Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: HR 197

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667

    Post imported post

    Voice your opposition to this Bill. This is another attempt at nationalization.

    H.R. 197. The National Right To Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009.

    Would open the door to a lot more laws, in my opinion.springerdave.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Taurus850CIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,071

    Post imported post

    springerdave wrote:
    Would open the door to a lot more laws, in my opinion.springerdave.
    Agreed
    "Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame." - Cort

    Gun control is like trying to reduce Drunk Driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

    Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

    The answer to "1984" is "
    1776"

    With freedom comes much responsibility. It is for this reason so many are loathe to exercise it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    There goes State choice

  4. #4
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    Taurus850CIA wrote:
    springerdave wrote:
    Would open the door to a lot more laws, in my opinion.springerdave.
    Agreed
    Is the issue that the places designated as no carry zones are spelled out and may be more limiting than state law? Or is your concern more that states, and not the federal Government, should have the right to limit who carries within their state?
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Taurus850CIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,071

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    Taurus850CIA wrote:
    springerdave wrote:
    Would open the door to a lot more laws, in my opinion.springerdave.
    Agreed
    Is the issue that the places designated as no carry zones are spelled out and may be more limiting than state law? Or is your concern more that states, and not the federal Government, should have the right to limit who carries within their state?
    That.

    It is not the Federal Government's place to regulate in any fashion my 2nd amendment right, according to the wording of the amendment. If the Fed Gov't were to be allowed to get involved in forcing reciprocity, that, IMO, would be taking away the individual State's right to choose.


    edit: I got all worked up over the government's infringements, and scanned your reply, Dr Todd, and misrepresented my position. I do not believe the states have the right to regulate my 2nd Amendment right. Therefore, "That" above should read "Neither".
    "Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame." - Cort

    Gun control is like trying to reduce Drunk Driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

    Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

    The answer to "1984" is "
    1776"

    With freedom comes much responsibility. It is for this reason so many are loathe to exercise it.

  6. #6
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    Are you saying then that it is each individual States' place to regulate your Second Amendment right? (I am speaking here of what you believe philosophically because present practice is that both the individual states and the feds do regulate firearms). Second question: Do the individual States have the prerogative to regulate your other rights as listed in the US "BIll of Rights"?

    Also, where is it written that states can regulate your rights but the Feds can't?
    2A says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Notice it does not say that "... shall not be infringed except by the individual states"? So, I ask, where does it say that the Feds can't "infringe" the "keeping and bearing" of arms, but the states can?

    Would allowing concealed carry in more states be an "infringement" or would it be an expansion of the RKBA?
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Taurus850CIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,071

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    Are you saying then that it is each individual States' place to regulate your Second Amendment right? (I am speaking here of what you believe philosophically because present practice is that both the individual states and the feds do regulate firearms). Second question: Do the individual States have the prerogative to regulate your other rights as listed in the US "BIll of Rights"?

    Also, where is it written that states can regulate your rights but the Feds can't?
    2A says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Notice it does not say that "... shall not be infringed except by the individual states"? So, I ask, where does it say that the Feds can't "infringe" the "keeping and bearing" of arms, but the states can?

    Would allowing concealed carry in more states be an "infringement" or would it be an expansion of the RKBA?
    The following is nothing but my blowhard opinion:

    The 2nd is the be-all and end-all, as written. "Shall not be infringed". The end. Any "licensing" scheme is an infringement, and should be done away with.

    10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    Since the Right to Keep and Bear has been enumerated in the Federal document we call The Constitution by way of amendment, the states are not supposed to be able to regulate it.

    HOWEVER

    Through the people's complacency, emotion based thought processes, and a host of other horses**t kneejerk reactions, the states HAVE regulated the right. There are "licenses" issued for the PRIVELIDGE of concealed carry, and in some instances, open carry. The states should not be forced to recognize another state's issued license. Drivers licenses were not universally recognized for some time either. Over time, it became apparent that the people wanted to be able to drive in states other than their residency. The states worked it out between themselves. This is as it should be. I would LOVE for my CPL to be recognized by other states, and it is recognized by quite a few. It's slowly heading that direction, and I will patiently wait until the states have exercised their rights to work it out themselves, even though the very act of "licensing" P**SES ME OFF.

    The solution? The people in each state need to get rid of the infringements their state has made.

    Opinion over.

    "Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame." - Cort

    Gun control is like trying to reduce Drunk Driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

    Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

    The answer to "1984" is "
    1776"

    With freedom comes much responsibility. It is for this reason so many are loathe to exercise it.

  8. #8
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    I didn't write this to anger you or others, I just wanted to understand what your philosophical beliefs were. I really don't have a problem with HR 197 in that if there is a reciprocity agreement, it appears that those licensed to carry would still be allowed to carry under the present restrictions. I also like the fact that those states who presently prohibit most individuals from carrying concealed would be unable to continue to do so, at least for visitors.

    I agree with 50% of what you say; the Feds should not be able to 'infringe" the "keeping and bearing of arms", but neither should the states. I would prefer that neither are able to infringe the right. Perhaps the only way to do this would be to actually enforce the provisions of the 2nd Amendment by stating exactly what it says: "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" No licensing for any sort of carry, concealed or open, and no restrictions at either the state or Federal level.

    If the Supreme Court does eventually rule that 2A does apply to the states, I think that we will be well on our way to the full expression of the right. Until such time, I think that, at least on the surface, HR 197 furthers the cause.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Taurus850CIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,071

    Post imported post

    I'm not angry at all, not with you. The gov't, on the other hand...
    "Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame." - Cort

    Gun control is like trying to reduce Drunk Driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

    Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

    The answer to "1984" is "
    1776"

    With freedom comes much responsibility. It is for this reason so many are loathe to exercise it.

  10. #10
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667

    Post imported post

    I will ride on Taurus' wagon therefor keeping my boots out of the horse-puckey created by the federal and state lawmakers. I will respectfully disagree with you Dr Todd.springerdave.

  12. #12
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    springerdave wrote:
    I will ride on Taurus' wagon therefor keeping my boots out of the horse-puckey created by the federal and state lawmakers. I will respectfully disagree with you Dr Todd.springerdave.
    Would you be opposed to the Supreme Court fully incorporating 2A, thereby applying it to the states and the Federal government as it is written?
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Taurus850CIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,071

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    springerdave wrote:
    I will ride on Taurus' wagon therefor keeping my boots out of the horse-puckey created by the federal and state lawmakers. I will respectfully disagree with you Dr Todd.springerdave.
    Would you be opposed to the Supreme Court fully incorporating 2A, thereby applying it to the states and the Federal government as it is written?
    Would that abolish all the current laws? If so, I'd be all in. I strongly doubt that would happen...
    "Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame." - Cort

    Gun control is like trying to reduce Drunk Driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

    Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

    The answer to "1984" is "
    1776"

    With freedom comes much responsibility. It is for this reason so many are loathe to exercise it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667

    Post imported post

    I believe I would. If the court finally and rightly so decided it would benefit our cause greatly indeed.springerdave.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    The Supreme Court needs to stay out of this too!. They are Judicial, not Legislative...They need not clear up any Constitutionallity, it is clear the 2nd is enumerated, therefor the Feds need to get lost as well as the states. Anything not enumerated, what part of "Not Enumerated" don't they get

  16. #16
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    If they fully incorporated 2A, it would, IMHO, eliminate most, if not all, firearm possession laws by definition. That probability is slim to none, however.

    If your fear is that the Feds would assume that they can restrict firearm possession to a much larger degree after they pass this, the point seems valid until one considers that the Feds already believe that they can regulate firearms through the commerce clause. Nothing really stops them, at least in regards to current constitutional interpretation.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    Your right as long as there are Liberals & Lawyers they can "Interpret the law to read anyway they want. Till they push too far as they did back in the first revolution.

  18. #18
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    conservative85 wrote:
    The Supreme Court needs to stay out of this too!. They are Judicial, not Legislative...They need not clear up any Constitutionallity, it is clear the 2nd is enumerated, therefor the Feds need to get lost as well as the states. Anything not enumerated, what part of "Not Enumerated" don't they get
    I agree that the Federal Government and the states have expanded their power into areas that clearly were not delegated to them. They forget that the people themselves, irrespective of being a citizen of the United States or a particular state within the union, are also given certain rights.

    As 2A clearly declares, the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"; not by states themselves nor the federal government. Since this legislation is acknowledging that states do not have the right to infringe RKBA, at least to a small degree, I think it is supportable. Is it perfect? No. But, pragmatically, it is at least a small step.

    I do understand those that believe since neither the states or the Feds should have the power to regulate in this area, they can't support HR197. But do these same people currently have a CPL? Pragmatism, at least to those with a CPL, seems to be prudent in this regard. If a person doesn't want to capitulate on the issue and they therefore have refused to get a CPL, carry as they wish, and are willing to argue when they are arrested that the actions of the government at any level to infringe their right to bear arms is 'unconstitutional", I applaud their stance.

    I also think that a strong argument argument could be made that it is somewhat hypocritical if one gets a CPL and then argues that HR197 is wrong because neither the states nor the Feds have been delegated the power to decide who can carry or how they carry.

    Therefore, since I have at least tacitly acknowledged some degree of RKBA regulation, at least on the state level, by my application and receiving a CPL, I support this legislation which expands RKBA until such time as all the laws regarding "keeping and bearing arms" are declared null and void.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  19. #19
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    conservative85 wrote:
    Your right as long as there are Liberals & Lawyers they can "Interpret the law to read anyway they want. Till they push too far as they did back in the first revolution.
    I am not looking for agreement... I am asking that someone convince me and others how this is bad legislation. Conservative, Libertarian, Socialist, Fascist, and Communist judges all interpret the constitution too. I think it would be safe to say that any constitution, legislation, or even association rules are open to interpretation.
    Just because I like the judges or they happen to belong to my political party really has little to do with whether I find a judge's interpretation logically defensible.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    U.S. Constitution
    Arcticle IV
    Section 1.
    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
    Rand Paul 2016

  21. #21
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    And the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution which states, in part,

    "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Taurus850CIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,071

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    conservative85 wrote:
    The Supreme Court needs to stay out of this too!. They are Judicial, not Legislative...They need not clear up any Constitutionallity, it is clear the 2nd is enumerated, therefor the Feds need to get lost as well as the states. Anything not enumerated, what part of "Not Enumerated" don't they get
    I also think that a strong argument argument could be made that it is somewhat hypocritical if one gets a CPL and then argues that HR197 is wrong because neither the states nor the Feds have been delegated the power to decide who can carry or how they carry.
    I see this point, Dr. Todd. Unfortunately, the Gov't has made it necessary for me to make the decision to go against what I believe in. I moved to Flint, and will not be caught here without the means to defend my family and myself in any situation. In a lower risk area...maybe, but I doubt that. I also can not afford to tell my Gov't that their laws on firearms possession are unconstitutional from behind bars, while my family and my home are free for the criminals to take. By simply standing for what I believe, and carrying in any manner that I see fit, the law of the state would make me a criminal, no matter how unconstitutional it is. As a CPL holder, I have had to take what I believe to be the lesser of two evils. I don't like it at all, as I have said before, but it's what I have had to do.
    "Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame." - Cort

    Gun control is like trying to reduce Drunk Driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

    Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

    The answer to "1984" is "
    1776"

    With freedom comes much responsibility. It is for this reason so many are loathe to exercise it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    Because it is violating my right as an individual to choose. My personal belief is that the 2nd is telling the Feds. they have no rights at all on this topic, & since the right to keep & bear is enumerated, the states have no right to say anything either. How ever since both believe they can regulate concealed and existing laws will never be repealed I do not want to see the feds overstep their bounds by forcing all to comply with a few. If texas or anyother state wishes to believe that they do have rights to regulate, I don't think it is fair for someone who don't live there to dictate what they can do. I especially don't want to givefederal goverment getting their foot in that door.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Taurus850CIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,071

    Post imported post

    I don't like the idea of "incorporation" either. Why is it necessary? The Constitution was written as the law of the land, and in order to be admitted to the Union, each state had to ratify it. Through ratification, they agreed that what was written was IT. Anything specifically enumerated was to be off limits. That changed in 1833 in Barron vs. Baltimore. The Supreme Court held, erroneously, in my opinion, that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government. If it wasn't for that stupid decision, the issue of "incorporation", and the issues with restrictive laws against firearms possession, would be a non-issue. That said, I would have to pick the lesser of two evils, again, and be on board with full incorporation of the Second, which I never see happening.
    "Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame." - Cort

    Gun control is like trying to reduce Drunk Driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

    Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

    The answer to "1984" is "
    1776"

    With freedom comes much responsibility. It is for this reason so many are loathe to exercise it.

  25. #25
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    Taurus850CIA wrote:
    I don't like the idea of "incorporation" either. Why is it necessary? The Constitution was written as the law of the land, and in order to be admitted to the Union, each state had to ratify it. Through ratification, they agreed that what was written was IT. Anything specifically enumerated was to be off limits. That changed in 1833 in Barron vs. Baltimore. The Supreme Court held, erroneously, in my opinion, that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government. If it wasn't for that stupid decision, the issue of "incorporation", and the issues with restrictive laws against firearms possession, would be a non-issue. That said, I would have to pick the lesser of two evils, again, and be on board with full incorporation of the Second, which I never see happening.
    I agree wholeheartedly... the whole concept of incorporation is, in my opinion, legal fiction.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

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
  •