Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: Rep. Justin Amash lied to the NRA

  1. #1
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490

    Rep. Justin Amash lied to the NRA

    "Congressman Justin Amash said he would support National Right-to-Carry reciprocity legislation in response to our 2010 Congressional candidate questionnaire. His responses to that questionnaire
    ( http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/AmishQ.pdf ) were the basis of our support for him last year. Now he is actively attacking the NRA for our support of this pro-gun measure which he said he supported. HR 822 in the 112th Congress is virtually identical to HR 197 in the 111th Congress cited in our 2010 federal candidate questionnaire which he indicated he would support.

    Call Congressman Amash at 202-225-3831 and let him know you’re disappointed in him for lying to gun owners and the NRA on his NRA-PVF federal candidate questionnaire." -NRA facebook page.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  2. #2
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Amash is not anti-gun. In fact, his beliefs are closets to Ron Paul's out of anyone in Washington. Mr. Amash merely believes this is a States issue and not a Federal Question. I happen to agree.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  3. #3
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Well it passed the house. I'd like to see this bill get passed.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Eastpointe Michigan
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    Amash is not anti-gun. In fact, his beliefs are closets to Ron Paul's out of anyone in Washington. Mr. Amash merely believes this is a States issue and not a Federal Question. I happen to agree.
    I disagree, states like California, and New York have no right to tell me I can not practice my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, I'm opposed to any form of licensing at all being required, but since it is, if a state allows it's own people to carry, even if it is just the elites they should allow other states licensed individuals to carry. Full Faith, And Credit, and Equal Protection Under The Law.

    A state has no right to ignore the constitution, since the second amendment says bear arms, and shall not be infringed, and it is incorporated under the 14th amendment a state has no right what so ever to tell me I can't carry.

  5. #5
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    I see Paul wasn't present, probably in NH or Iowa. If I had to guess, he would have voted the same way as Amash. Does this mean Paul isn't pro-gun?

    I doubt you'll ever find a stronger proponent of 2A than Ron Paul and Justin Amash.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  6. #6
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    I see Paul wasn't present, probably in NH or Iowa. If I had to guess, he would have voted the same way as Amash. Does this mean Paul isn't pro-gun?

    I doubt you'll ever find a stronger proponent of 2A than Ron Paul and Justin Amash.
    How come Amash said he would support this bill then when it came down to it voted against it?
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  7. #7
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    How come Amash said he would support this bill then when it came down to it voted against it?
    Seems like that is a question we need an answer to.

  8. #8
    Michigan Moderator Shadow Bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Grand Rapids
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    How come Amash said he would support this bill then when it came down to it voted against it?
    Votes, obviously. We have such a short collective memory, that it is typical for politicians to promise the moon.

    They typically don't deliver, though.

    And nothing happens.

    Welcome to American politics.
    'If the people are not ready for the exercise of the non-violence of the brave, they must be ready for the use of force in self defense. There should be no camouflage.....it must never be secret.' MK Gandhi II-146 (Gandhi on Non-Violence)-- Gandhi supports open carry!

    'There is nothing more demoralizing than the fake non-violence of the weak and impotent.' MK Gandhi II-153 (Gandhi on Non-Violence)

  9. #9
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    Perhaps it's because of the bad parts of the bill.

    From GOA:

    Furthermore, during floor consideration of the bill, a troubling amendment was added to instruct the Government Accounting Office to:

    "Conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of licenses or permits, issued by other States, to carry a concealed firearm."
    Rand Paul 2016

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Yooper View Post
    Perhaps it's because of the bad parts of the bill.

    From GOA:

    Furthermore, during floor consideration of the bill, a troubling amendment was added to instruct the Government Accounting Office to:

    "Conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of licenses or permits, issued by other States, to carry a concealed firearm."
    What's wrong with that? Didn't we recently have Michigan CPL holder arrested in Texas when they thought his crappy permit looked fake and couldn't verify it's validity? I'd like to know the communists in Illinois can verify my CPL rather than arrest me unjustly.

  11. #11
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by scot623 View Post
    What's wrong with that? Didn't we recently have Michigan CPL holder arrested in Texas when they thought his crappy permit looked fake and couldn't verify it's validity? I'd like to know the communists in Illinois can verify my CPL rather than arrest me unjustly.
    Cite?
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    Cite?
    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a.../t-108900.html

    Not the one I was thinking of but makes my point none the less.

  13. #13
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by scot623 View Post
    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a.../t-108900.html

    Not the one I was thinking of but makes my point none the less.
    Interesting. Sounds like their police need to actually learn the laws. This is another reason why people shouldn't be required to inform police they are carrying.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by Small_Arms_Collector View Post
    I disagree, states like California, and New York have no right to tell me I can not practice my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
    I think we all agree on that.

    But, does that justify ignoring and violating the very same Constitution that says any power not specifically authorized to the federal government (H.R. 822, for instance), is forbidden?

    No. This is a state matter. Those who advocate violating the Constitution to secure a highly restricted interstate RKBA, are essentially arguing to let Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein have control of who may bear arms, and where, and when, and how.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    On it's face the bill sounds great. But it is the constitutional reasons many have pointed out that are hard to justify.

  16. #16
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    I think we all agree on that.

    But, does that justify ignoring and violating the very same Constitution that says any power not specifically authorized to the federal government (H.R. 822, for instance), is forbidden?

    No. This is a state matter. Those who advocate violating the Constitution to secure a highly restricted interstate RKBA, are essentially arguing to let Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein have control of who may bear arms, and where, and when, and how.
    Under Section I. Article 10 of the Constitution the Feds must approve all agreements between the states. Only by tacit approval are those agreements currently lawful. Remember the 14'th amendment would supersede the 10'th amendment regarding enforcement of fundamental rights.

  17. #17
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by lockman View Post
    Under Section I. Article 10 of the Constitution the Feds must approve all agreements between the states. Only by tacit approval are those agreements currently lawful. Remember the 14'th amendment would supersede the 10'th amendment regarding enforcement of fundamental rights.
    I don't read that from Article I Sec. 10. I do explicitly remember it explained in 12th grade government class States don't enter into treaties with one another as treaties involve two countries. States enter into compacts with one another though. Congress is not required for agreements between States. I don't get where you see that at all.

    ETA: A State can't enter into a treaty with say, France, nor any other sovereign nation.
    Last edited by TheQ; 11-18-2011 at 09:16 AM.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  18. #18
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    U.S. Rep. Justin Amash and the National Rifle Association are at odds over legislation that just passed the U.S. House allowing those holding a concealed pistol license in their state to legally carry a concealed pistol in another state that allows the practice.

    Mr. Amash (R-Kentwood) was one of only a handful of Republicans to oppose the legislation.

    Mr. Amash, in a posting on his Facebook page, said he voted against the bill because it "unconstitutionally gives Eric Holder and the federal government expansive new powers to regulate and gradually restrict gun rights," referring to the U.S. attorney general.

    "Gun rights advocates have fought hard to prevent liberal abuse of the Commerce Clause that would restrict gun rights," Mr. Amash wrote. "As an Endowment Life Member of the NRA and a Representative of individuals who believe deeply in the right to keep and bear arms, I am disappointed that the NRA has decided to put its own interests ahead of the interests of gun owners. Fortunately, many other gun rights groups rightly oppose H R 822."

    But the NRA accused Mr. Amash of lying about the issue, saying he had vowed to support national right-to-carry reciprocity legislation in its candidate questionnaire. Mr. Amash countered that he does support such legislation, but not if it rests on the Commerce Clause for its authority.

    -- From Gongwer News Service, 11/18/2011, "Amash, N.R.A. Open Fire On Each Other"
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  19. #19
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    I think we all agree on that.

    But, does that justify ignoring and violating the very same Constitution that says any power not specifically authorized to the federal government (H.R. 822, for instance), is forbidden?

    No. This is a state matter. Those who advocate violating the Constitution to secure a highly restricted interstate RKBA, are essentially arguing to let Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein have control of who may bear arms, and where, and when, and how.
    I disagree. The denial of exercising a constitutional right is, in itself, sufficient reason for
    Congress to act to end that denial. Dave Kopel does an excellent job of detailing the Constitutionality of the bill. I think, though, that the argument under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment is the strongest. However, all of his points are defensible.

    see: http://davekopel.org/Testimony/HR822-Kopel.pdf
    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
    My understanding is that the Commerce clause was intended to give the federal government the power to keep commerce moving between the states, by preventing a state from taxing or putting restrictions on goods and services from one state from being sold in that state, and to keep foreign goods coming into the country from being taxed at different rates in different harbors. In the 1930's is when the Supreme Court began (Wickard v. Filburn) to broaden the reach of what the commerce clause meant. Since then, it has grown to the monster that it is today.
    Rand Paul 2016

  21. #21
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Yooper View Post
    My understanding is that the Commerce clause was intended to give the federal government the power to keep commerce moving between the states, by preventing a state from taxing or putting restrictions on goods and services from one state from being sold in that state, and to keep foreign goods coming into the country from being taxed at different rates in different harbors. In the 1930's is when the Supreme Court began (Wickard v. Filburn) to broaden the reach of what the commerce clause meant. Since then, it has grown to the monster that it is today.
    Yes, I too think the commerce clause is over-used. However, that was the weakest of the three arguments. Like I said, the 14th Amendment is where I think the strength if the argument is, with the other two being weaker. This weakness is only my opinion... as exemplified by your response.
    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
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Eastpointe Michigan
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    I think we all agree on that.

    But, does that justify ignoring and violating the very same Constitution that says any power not specifically authorized to the federal government (H.R. 822, for instance), is forbidden?

    No. This is a state matter. Those who advocate violating the Constitution to secure a highly restricted interstate RKBA, are essentially arguing to let Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein have control of who may bear arms, and where, and when, and how.
    No power is being given to the feds, and nothing in the bill enables schumer, feinstein, or anyone else to do anything, all such amendments were defeated in the house, I don't think the Senate has even started yet. The bill simply tells the states to recognize each others permits, the same way they do drivers licenses. Nothing in it gives the government any power at all to control how a state issues, permits, who gets them, or how you can carry.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    I disagree. The denial of exercising a constitutional right is, in itself, sufficient reason for
    Congress to act to end that denial.
    That would be a valid argument if that's what this bill does. It doesn't. No one in Illinois (and darn few in California, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, NYC or Boston) will be able to exercise their rights.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Small_Arms_Collector View Post
    No power is being given to the feds, and nothing in the bill enables schumer, feinstein, or anyone else to do anything, all such amendments were defeated in the house, I don't think the Senate has even started yet. The bill simply tells the states to recognize each others permits, the same way they do drivers licenses. Nothing in it gives the government any power at all to control how a state issues, permits, who gets them, or how you can carry.
    A plain reading of the bill itself leaves me with the following understanding..........

    The Federal government hangs it's power to regulate anything and everything on the "commerce clause" of the Constitution.....sooooo....

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

    (the above is lie #1..... the wording says that concealed carry permits are the right to carry but if there really was a right to carry no one would need the government permission slip called a permit) But to continue...

    7 (8) The Congress finds that preventing the law8
    ful carrying of firearms by individuals who are trav9
    eling outside their home State interferes with the
    10 constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms
    11 interstate commerce.


    Please note that the wording of this bill gives Congress the power to regulate CC permits under the commerce clause.. because the bill states that States not recognizing each others CC permits "harms interstate commerce". Now anything that "harms interstate commerce"... like States having different criteria for qualifying for a permit... will be able to be regulated by Congress under the power given by the commerce clause.

    Please folks.... whenever the government offers the little people a cookie you can be sure they are standing behind you ready for when you bend over to pick up that cookie.
    Last edited by Bikenut; 11-19-2011 at 08:41 AM.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by bikenut View Post
    please folks.... Whenever the government offers the little people a cookie you can be sure they are standing behind you ready for when you bend over to pick up that cookie.
    qft

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
  •