Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39

Thread: You are kidding could this be true?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    You are kidding could this be true?

    House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines.
    Lawmakers are considering a House bill that would give Americans who hold permits to carry firearms in their home states the right to carry their weapons across state lines.

    Although many states have entered into voluntary agreements, there is no nationwide framework for honoring permits and licenses uniformly. A bipartisan bill, co-authored by Reps. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., and Heath Shuler, D-N.C., aims to change that.

    Supporters say the measure would not create a federal licensing system, but would require that all states recognize lawfully issued permits -- regardless of where they were issued. Gun rights advocacy groups say it's the only way to make sure that lawful gun owners' Second Amendment rights are guaranteed when they travel away from their home states.

    But opponents say the bill tramples on each state's autonomy to set the standards legislators believe are necessary to confront local problems. Foes also said that the law could allow violent offenders to hold on to their weapons.

    Testifying before Congress on Tuesday, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey told the story of Marqus Hill, a man whose Pennsylvania gun permit was revoked after he was charged with attempted murder.

    "Despite his record, he then used his Florida permit to carry a loaded gun in Philadelphia," Ramsey said. "He eventually shot a teenager thirteen times in the chest killing him on the street."

    Gun rights advocates say the dire warnings about expanding the rights of law-abiding citizens are overblown. Wayne LaPierre, executive director of the National Rifle Association, said the American public is more interested in self-defense than scare tactics. He's also predicting a win for what has been dubbed the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.

    "It cuts across Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives -- even President Obama's base is strongly in favor of this legislation," LaPierre said..

    Gun control groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence have successfully defeated similar legislation in the past, and vow to stop this bill as well. They're aligning with a number of elected officials and law enforcement organizations, who say this measure would make it even tougher for officers to determine which guns are on the streets legally or illegally.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Exclamation Yes, It Is True...

    This is the second attempt to get National Reciprocity passed. Let's hope we can this time but I am sure Nobama will Veto it.

    The last time this was attempted Kohl voted against it. Kohl wrote me that he would not vote for it because it "Violated States Rights". This from the senator that violated states rights with his GFSZ law.
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  3. #3
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    This has been introduced some time ago and I agree with rcawdor57 about it getting passed.It might not even get passed the Dem. Senate majority. It may have a good chance in 2012 flip the nation like nation just like we did in Wisconsin.

    And if it passes, I am sure states like California and New York to name a few, will file lawsuits saying it violates states rights.
    Last edited by BROKENSPROKET; 09-14-2011 at 12:24 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652
    SNIP

    But opponents say the bill tramples on each state's autonomy to set the standards legislators believe are necessary to confront local problems. Foes also said that the law could allow violent offenders to hold on to their weapons.

    Testifying before Congress on Tuesday, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey told the story of Marqus Hill, a man whose Pennsylvania gun permit was revoked after he was charged with attempted murder.

    "Despite his record, he then used his Florida permit to carry a loaded gun in Philadelphia," Ramsey said. "He eventually shot a teenager thirteen times in the chest killing him on the street." SNIP
    I.don't see this as hard to figure out as they seem to think it is. Add some wording to the bill to this affect:

    Any persons having had their "CHP" revoked, suspended, denied or otherwise prohibited from legaly obtaining a "CHP" from their State of Residence, are therefore denied the ability to use any non-resident "CHP" from a State not of his residence within the borders of his State of Residence.
    This shall not then deny the holder of such non-resident "CHP" to carry concealed in States not of his residence unless expressly and individually prohibited by that State by means of felonous or firearm related convictions that would prohibit the use of the "CHP" within the borders of that State to resident "CHP" holders.



    I probalby messed up the legal speak, but I think I got the point out. If your prohibited from obtaining one in your state then they won't have to honor one in your name from another state.. Seems simple to me.. I should suggest that to my congressman...



    Sent using tapatalk
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    This has been introduced some time ago and I agree with rcawdor57 about it getting passed.It might not even get passed the Dem. Senate majority. It may have a good chance in 2012 flip the nation like nation just like we did in Wisconsin.

    And if it passes, I am sure states like California and New York to name a few, will file lawsuits saying it violates states rights.
    I'm sure ILLinoise would be on that list as well.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  6. #6
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Baked on Grease View Post
    I.don't see this as hard to figure out as they seem to think it is.
    It is a bullsh%t story designed to illicit a response. The guy carried a firearm illegally. Having a Florida permit did not change that. Notice the liar Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey wasn't quoted as saying Hill was stopped multiple times for CC but the cops let him go... because they thought he had a valid Florida permit. Just because Florida did not send an agent to personally retrieve Hill's Florida permit doesn't mean the permit was still valid.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  7. #7
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    I'm sure ILLinoise would be on that list as well.
    Illinois would be the only no carry state, even HI would have to allow carry by foreign permit holders, subject only to statutory restrictions placed on their permits issued to residents. Even if they do not issue any to their residents the carry law is on the books triggering the proposed federal provisions. States that place carry restrictions on a permit must allow non-resident permit holders carry in accordance to their least restrictive permit.

  8. #8
    Regular Member civilwarguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    elkhorn wi
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by HandyHamlet View Post
    It is a bullsh%t story designed to illicit a response. The guy carried a firearm illegally. Having a Florida permit did not change that. Notice the liar Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey wasn't quoted as saying Hill was stopped multiple times for CC but the cops let him go... because they thought he had a valid Florida permit. Just because Florida did not send an agent to personally retrieve Hill's Florida permit doesn't mean the permit was still valid.
    You mean a criminal carried even though it was illegal???? who would have thought

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Well, this is technically against "States Rights", and I put that in quotes because there's no such thing. This is a 10A issue, or states powers. However, if it is an unconstitutional federal power to regulate this, it must surely be unconstitutional to mandate health care, or enforce the GFSZA. Senators like Kohl, and formerly Feingold voted agains reciprocity on 10A grounds but that's because it suited their agenda. They just want to usurp states powers when they have a vested interest same as the Republicans.

    What I think we really need is some modern day case law surrounding the 9A. It should be extended to us, in the very least through the due process clause in the 14A (but preferably under the PoI clause), so that we may bring up federal civil rights lawsuits on both 2A and 9A grounds. If they wrote the reciprocity bill citing the 2A instead of the commerce clause this would make things more interesting. Does anyone have the text of the current bill? Usuallly it states in front of them under which federal power they are being enforced. On the other hand, I'm not sure that positively enforcing the BoR is under the purview of the powers of congress which defaults to the courts instead...back to the 2A/9A federal suit.
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 09-14-2011 at 04:57 PM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Lightbulb Text Of Bill HR 822 As Introduced In The House...

    112th CONGRESS

    1st Session

    H. R. 822

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    February 18, 2011

    Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

    A BILL

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ‘National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011’.

    SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds the following:

    (1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

    (2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    (3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    (4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

    (5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

    (6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.

    (7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

    (8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

    (9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    (10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.

    SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

    1
    (a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

    ‘Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

    ‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

    ‘(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

    ‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

    ‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

    ‘(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.

    ‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’.

    (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

    ‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.

    (c) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

    (d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

    I cannot LINK to the bill since it requires a LOGIN. You may find it at www.opencongress.org It is a great site to keep up on what the Feds are doing, good or bad.
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by rcawdor57 View Post
    The Congress finds the following:

    (1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

    (2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    (3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    (4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

    (5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

    (6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.

    (7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

    (8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

    (9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    (10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.
    Thanks!
    The above is what I was looking for. The changes to this part of the bill compared to the last trys may make this a win constitutionally. I'd prefer they leave out the second part of #8 though.

    As I mused about in my previous post however; is #3 really true, at least under current case law? They must be getting this from Aritcle IV section 2. Anyone got some jurisprudence on this?

    Now, this is the stuff that's interesting! LOL
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 09-14-2011 at 05:33 PM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by rcawdor57 View Post
    I cannot LINK to the bill since it requires a LOGIN. You may find it at www.opencongress.org It is a great site to keep up on what the Feds are doing, good or bad.
    ??????


    Yes, you can.
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...s/d112HR.lst::

    No login required.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  13. #13
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Others may disagree with me but I believe this is one of the few things the Federal government has jurisdiction over. The 2nd amendment is in the Federal Constitution and the Federal government enforcing it is something they should do.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Others may disagree with me but I believe this is one of the few things the Federal government has jurisdiction over. The 2nd amendment is in the Federal Constitution and the Federal government enforcing it is something they should do.
    That does not equate to any "need another regulation."
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    West Coast, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    306
    It does violate states rights. Violation of the 10th amendment. But mandatory permits in general are a violation of the 2nd so .......
    ...........

    This is the mess we get into when we get outside the basis principles of the constitution.

  16. #16
    McX
    Guest
    is there going to be a fee imposed for this right?

  17. #17
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    We already have national reciprocity in the 2nd amendment. If the dumbarse Supreme Court would just rule that it applies to all states, which it does, we would not need another law. Putting the feds in charge of your carry rights is dangerous.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  18. #18
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by McX View Post
    is there going to be a fee imposed for this right?
    You know it.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  19. #19
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodchuck View Post
    It does violate states rights. Violation of the 10th amendment. But mandatory permits in general are a violation of the 2nd so .......
    ...........

    This is the mess we get into when we get outside the basis principles of the constitution.
    Truer words have seldom been spoken.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    We already have national reciprocity in the 2nd amendment. If the dumbarse Supreme Court would just rule that it applies to all states, which it does, we would not need another law. Putting the feds in charge of your carry rights is dangerous.
    Reciprocity is for CC permits, not for "keep and bear." That is reality. Unless a person lives in, or travels to a state that outlaws OC, "reciprocity" is not a 2A issue. Unless concealed carry becomes an unlicensed mode of "keep and bear" someday.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  21. #21
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Reciprocity is for CC permits, not for "keep and bear." That is reality. Unless a person lives in, or travels to a state that outlaws OC, "reciprocity" is not a 2A issue. Unless concealed carry becomes an unlicensed mode of "keep and bear" someday.
    Let me clarify the intent of my post: Permits, reciprocity, and the like all violate the 2A and are unconstitutional. We don't need them as all we do need is contained in the founding documents, which people refuse to read and take at their word.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    We already have national reciprocity in the 2nd amendment. If the dumbarse Supreme Court would just rule that it applies to all states, which it does, we would not need another law. Putting the feds in charge of your carry rights is dangerous.
    Better yet would be to rule it to each individual since it is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and "shall not be infringed."
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    Let me clarify the intent of my post: Permits, reciprocity, and the like all violate the 2A and are unconstitutional. We don't need them as all we do need is contained in the founding documents, which people refuse to read and take at their word.
    I understood your meaning.

    But, the current AND past view of this specific does deny CC as a valid lawful "bear arms" absent such permission slip. Pressing FOR it is not the same as pressing FOR the RKBA. You may not LIKE hearing that, but that IS the reality. History, AND SCOTUS are in sync with that. I would challenge you to find ANY reference from the founders era that advocates concealment as a protected method of "bear."


    For the record, I am FOR constitutional carry. But, history does not agree with me.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  24. #24
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    I understood your meaning.

    But, the current AND past view of this specific does deny CC as a valid lawful "bear arms" absent such permission slip. Pressing FOR it is not the same as pressing FOR the RKBA. You may not LIKE hearing that, but that IS the reality. History, AND SCOTUS are in sync with that. I would challenge you to find ANY reference from the founders era that advocates concealment as a protected method of "bear."


    For the record, I am FOR constitutional carry. But, history does not agree with me.
    Omission of the method of carry does not constitute a preference for or against any method of carry. The method is irrelevant. All men are endowed (given the right) by God to keep and bear (carry) in any way they please. This involves a concept known as freedom, perhaps you have heard about it.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    Omission of the method of carry does not constitute a preference for or against any method of carry. The method is irrelevant. All men are endowed (given the right) by God to keep and bear (carry) in any way they please. This involves a concept known as freedom, perhaps you have heard about it.
    I didn't mention a preference for or against any method, other than that I am FOR Constitutional Carry. I mentioned the actual history and current SCOTUS rulings about it. You are attempting to state that reality is something other than the current (and historical) reality.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

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
  •