HR 197

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.

imported post

springerdave wrote:

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

Click to expand...

Agreed

imported post

There goes State choice:cuss:

imported post

Taurus850CIA wrote:

springerdave wrote:

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

Click to expand...

Agreed

Click to expand...

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?

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

Taurus850CIA wrote:

springerdave wrote:

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

Click to expand...

Agreed

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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".

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

imported post

I'm not angry at all, not with you. The gov't, on the other hand...

imported 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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

Would that abolish all the current laws? If so, I'd be all in. I strongly doubt that would happen...

imported post

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

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

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.

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.