict the CDL to "Intra-state commerce only"--a restriction ususally reserved for drivers between 18 and 21, who aren't elgible to drive in Interstate commerce--but is also used for other reasons/disablities (in the legal sense) as well.

2) An end to the division between Concealed Carry and Open Carry--as it relates to licensing--In short, the license would be to Carry Concealed, but allow open carry as well -- i.e. You wanna Carry, no problem, no license necessary, you wanna conceal it, get a license.

I'm a firm beleiver that Open Carry is an inherent right, as described and made clear by the 2nd amendment. Good sense may dictate some places where we shouldn't carry, for one reason or another. Pressurized aircraft are a good example, for a myraid of reasons. At the same time, I don't like the idea of trampling on someone's rights. I can see the point some of the CCW set makes--and maybe they're right--about times we/they/someone SHOULDN'T openly carry...but that's different than saying they shouldn't BE ABLE TO openly carry. And in the sense I'm talking about it's no different than whether you should wear a T-Shirt and Jeans vs. a Suit and Tie--there are places and times that one or the other are inappropriate, but not "Illegal". (I wouldn't dream of showing up at one of my corporate board meetings in a T-shirt and Jeans, nor would I work on my car in my suit--neither is illegal, but neither indicates good judgement...)

Concealed Carry is probably a different standard, a subset of carrying period. Not the right to Carry Concealed vs. the right to Carry Openly--more like the Right to Carry in general (2nd Amendment intends this). Carrying Conceald may be a different (higher) standard, and maybe it's OK to license the concealment of weapons. This may also be a "Baby step" to full "Do as you think is appropriate".

<RANT>
One thing about the whole CCW/Open Carry arguement that bothers me, at least as it is applied in Texas: I can carry concealed. If I move wrong, and my gun prints (or worse, OMG, flashes) I have just committed a serious crime. **HUH??** That fact makes no sense to me. If I'm "Licensed to Carry" (without splitting hairs about whether I should be required to have a License to carry) I should be Licensed to Carry--any way I please. At least in states that don't prohibit Open Carry ("Not Prohibiting" any act is different than "Allowing" the same, BTW), if my gun should print, or flash when I move--all I haven't committed a worse crime than if I weren't licensed to conceal at all.
</RANT>

I don't have the answers, and I don't claim to, but I feel it's important to think through all the implications of what's being proposed, and determine whether it fits our long-term goals. My long term goal is to not be harrassed for exercising my rights to defend and protect myself. Castle Doctorine is a great step in the right direction, and properly handled multi-state reciprocity is too. I want all of these things, but I don't want them at the expense of trampling states' rights, and other constitutional protections. If we do, not only is it going to be shut down in the Supreme Court, but it wouldn't help us as gun owners in the long term.

I want it. I want it all, but I want it right...I no more want to do the right thing for the wrong reasons than to have the wrong thing done to me for the right reasons. I'm also realistic enough to realize that we have had our gun rights (among MANY OTHERS) whittled-away at...and we're going to have to whittle-away to get it back. It didn't happen all at once, and it won't be fixed all at once. The Journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step--but a step in the right direction.

Sorry this is so long...I didn't mean to ramble, but I needed to get some things off my chest :lol:
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
imported post

Gordie wrote:
So you think that#s 13 (Abolition of slavery),15 (Rights Not to Be Denied on Account of Race), 19 (Women's Right to Vote), 20 (Presidential Term and Succession), 22 (Two Term Limit on President), 24 (Poll Tax), should all be thrown out.:shock:

This means that you would support the return of slavery, legalized racism and discrimination, denying women the right to vote, no set rules on presidential terms and succession, no term limits on presidents, and having to pay a poll tax (cover charge) to be allowed in to vote.:uhoh:

Are you nuts?:what:
I can see how someone who immediately thinks that women and minorities require a Constitutional amendment to make them "equal" would see it that way.

However, regardless of your opinion. the fact remains that those articles were illegally ratified and enacted. I'd have no problem with a legitimate government going back and either re-ratifying those amendments or doing well without them, as written, since they are mostly nothing more than recognition of lesser status and further fuel for minority entitlement.

Succession is now moot since we have an illegal serving as President and term limits are obviously a farce, at best.

Nuts? Probably. But only in the eyes of someone who doesn't wholly understand the implications of where this country is headed and how it got here. The 14th Amendment is the keystone. Pull it and the house of cards falls.

Somebody please pull it.
 

Gordie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
716
Location
, Nevada, USA
imported post

wylde007 wrote:
Gordie wrote:
So you think that#s 13 (Abolition of slavery),15 (Rights Not to Be Denied on Account of Race), 19 (Women's Right to Vote), 20 (Presidential Term and Succession), 22 (Two Term Limit on President), 24 (Poll Tax), should all be thrown out.:shock:

This means that you would support the return of slavery, legalized racism and discrimination, denying women the right to vote, no set rules on presidential terms and succession, no term limits on presidents, and having to pay a poll tax (cover charge) to be allowed in to vote.:uhoh:

Are you nuts?:what:
I can see how someone who immediately thinks that women and minorities require a Constitutional amendment to make them "equal" would see it that way.


Where do you get that I believe that women and minorities need an amendment to be considered equal? I never made such a statement.

The reason those amendments were necessary was because some people were denied those rights by law and the situation needed correcting.

It is a fact that courts ruled it lawful that women could not vote, slaves werebasically livestock, and that it was OK for people to be charged admission to cast a vote in an election.

Would you prefer to return to "the good old days"? I would not.
However, regardless of your opinion. the fact remains that those articles were illegally ratified and enacted.

How do you figure?

I'd have no problem with a legitimate government going back and either re-ratifying those amendments or doing well without them, as written,

Legitimate government? What would you call a legitimate government? I would call it, one elected in accordance to the Constitution.
since they are mostly nothing more than recognition of lesser status and further fuel for minority entitlement.
Actually they were put there to correct the official designation of a lesser status. I see no provision for entitlement in these amendments, unless you consider the right to be free and to vote as entitlements.
Succession is now moot since we have an illegal serving as President and term limits are obviously a farce, at best.

While no fan of Obama, and admitting that there is some question to his eligibility, succession is hardly moot. It has to do with who comes into the office if Obama goes away. Biden is bad enough, but President Pelosi is just 2 heartbeats away.

I hadn't heard that the 22nd Amendment had been repealed or overturned as unconstitutional.
Nuts? Probably. But only in the eyes of someone who doesn't wholly understand the implications of where this country is headed and how it got here.
If you are talking about our march toward socialism, I am all too aware of it. I just don't believe that throwing out half of the Constitution is the answer. If you believe that it is, then get the ball rolling and get the amendments repealed.
The 14th Amendment is the keystone. Pull it and the house of cards falls.

Somebody please pull it.

I would rather it be followed as written.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

wylde007 wrote:
However, regardless of your opinion. the fact remains that those articles were illegally ratified and enacted.
Can you please explain your basis for this argument. I have seen you assert this but have not seen you discuss from whence you reached this conclusion. Perhaps I missed it.
 

MT GUNNY

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
309
Location
Kalispell, Montana, USA
imported post

+1 on this Quote;

"All this talk of violating states rights with this legislation is making me sick! Does a law that declares my AZ drivers license valid in all other states violate states rights? More importantly, the 2A gives me the right to carry so any legislation that tells the hold-out states to stop violating my rights as outlined in the Constitution sounds like good legislation to me."

Setting aside the debate of CCP already being an Infringement of 2 Amendment.

It is an Infringement of my 2 Amendment Rights That I cant Carry in another state. this bill would alleviate that Problem and would allow more people the Right to Bear arms. It would also Strengthen the 2 Amendment in states that already Infringe on that Right.
 

smn

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
145
Location
, ,
imported post

I won't support this bill on the basis that the States have the authority to regulate its citizens to keep and bear arms. If this bill passes then we lose our tenth amendment rights and all of a sudden the 2A will be lost and the feds can then regulate (by its power) our new privilege to keep and bear arms.

Until the 2A is officially incorporated into the 14A, I will not support this bill.

/my $0.02
 

YllwFvr

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
270
Location
Scranton, Pa, ,
imported post

I hate to be so openly dense, but Ihate politics. So if Im reading all this right on the plus side our CCW permits would be good in any state.

On the other side it would look like the government has a right to change how the 2A is viewed? Meaning they have the power to change or interpret it as they saw fit?



I have a problem with that view because if thats whats going on here they are already doing that. Isnt the concept of"Gun Control" against the 2nd anyway?
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
imported post

deepdiver wrote:
Can you please explain your basis for this argument. I have seen you assert this but have not seen you discuss from whence you reached this conclusion. Perhaps I missed it.
The thirteen "rebel" states were forced back into the union at bayonet point, had military governors and legislatures APPOINTED by a federal court and those men are the ones who "ratified" the amendments. Any amendment ratified thereby and ANY SUBSEQUENT amendment is null is that basis alone.

The Southern states, under duress, were either required to tow the federal line or face further military consequences.

The 14th Amendment stripped the sovereignty and nationhood from all Southerners. To that end, and since it was ratified by only the recognized federal representatives, the South remains a nation under occupation by a federally appointed government.

The same wrongs against liberty that Washington fought against are the ones that Lee fought against.

A confession made under duress has been shown to not be legally binding. The 14th Amendment (and, by chronological logic, all subsequent amendments) was made under duress and at the point of a bayonet.

Gordie wrote:
Where do you get that I believe that women and minorities need an amendment to be considered equal? I never made such a statement.
Dude, you said it (implied it) right here:

Gordie
wrote:
So you think that #s 13 (Abolition of slavery),15 (Rights Not to Be Denied on Account of Race), 19 (Women's Right to Vote), 20 (Presidential Term and Succession), 22 (Two Term Limit on President), 24 (Poll Tax), should all be thrown out.
Would you prefer to return to "the good old days"? I would not.
Actually, minus the racial and sexist discrimination (which can be re-amended) I most-certainly would.

Legitimate government? What would you call a legitimate government? I would call it, one elected in accordance to the Constitution.
Which we do not have. The government may be "elected" in accordance with the letter of the Constitution, but I believe it is safe to say, especially here, that body does not recognize its own limits to legislate in the letter NOR SPIRIT of the same document.

If you are talking about our march toward socialism, I am all too aware of it. I just don't believe that throwing out half of the Constitution is the answer. If you believe that it is, then get the ball rolling and get the amendments repealed.
Take a look around you, mate. IRS, BATF, FBI, FEMA, DHS... these agencies all exist as affronts to liberty and individual sovereignty. Nearly every effort of the government is intended to control you and me a little more every day through fear. Fear that they'll take our homes or other property, or children or jobs or freedom if we don't bow down and do as they say. We didn't abandon the Constitution, they did. Certain elements contained therein were specifically reserved and enumerated by the authors to allow us to protect ourselves from this treasonous behaviour.

I am working in some circles to get amendments repealed or, at the very least, recognized as per the 10th Amendment as the ONLY legislative edicts that our government is permitted to enforce.

Any rights not specifically enumerated shall be left to the separate states or the PEOPLE.

What part of "Shall not be infringed" is it so hard for them to understand?

I would rather it be followed as written.
We at least agree on this point. But it is not. And like a lie in court, if one statement is falsely issued, then the rest must be considered suspect. Our government is responsible for so many lies, treacheries and deceit against the people that it is widely considered that the majority of what they say is lies, treachery and deceit.

To solve that problem we cannot simply hope to "fix" the system. The system must be broken down and rebuilt or replaced. If it can be done peacefully, all the better.

If not, then I pray God will show us the light and the way.
 
Top