Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 151

Thread: National Reciprocity

  1. #1
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984

    National Reciprocity

    If this passes it will have huge impact on OC after the states see that the carrying of weapons does not result in blood in the streets. While I live in MD and cannot carry on my nonresident VA permit,if this bill passes anyone who has a permit from their home state can carry in ANY of the 50 states, regardless of the state's issuance laws for their own residents. I think this will have good implications for OC as well.

    fingers crossed

    http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com...city-bill.html
    Last edited by swinokur; 02-22-2011 at 03:33 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lolo, MT
    Posts
    160
    This would be awesome! I really hope it passes. I want to do a cross country motorcycle ride this summer, but am severely limited on locations due to individual state's acceptance of my permit. :/

  3. #3
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Thanks. I was actually looking for this bill last night but could only find the 2005-2009 versions. I hope it finally passes. I do wonder how many states will pull their licenses though. (I'm looking at you Cali and NY).

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    I would not look to see this bill go anywhere - least of all through the senate.

    Surprising to some perhaps, but I do not favor federally mandated national reciprocity any more than I would favor a national carry permit. First objection is that what the government gives, they can take away.

    Occasionally someone will compare this thinking with driving license which are generally accepted in most states. (a) This has been accomplished by agreement between the states, NOT via federal intervention.

    If congress wants to accomplish a major good thing for RKBA, they could step above the recent SCOTUS decisions and structure a law clarfiynig and codifying that all states SHALL develope/adopt laws whereby honest citizens may own, posses and carry guns for their personal defense and the defense of others within their state. Reciprocity will follow on the heels of this.

    footnote a - Massachusetts as of 2009 allowed out-of-state driving permits except those issued by Montana or Washington State
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Surprising to some perhaps, but I do not favor federally mandated national reciprocity any more than I would favor a national carry permit. First objection is that what the government gives, they can take away.
    Ditto. The last thing I would want to see is the federal government sticking its unwelcome nose in more places where it doesn't belong. I'm like the Founders with these things; I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I am against this bill. Unequivocally.

    It is one more usurpation of State authority by the feds. Yes, the singular outcome of being able to carry everywhere once licensed by your home State is a positive. The side-effect is intolerable: that the feds have the power to override any State law on guns. The next time they usurp a State gun law, the outcome might be not-so-positive.

    No. This law is NOT good.

  7. #7
    Regular Member tcmech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    368
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    I would not look to see this bill go anywhere - least of all through the senate.

    Surprising to some perhaps, but I do not favor federally mandated national reciprocity any more than I would favor a national carry permit. First objection is that what the government gives, they can take away.

    Occasionally someone will compare this thinking with driving license which are generally accepted in most states. (a) This has been accomplished by agreement between the states, NOT via federal intervention.

    If congress wants to accomplish a major good thing for RKBA, they could step above the recent SCOTUS decisions and structure a law clarfiynig and codifying that all states SHALL develope/adopt laws whereby honest citizens may own, posses and carry guns for their personal defense and the defense of others within their state. Reciprocity will follow on the heels of this.

    footnote a - Massachusetts as of 2009 allowed out-of-state driving permits except those issued by Montana or Washington State
    I tend to agree with Grapeshot here that this will probably go nowhere. I also agree that there should be no federally mandated reciprocity. I do believe though that if marriage license's and drivers license's are recognized in all 50 states irregardless of the state in which they are issued then my Virginia CHP should also be recognized and honored in all fifty states. If this were a license dealing with interstate commerce I would feel differently, but since this is a personal and not a business issue I see no difference.

    I also believe that as a citizen of the United States of America I should be able to carry any weapon that I legally posses, (by this I do not mean any weapon that the government allows me to own, but any weapon that I can afford to purchase), in any manner that I can safely do so, without benefit of government permission.

    Needless to say I don't think that the majority of the elected representatives in our great country share my belief.

  8. #8
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    I have to add my "nay" as well. We can't sit here and complain about federal encroachment on some issues and be for it on others.

    This is best left to individual states to work out.

    The only argument I can see for the "yea" side is that the 2nd amendment to the US constitution does specifically mention the right to keep and bear arms, which could place it the issue in federal jurisdiction. However, I don't think the 2nd Amdmt give the feds control over guns. In fact, it does just the opposite and takes control of guns OUT of federal control, imo.

    Ref: "...shall not be infringed"

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    footnote a - Massachusetts as of 2009 allowed out-of-state driving permits except those issued by Montana or Washington State
    Quote Originally Posted by tcmech View Post
    I do believe though that if marriage license's and drivers license's are recognized in all 50 states irregardless of the state in which they are issued then my Virginia CHP should also be recognized and honored in all fifty states. If this were a license dealing with interstate commerce I would feel differently, but since this is a personal and not a business issue I see no difference.
    Contrary to popular belief, driving licenses from all states are NOT accepted in all 50 states - see bolded points above. I think NY treats out of state DLs the same as they treat their learners permit - see my cite above.

    Further, not all states recognize the marriage licenses of all states 100% - think same sex marriage which is legal some places and not others.

    The principle difference is that the RKBA is an affirmed right, whereas driving and marriage would seem to be more state sanctioned.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  10. #10
    Regular Member tcmech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    368
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Contrary to popular belief, driving licenses from all states are NOT accepted in all 50 states - see bolded points above. I think NY treats out of state DLs the same as they treat their learners permit - see my cite above.

    Further, not all states recognize the marriage licenses of all states 100% - think same sex marriage which is legal some places and not others.

    The principle difference is that the RKBA is an affirmed right, whereas driving and marriage would seem to be more state sanctioned.
    My understanding may be skewed here but drivers permit to me means learner's permit, license means I don't need adult supervision. I do believe that the drivers permit you are talking about is a learners permit.

    I understand the whole same sex marriage thing and that it is not recognized in many places, but the liberals who propagate it on us all seem to come from places that do not recognize my right to defend myself. It may be small consolation that I don't recognize the same sex marriage.

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by tcmech View Post
    My understanding may be skewed here but drivers permit to me means learner's permit, license means I don't need adult supervision. I do believe that the drivers permit you are talking about is a learners permit.

    I understand the whole same sex marriage thing and that it is not recognized in many places, but the liberals who propagate it on us all seem to come from places that do not recognize my right to defend myself. It may be small consolation that I don't recognize the same sex marriage.
    You may well be right. I tend to use driving license and driving permit interchangeably; when I mean "learner's" permit, I add the word "learner's." That may not fit the test of legalize, but it works for me ........... normally.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    150
    I support this law and respectfully disagree with the others.

    It is the role of the federal government to support and defend the constitution, as all politicians taken an oath to do so.

    Many of the states have already proven that they cannot be trusted to obey the constitution's second amendment. When that happens, it is the job of the federal government to force states to recognize a citizen's constitutional right.

    Example: Sending in the 101 airborne division to end segregation in the south, civil rights act etc.



    States do have rights. Violating the constitutional rights of American citizens is not one of them. And quite frankly, the role of states rights in the constitution has been highly exaggerated in recent debate. If anything, the constitution was intended to strengthen the power of the federal government over state sovereignty.

    Why would I say this? Because it's birth originates from the failure of the articles of confederation. It was realized by the founders that a collective of sovereign states was unpractical and un-american. Just as it is unpractical that I can be legally carrying in Indiana, walk one foot across the state line to Illinois and be committing a felony.

    I am not a Kentuckyian, I am an American, as we all should consider ourselves. With that in mind, all states should have to obey the constitution and it is the natural role of the federal government to ensure that.

    I would also add that the constitution is nothing more than a wrinkled old piece of paper IF it does not have an enforcer such as the federal government to ensure states don't violate it, just as they violated it with segregation.
    Last edited by trooper46; 02-22-2011 at 09:55 PM. Reason: added last statement

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    And one of the concepts in the Constitution is States' Rights.

    Some States require a background check to get a license. Others do not. Forcing a State to accept the license from a State that has lesser requirements for issuance undermines that State's sovereignty.

    I don't think that the Framers ever intended for the federal government to be the arbiter of what the Constitution means as it relates to State sovereignty. That is good. In a relationship where the feds pass on State laws, that places the federal government over the State government. The Framers wisely intended the reverse.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    You may well be right. I tend to use driving license and driving permit interchangeably; when I mean "learner's" permit, I add the word "learner's." That may not fit the test of legalize, but it works for me ........... normally.
    You were correct in that states choose to accept the license whether it is a learners permit or whatever from other states. The Feds do establish such things as the shape and size of road signs or some highway markings but only to the point that they can withhold federal funds if a state does not go along. I remember when the whole deal about the pictures on signs started due to people with DL not being able to read or not being able to read English. Before then signs such as Yield and School Crossing had words on them rather than some picture that you now have to look very closely to see what it is and remember all the details.

    But being able to use your DL across coutry is actually an agreement that all states came up with and not a federal edict. I am not sure that Marriages will ever be universal just like divorce and wills will never be. Those can get very messy across state lines.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Doesn't the "full faith and credit" clause require that other States accept DLs from out of State--as long as the issuance of that license by one State and the acceptance of it by another cause a violation of the law in the other State?

    As I understand it, this is how States that do not recognize homosexual marriage can ignore out-of-State homosexual marriages. They must recognize out-of-State marriages that would otherwise be in compliance the their laws, but not those that violate it.

    I guess for DLs, the analog would be a State that does not allow 14-year-olds to get licenses not honoring the license of a 14-year-old from another State.

  16. #16
    Regular Member sultan62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Clayton, NC
    Posts
    1,319
    Quote Originally Posted by trooper46 View Post
    I support this law and respectfully disagree with the others.

    It is the role of the federal government to support and defend the constitution, as all politicians taken an oath to do so.

    Many of the states have already proven that they cannot be trusted to obey the constitution's second amendment. When that happens, it is the job of the federal government to force states to recognize a citizen's constitutional right.

    Example: Sending in the 101 airborne division to end segregation in the south, civil rights act etc.



    States do have rights. Violating the constitutional rights of American citizens is not one of them. And quite frankly, the role of states rights in the constitution has been highly exaggerated in recent debate. If anything, the constitution was intended to strengthen the power of the federal government over state sovereignty.

    Why would I say this? Because it's birth originates from the failure of the articles of confederation. It was realized by the founders that a collective of sovereign states was unpractical and un-american. Just as it is unpractical that I can be legally carrying in Indiana, walk one foot across the state line to Illinois and be committing a felony.

    I am not a Kentuckyian, I am an American, as we all should consider ourselves. With that in mind, all states should have to obey the constitution and it is the natural role of the federal government to ensure that.

    I would also add that the constitution is nothing more than a wrinkled old piece of paper IF it does not have an enforcer such as the federal government to ensure states don't violate it, just as they violated it with segregation.
    I've thought about your points here, and must disagree. The federal government has already given a provision acknowledging RKBA in the 2nd Amendment. Both the federal government and most state governments have infringed on that right, but the fact is, we already have the legislation. We now need the judicial branch (Supreme Court) to uphold it.
    "They don't give a damn about any trumpet playing band
    It ain't what they call rock and roll
    And the Sultans...
    Yeah the Sultans, they play Creole"

    OCDO Member
    NCGO Member

  17. #17
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I am against this bill. Unequivocally.

    It is one more usurpation of State authority by the feds. Yes, the singular outcome of being able to carry everywhere once licensed by your home State is a positive. The side-effect is intolerable: that the feds have the power to override any State law on guns. The next time they usurp a State gun law, the outcome might be not-so-positive.

    No. This law is NOT good.
    My thoughts too!
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    As much as I like a universally acknowledgement of the 2A, I have to agree, the feds are acquiring more unconstitutional power each passing year.

    This could be used as a tool like the South Dakota law though to show others who are the modern day "federalist" how it is bad in all areas, to be doing this.

    This doesn't mean that if it passes I won't take advantage of it though. I don't wont to be without my gun when I to what I consider my second home Hawaii.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

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

  19. #19
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by trooper46 View Post
    Example: Sending in the 101 airborne division to end segregation in the south, civil rights act etc.
    This is illegal. The federal government cannot use United States military for policing actions. This is blatantly a violation of the law and as such, no state is under obligation to support or allow this.

    I also disagree with most everything else you wrote. The states were meant to have power over and above that of the federal government, not the other way around.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  20. #20
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    wasn't the National Guard federalized to enforce desegregation and not the regular army?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    This is illegal. The federal government cannot use United States military for policing actions. This is blatantly a violation of the law and as such, no state is under obligation to support or allow this.

    I also disagree with most everything else you wrote. The states were meant to have power over and above that of the federal government, not the other way around.
    The method of enforcement is a moot point. The example was meant to demonstrate the role of federal government as an enforcer of the constitution. Had the president sent Federal Marshals to Little Rock, it would not have violated the Posse Comitatus Act (the law you refering to by claiming it was illegal). The method may have been illegal, however the act of enforcing the supreme court's interpretation of the constitution was not.


    As for the idea of states having "power over and above that of the federal government". I suggest you expand your examination of the constitution beyond the 2nd amendment and that of what might be found on a Tea Party sign. There is nothing in the constitution that places the states "over the federal government". Further, the constituition was created following the failure of the articles of confederation. The framers were concerned with preserving state rights, but they were also well aware of the dangers of "state sovreignty" without some type of oversite.

    I agree that is up to the supreme court to fully define and secure the 2nd amendment as the individual right to carry. But without an enforcer the constitution is meaningless. As a rather arrogant President Jackson once said of a supreme court justice's decision "Let him enforce it".

    When states fail to obey the constitution, it falls upon the feds to bring them in line. Without enforcement, the bill of rights is pure fantasy

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    Amendment 10 of the US Constitution
    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.
    Under this same thought that unless it is declared illegal then it is legal. This is the reason that OC is legal in many states. There is no arguent from anyone that I know of about the Fed's right to enforce the Constitution in the individual States but the argument in the Fed's right to enfoce that which is not in the Constitution. I do not think that it is within the right of the Fed's to tell the states how to administer laws such as OC or CC as there is nothing in the Constitution covering the individual administation rathe it just says that we have a right to bear arms. I think that the SCOTUS has stated that we have that right and it applies to the states but the idea of requiring National Reciprocity is beyond that ruling.

    As I understand and do not have a cite nor am I saying that it is fact but the Canadian Constitution has the reverse of 10A where the Providences and therefore the people are only granted the powers specifically stated in the Constitution. If this were the case in the US then to OC would require a law stating that it was legal.

    Yes the Feds can enforce the constitution in any state but only the Constitution and nothing else. If a state says you do not have to wear clothes then there is nothing in the Constitution requiring it and the Feds have no control over it, or at least should not.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    485
    Quote Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
    If this passes it will have huge impact on OC after the states see that the carrying of weapons does not result in blood in the streets. While I live in MD and cannot carry on my nonresident VA permit,if this bill passes anyone who has a permit from their home state can carry in ANY of the 50 states, regardless of the state's issuance laws for their own residents. I think this will have good implications for OC as well.

    fingers crossed

    http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com...city-bill.html
    This is a good idea, and a long time coming. With some pressure applied this bill will easily make it through the house, and it is "NRA-ILA" palatable - meaning it furthers the "P4P" structure they like.

    The fed already has power over state gun laws pursuant to the Supremacy clause. Example - perfectly legal to have a machine gun in VA, so long as it's registered within 24 hours of delivery. Feds however require you to have a tax stamp ( or you go to prison ).

    While a solid RKBA court decision would be ideal, the reality is that both Heller and McDonald were very weak rulings constitutionally. New Jersey has already put forth a brief that essentially states RKBA -only- applies in the home, and this was coming from the moment the Heller ruling was handed down. "Sensitive places" is the new rallying cry for police state enthusiasts. Even if we were to get a court case to the supreme court, the outcome is most assuredly not certain based on the very tepid wording in both Heller and McDonald. On top of this, courts do everything they can to avoid ruling on constitutional issues.

    Here's a question that everyone ought to be asking themselves - What if we lose the inevitable RKBA case at USSC?

    There is a great philosophical divide between gun owners generally and any elected official & bureaucrat. They serve a master that is essentially a life form unto itself and it does not want to give up power, authority or control and they will fight with lethal force to enforce their will. We have a more principally rooted belief - the Constitution means what it says, should be enforced that way, government should be small and efficient.

    It's safe to say that we and government do not see eye to eye. They will fight tooth and nail to see that RKBA outside the home is suppressed and in the event they lose, very strictly controlled. The latter is their fall back position.

    We have no fallback position. If we go to a federal court with a bear arms case (not bare arms) and lose, we will be set back years, if not decades. Requiring states to honor out of state carry permits would be a sound fall back position.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by PT111 View Post
    Amendment 10 of the US Constitution

    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.
    Under this same thought that unless it is declared illegal then it is legal.
    Not so fast. Let's take a closer look, from the viewpoint of logical/semantic analysis:

    Powers are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, when they are neither:

    A: Delegated to the United States by the Constitution

    B: Prohibited by the Constitution from being reserved to the States

    Put another way, all powers reside with the State or the People except those delegated to the Fed or prohibited from being reserved to the State.

    People forget that each State was, and remains a sovereign entity. Think "State = Country" and you'll see Virginia carried the same weight of sovereignty as Belgium, or France. The U.S. was one of the first supercountries, where individual entities loosely associated themselves for a greater purpose. Other supercountries include the U.S.S.R and the E.U.

    Furthermore, put still yet another way, each State reserves the right and the authority to tell Uncle Sam to take a hike if Uncle Sam violates the Constitutional limits on its power, which is what happened with the Obamacare smackdown.

    This is the reason that OC is legal in many states. There is no arguent from anyone that I know of about the Fed's right to enforce the Constitution in the individual States but the argument in the Fed's right to enfoce that which is not in the Constitution.
    Therein lies the balance of power between the States and the Fed:

    1. The States can tell Uncle Sam to take a hike when Uncle Sam oversteps their Constitutional authority.

    Meanwhile...

    2. Uncle Sam can also enforce State compliance withing the limits of Constitutional authority delegated to Uncle Sam.

    When they disagree, they take it to court, just as they did when 30+ states sued the Fed over Obamacare.

    I do not think that it is within the right of the Fed's to tell the states how to administer laws such as OC or CC as there is nothing in the Constitution covering the individual administation rathe it just says that we have a right to bear arms.
    I think you are correct, on the surface of it.

    I think that the SCOTUS has stated that we have that right and it applies to the states but the idea of requiring National Reciprocity is beyond that ruling.
    Not quite. When you scratch the surface, you discover that the Constitution grants the United States (the Fed) the right to regulate Interstate Commerce:

    Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    If you'll check with the proposed legislation, it is under this clause by which the Fed can establish a basis for national reciprocity, and this clause is cited in the list of justifications for the proposed legislation.

    Yes the Feds can enforce the constitution in any state but only the Constitution and nothing else.
    You're absolutely correct - and that's precisely what they're doing, both within the limits of their authority to do so, as well as without exceeding those limits. If you'll read the wording carefully, the only thing the bill does is require states which have CC permits (47) to respect the CC permits of other states as if they'd been issued from within that state. It does not require the states to change their own laws with respect to CC rights, limitations, and restrictions. Rather, it requires the permittee to know and respect the CC laws of whatever state in which they're carrying.

    Personally, I think it's a brilliant stroke of legal genius.

    Now, whether or not it's desirable or not is another matter altogether. I would prefer both the fed and the states to wake up and realize when the Founding fathers said "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" they were talking about open carry, not concealed carry. Back in those days, only those up to skullduggery and thieves concealed a weapon. These days, CC, OC, whatever - it shouldn't matter.

    ETA: More info.
    Last edited by since9; 02-24-2011 at 12:20 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    That kind of convoluted logic is what makes the federal government think it can do anything, because, applying that logic, they can!

    If one is against the use that kind of logic to justify nationalizing health care, then consistency dictates that he not advocate such contortions to justify something else, even if it benefits him.

    Each little twisting of the Constitution had a benefit, so folks didn't mind the subversion. Of course, folks had their own pet benefits, needing their own little twists. The net result of all of these benefits is pretzel, not a Constitution.

    It is a shame when folks here advocate the pretzeling.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... 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
  •