Second amendment slap in the

[ryanburbridge]

This bill may be supported by some near sited pro gun people. But you MUST resist! Do not be fooled by the NRA into giving up your rights. You can fight your state much easier then the fed. Spread the word. Think about liberty. Don't settle for another link in the chain of oppression.

Must read!

http://www.newswithviews.com/LeMieux/michael148.htm

The 112th Congress is in the process of another shove, another push in its effort to convert the rights of American citizens into a licensed privilege. Senate bill 176, entitled the ‘‘Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011,” not only flies in the face of individual rights but stomps all over states powers as well.

In section two of the bill it looks to add a section to federal statutes titled as section “926D. Concealed firearms permits” in which federal law would enact a mandate that controls how state residents may obtain a concealed carry permit stating:

1. “Establish a process to issue permits to residents of the State to carry concealed firearms” and
2. Requires anyone seeking to carry concealed must “obtain a permit through the process established under paragraph (1).”
So, even states, like Vermont, Arizona, or any others seeking constitutional concealed carry (where no permit is required) would mandate that the state take on the process and cost of issuing permits to persons desiring to do so.

"If squirt guns are outlawed, only outlaw squirts will have guns!"

James Taranto

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I am sure individuals in Chicago, D.C., and California would love to have a break like this, considerring the crap they have to go through.

Should this be left up to the states? It depends, are the states able to assure that their citizens have access to, and a chance in hell of acquiring a permit to carry? If the answer is 'no', then it might be best to take it to a Federal level, but the Federal Law only be a baseline, and any state which goes above, and beyond has the authority to do so.

 

[Aknazer]

I can see this being a good thing, but not in the current form. In order for it to be a good law it would need to simply state that all states must be "shall-issue" and then state that the states must come up with a way to "issue" the permit and that if they don't then they must adopt the Federal course within X many days. For states that have constitutional carry any state issued ID would act as their permit (or the state can choose to put an endorsement on the drivers lisence).

I'm sure other people on here could come up with a version or would be flat out against anything as the Constitution should be all that's needed, but the intent would be to force any state that doesn't want to follow the second amendment to follow it (or rather, a step towards following it, obviously there's more to it than just this bit), while not stepping on the toes of states that already honor the second amendment, and prevent states from trying to later infringe on it.

It really shouldn't be needed, but when states start violating the Constitution then someone has to hold them accountable. And before you say that "their citizens should hold them accountable" remember that the states are made up of the people, and that in order for the violations to happen enough people of the state had to be like minded enough to support those who would perform the violations. And so without outside intervention or a sudden in-state uprising it is unlikely that the violators will suddenly and willingly change their ways.

 

[eye95]

I can see this being a good thing, but not in the current form. In order for it to be a good law it would need to simply state that all states must be "shall-issue" and then state that the states must come up with a way to "issue" the permit and that if they don't then they must adopt the Federal course within X many days. For states that have constitutional carry any state issued ID would act as their permit (or the state can choose to put an endorsement on the drivers lisence).

I'm sure other people on here could come up with a version or would be flat out against anything as the Constitution should be all that's needed, but the intent would be to force any state that doesn't want to follow the second amendment to follow it (or rather, a step towards following it, obviously there's more to it than just this bit), while not stepping on the toes of states that already honor the second amendment, and prevent states from trying to later infringe on it.

It really shouldn't be needed, but when states start violating the Constitution then someone has to hold them accountable. And before you say that "their citizens should hold them accountable" remember that the states are made up of the people, and that in order for the violations to happen enough people of the state had to be like minded enough to support those who would perform the violations. And so without outside intervention or a sudden in-state uprising it is unlikely that the violators will suddenly and willingly change their ways.

Why would anyone who loves Liberty want the feds dictating ANYTHING to the States. Let the States (over which We the People can exert far more influence than we can over the feds) make the call. The let us citizens move the State in the correct direction.

Giving the feds the power to dictate to the States in this regard is an acknowledgment that they are the authority on what the RKBA is.

Stupidly dangerous.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Why would anyone who loves Liberty want the feds dictating ANYTHING to the States. Let the States (over which We the People can exert far more influence than we can over the feds) make the call. The let us citizens move the State in the correct direction.

Giving the feds the power to dictate to the States in this regard is an acknowledgment that they are the authority on what the RKBA is.

Stupidly dangerous.

It's interesting how the Second Amendment (Federal) is such an important Amendment to the Constitution, but the "right to bear arms" should be left to the states to decide just how far the Constitution should go. I wonder, how does that work? Let me guess, the states use a Federal Document, The Constitution, but have exclusive control over how the document is applied?

Californians would love this idea, wait, they are benefiting from it right this moment.

Obviously some states can not, will not, or refuse to be 'led' as you call it. The Federal Government should push this issue, hopefully along the lines outlined in my response above.

 

[Aknazer]

Why would anyone who loves Liberty want the feds dictating ANYTHING to the States. Let the States (over which We the People can exert far more influence than we can over the feds) make the call. The let us citizens move the State in the correct direction.

Giving the feds the power to dictate to the States in this regard is an acknowledgment that they are the authority on what the RKBA is.

Stupidly dangerous.

And allowing rogue states to continuously trample the Constitution is stupidly dangerous as well. Besides, whenever we hope for the SCOTUS to give a pro-2A ruling that IS hoping for the feds to fix something. It might not be the executive or legislative branch, but it's still a branch of the federal government. And your whole "let us citizens move the State in the correct direction" is pretty idealistic/naive. Just sitting back and hoping that the states will fix it doesn't really work when enough people in the state are against it. I mean just look at how well letting the states "fix" it worked for Illinois, California, New York, etc. People have had to go to the Supreme Court (again, part of the FEDERAL government). And as the minority gets fed up with being crapped on they end up moving away to more friendly places. Which makes it even harder for those that remain to make progress as the numbers of those that support them dwindle.

The federal government has grown in ways that it shouldn't have, but it has also neglected some of the duties that it does have. Likewise states have given up powers that they should have, while grabbing for things that they shouldn't. Both the states and the feds need to readjust. And so I don't see the problem with the federal government enforcing a federal document that the states agreed to follow. The real issue is in the competency of the federal government to properly enforce what they're authorized to enforce without over-reaching, but that's a completely different beast.

Oh and I'm just curious, but who do you think the authority of the federal document is?

 

[eye95]

And allowing rogue states to continuously trample the Constitution is stupidly dangerous as well...

Oh and I'm just curious, but who do you think the authority of the federal document is?

It is. But looking to the federal government's law-making power to protect us from States violating our rights is infantilizing us. It is already unlawful to violate rights. It is up to US to take the action to protect our rights. It is the one who can protect the rights who has them. Letting the feds pass laws to protect our rights empowers THEM, not us!

In answer to your authority question: The authority of the Constitution derives from the authority which the People voluntarily cede to the State in the formation of a State (not "state," the subservient subdivision of a larger, more dominant political entity in a political hierarchy, but "State," a sovereign political entity, deriving its authority from the consent of the governed). In the US, the States have the authority ceded to if by the People. In order to form a more perfect Union of those States, the States then ceded 18 specific and enumerated authorities to the federal government, a government that the States created. In the areas in which the States ceded authority, federal law holds sway. In the areas in which the States did not cede authority (which is, by far, the majority of governmental authority) the States retain the authority ceded by the People.

Unlike the mistaken impression that the schools unfortunately foster, the US is not a hierarchy, with authority flowing from the federal government to the States and then, in turn, being exercised over the People. Instead, the source of governmental authority is the People, who formed States, granting them authority to pass laws that do not violate our natural rights, while allowing them to pass laws that would prevent others from acting in ways that would keep us from enjoying life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The federal government derives its authority from the States.

Our system is "bottom-up," not "top-down." Top-down is the form favored by tyrants. It is a controlling form. By advocating that the feds control the States, movement towards top-down is being advocated. Unfortunately, because of the misimpression that the US is a hierarchical government, too many of our citizens see a top-down model and favor laws that follow this model, innocently helping us down the road to tyranny.

NO! All federal laws that force the States to allow rights to be exercised (ironically, "rights" as seen by the lawmakers, at their whim) are actually small steps toward the federal government's ability to define and to take rights, small steps toward tyranny.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

This topic is one of those topics that isn't discussed much, in depth, by individuals who in one breath demand the (s)tates have authority, then run to the Federal Government begging for help, and a finding (Supreme Court of the United States) when their Federal-backed 'rights' (under the U.S. Constitution) are 'at stake' - when a (s)tate has created a law, or alters their constitution that a group of people decry as unConstitutional (Federal).

 

[hermannr]

I can understand the House bill (HR 822), that would force all states to recognize other states CPL's. To me this is like any state recognizing another states drivers license. That is a proper use of the commerce clause.

However, this Senate bill is like the national government telling all the states what the requirements (age, health etc) and processes (training) are needed for a state to issue a drivers license etc. Or how old you are before you can marry, or....

No, this Senate bill is not good, it intrudes into the state's business way to far. It would help some people, like California and IL, but it would not be the proper use of national power. It is contrary to the seperation of powers.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I can understand the House bill (HR 822), that would force all states to recognize other states CPL's. To me this is like any state recognizing another states drivers license. That is a proper use of the commerce clause.

However, this Senate bill is like the national government telling all the states what the requirements (age, health etc) and processes (training) are needed for a state to issue a drivers license etc. Or how old you are before you can marry, or....

No, this Senate bill is not good, it intrudes into the state's business way to far. It would help some people, like California and IL, but it would not be the proper use of national power. It is contrary to the seperation of powers.

So, by your argument it should be left to the states to decide the age individuals can be married? So, if a state decides that ten years of age is appropriate, then you are good with that? The Federal Government should be directing all of these things, or you get a California, and Chicago situation.

 

[Statkowski]

So, by your argument it should be left to the states to decide the age individuals can be married? So, if a state decides that ten years of age is appropriate, then you are good with that?

Sorry, Charlie, but yes, that's the way it's supposed to be. Ours is a unique nation of fifty sovereign states who have joined together voluntarily and have created a central government with limited power and authority. Read the U.S. Constitution.

Some states say you can get a full-fledged driver's license at age 16, yet a few others now require an older age. You certainly can't get a driver's license in New York City unless your 18 or over. Other states respect such laws. The individual sovereign states have agreed amongst themselves to honor each others' drivers licenses, and marriage certificates, and other such things (but not firearms licenses/permits). The Federal Government doesn't have the authority to tell the states what they will honor, or must honor, unless the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution comes into play, and then it's in the hands of the courts, not Congress.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Sorry, Charlie, but yes, that's the way it's supposed to be. Ours is a unique nation of fifty sovereign states who have joined together voluntarily and have created a central government with limited power and authority. Read the U.S. Constitution.

Yes, fifty 'sovereign' states until everyone decided that 'black only," and "white only" restrooms, drinking fountains, and diners were acceptable. Yea, the states were doing a wonderful job, wouldn't you say?

I have read(e) the U.S. Constitution, and apparently "limited power and authority" is rather subjective.

Some states say you can get a full-fledged driver's license at age 16, yet a few others now require an older age. You certainly can't get a driver's license in New York City unless your 18 or over. Other states respect such laws. The individual sovereign states have agreed amongst themselves to honor each others' drivers licenses, and marriage certificates, and other such things (but not firearms licenses/permits). The Federal Government doesn't have the authority to tell the states what they will honor, or must honor, unless the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution comes into play, and then it's in the hands of the courts, not Congress.

The Federal Government told the states that segregation is over, and the states followed suit, as they should. The states have proven themselves to lack the ability to assure that their citizens are treated equally under the law. So the Federal Government must, and should step in, and impose Law.

Yes, the Federal Government does, and is able to go further in telling the states what they 'can', and 'cannot' do if Laws that are imposed are found to be Constitutional, under the very document that most states affirm as the "supreme Law of the Land."

 

[eye95]

Sorry, Charlie, but yes, that's the way it's supposed to be. Ours is a unique nation of fifty sovereign states who have joined together voluntarily and have created a central government with limited power and authority. Read the U.S. Constitution...

Some people have forgotten that (or never knew it until it was pointed out). What the Constitution says does not matter to them. They see a problem, and they want the most expedient solution, principles be damned. Many of them want the security a central state that will care for them from cradle to grave by passing a bunch of there-oughtta-be-a-laws designed to reign the rest of us in.

They forget that those kind of laws are wanted by many besides them, apply to all including them, and ultimately rein us all in including them.

How can anyone truly believe in Liberty for All while lobbying for such a dominant central government? Such would be totally inconsistent.

 

[PrayingForWar]

Yes, fifty 'sovereign' states until everyone decided that 'black only," and "white only" restrooms, drinking fountains, and diners were acceptable. Yea, the states were doing a wonderful job, wouldn't you say?

I have read(e) the U.S. Constitution, and apparently "limited power and authority" is rather subjective.




The Federal Government told the states that segregation is over, and the states followed suit, as they should. The states have proven themselves to lack the ability to assure that their citizens are treated equally under the law. So the Federal Government must, and should step in, and impose Law.

Yes, the Federal Government does, and is able to go further in telling the states what they 'can', and 'cannot' do if Laws that are imposed are found to be Constitutional, under the very document that most states affirm as the "supreme Law of the Land."

It makes me giggle when she claims to support Ron Paul, and then posts that she supports (apparently) the fed gov using military force (as it did in Alabama in the 50's to desegragate the school systems) against individual states to enforce court rulings.

Hypothetically, I suppose that if for some reason the courts ruled gay marriage unconstitional, and had to send federal troops into Kalifornia to arrest some judges unlawfully performing these marriages, because the state refused to arrest and prosecute them, she'd lose her "mind".

How about this? California law allows people to smoke dope for "medical" reasons, the federal law does not. I'll bet she's all for states rights there. Is federal force and dominance over the states only proper when the mood suits you? A little consistence from our moonbat fringe would solve a lot of problems.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

It makes me giggle when she claims to support Ron Paul, and then posts that she supports (apparently) the fed gov using military force (as it did in Alabama in the 50's to desegragate the school systems) against individual states to enforce court rulings.

Hypothetically, I suppose that if for some reason the courts ruled gay marriage unconstitional, and had to send federal troops into Kalifornia to arrest some judges unlawfully performing these marriages, because the state refused to arrest and prosecute them, she'd lose her "mind".

How about this? California law allows people to smoke dope for "medical" reasons, the federal law does not. I'll bet she's all for states rights there. Is federal force and dominance over the states only proper when the mood suits you? A little consistence from our moonbat fringe would solve a lot of problems.

Your response if packed with assumptions about my views. I figured responding to any of your responses to me would be a waste of time, and energy. I won't let that happen again. Of course, I will not 'ignore' you, but this is a waste of time.

 

[Aknazer]

Some people have forgotten that (or never knew it until it was pointed out). What the Constitution says does not matter to them. They see a problem, and they want the most expedient solution, principles be damned. Many of them want the security a central state that will care for them from cradle to grave by passing a bunch of there-oughtta-be-a-laws designed to reign the rest of us in.

They forget that those kind of laws are wanted by many besides them, apply to all including them, and ultimately rein us all in including them.

How can anyone truly believe in Liberty for All while lobbying for such a dominant central government? Such would be totally inconsistent.

While the central government needs to be smaller, it also needs to be strong enough to be able to enforce the things that the soveriegn states have agreed to follow. Now I'm not going to get into the issues regarding federal oversteps (of which there are many and they do need to be addressed), but if the federal government isn't strong enough to enforce the Constitution when states decide to not follow it, then you end up with a U.N.-like body that spouts a bunch of hot air but is ultimately useless.

In regards to the subject, the states shouldn't be forced to accept other states permits, but permits also shouldn't be required due to the whole "shall not be infringed" bit (something that the federal government is also guilty of ignoring). Given that permits are currently required I see this law as a small step forward towards fixing the issue as the federal government is not allowing a state to violate non-citizens (of that specific state) rights, but it still allows a state to violate the rights of it's own citizens. I also feel that it will likely take various small steps, with the occasional large step, to fix the 2A issues of this country given that where we are currently we didn't get there overnight and as such we won't get out of it overnight.

Now there are plenty of issues with our country and with how both our states and federal government acts. But one needs to realize that just because the government needs to be smaller as a whole doesn't mean that it doesn't need to expand in certain areas (namely in the area of actually enforcing and following the Constitution, something it has tried to ignore and marginalize).

 

[Aknazer]

It is. But looking to the federal government's law-making power to protect us from States violating our rights is infantilizing us. It is already unlawful to violate rights. It is up to US to take the action to protect our rights. It is the one who can protect the rights who has them. Letting the feds pass laws to protect our rights empowers THEM, not us!

In answer to your authority question: The authority of the Constitution derives from the authority which the People voluntarily cede to the State in the formation of a State (not "state," the subservient subdivision of a larger, more dominant political entity in a political hierarchy, but "State," a sovereign political entity, deriving its authority from the consent of the governed). In the US, the States have the authority ceded to if by the People. In order to form a more perfect Union of those States, the States then ceded 18 specific and enumerated authorities to the federal government, a government that the States created. In the areas in which the States ceded authority, federal law holds sway. In the areas in which the States did not cede authority (which is, by far, the majority of governmental authority) the States retain the authority ceded by the People.

Unlike the mistaken impression that the schools unfortunately foster, the US is not a hierarchy, with authority flowing from the federal government to the States and then, in turn, being exercised over the People. Instead, the source of governmental authority is the People, who formed States, granting them authority to pass laws that do not violate our natural rights, while allowing them to pass laws that would prevent others from acting in ways that would keep us from enjoying life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The federal government derives its authority from the States.

Our system is "bottom-up," not "top-down." Top-down is the form favored by tyrants. It is a controlling form. By advocating that the feds control the States, movement towards top-down is being advocated. Unfortunately, because of the misimpression that the US is a hierarchical government, too many of our citizens see a top-down model and favor laws that follow this model, innocently helping us down the road to tyranny.

NO! All federal laws that force the States to allow rights to be exercised (ironically, "rights" as seen by the lawmakers, at their whim) are actually small steps toward the federal government's ability to define and to take rights, small steps toward tyranny.

And to respond to this as I forgot to when I originally saw it. I'm not saying that the feds should "control" the states. I'm saying that the feds need to have the power to be able to enforce the things that the states have agreed to. And the states have agreed to the whole "...shall not be infringed" thing (among other things). Now the feds have issues with this as well and I don't think the law is the best, but I do feel that it works towards regaining our rights. It also isn't as heavy-handed as the things the government did in regards to segregation (regardless of it was Constitutional or not, I'm only talking about the methods employed) as it allows a state to violate it's own citizens rights, but it prevents a state from (legally) violating the rights of people from other states.

You also talk about "We the People" but then seem to miss this issue. What happens when "We the People" decide that we don't want to follow the original documents that we agreed to? And that is what has happened in places like CA, NY, IL, etc. "The People" have said that they don't care about the constitution, have then elected politicians to come up with law that goes against what "The People" originally agreed to, and chances are they aren't going to change their ways unless someone forces them to. Which is part of the point of the federal government. Regardless of the issues in regards to it doing things that it shouldn't, it SHOULD be enforcing the Constitution when "The People" decide they don't want to follow it (just as how "The People" SHOULD be electing politicians who will follow the Constitution).

 

[eye95]

While the central government needs to be smaller, it also needs to be strong enough to be able to enforce the things that the soveriegn states have agreed to follow. Now I'm not going to get into the issues regarding federal oversteps (of which there are many and they do need to be addressed), but if the federal government isn't strong enough to enforce the Constitution when states decide to not follow it, then you end up with a U.N.-like body that spouts a bunch of hot air but is ultimately useless.

In regards to the subject, the states shouldn't be forced to accept other states permits, but permits also shouldn't be required due to the whole "shall not be infringed" bit (something that the federal government is also guilty of ignoring). Given that permits are currently required I see this law as a small step forward towards fixing the issue as the federal government is not allowing a state to violate non-citizens (of that specific state) rights, but it still allows a state to violate the rights of it's own citizens. I also feel that it will likely take various small steps, with the occasional large step, to fix the 2A issues of this country given that where we are currently we didn't get there overnight and as such we won't get out of it overnight.

Now there are plenty of issues with our country and with how both our states and federal government acts. But one needs to realize that just because the government needs to be smaller as a whole doesn't mean that it doesn't need to expand in certain areas (namely in the area of actually enforcing and following the Constitution, something it has tried to ignore and marginalize).

We should be able to carry without a permit or license. To me, that is the plain meaning of the "bear" portion of the 2A. I don't care a whit if a State requires a permit to conceal, as long as the unadorned act of carry is unregulated. In essence that is what we have in Alabama--with two problems: carry in a car requires a license, and carry at a demonstration is prohibited, with or without a license. I would also complain about carry in a school zone, but that is a federal mistake which I trust will be found to be unconstitutional.

The feds should keep their noses out to the permit/license thing. If they force AL to accept other States' licenses, I expect AL to clamp down on carry, infringing on the right even more than they slightly do now.

We need to keep focusing on States changing their laws to respect unlicensed carry or to get a ruling, based on McDonald, that basically states what State v. Reid in AL does: The State cannot regulate both OC and CC; some form of carry without a permission slip must remain free of regulation. In Reid, the court found that OC being unregulated made the most sense.

Federally enforced reciprocity is a silly idea. It is anti-, not pro-Liberty. It increases the power of the federal government to regulate carry and encourages States to tighten when and where a licensee can carry.

 

[eye95]

...I'm saying that the feds need to have the power to be able to enforce the things that the states have agreed to. And the states have agreed to the whole "...shall not be infringed" thing (among other things)...

That is the function of the federal courts. If a State violates the agreement (the Constitution), then the courts should strike down any State actions that are in violation. This is not the purview of the Congress. Laws are a stupid way to ensure rights. When we make the lawmakers responsible for ensuring our rights, they will ensure what they think ought to be rights, and turn a blind eye towards State actions that limit activities that they think ought not be rights. It's the whole fox-guarding-the-hen-house thing.

...You also talk about "We the People" but then seem to miss this issue. What happens when "We the People" decide that we don't want to follow the original documents that we agreed to?...

Then we pull off another "When in the course of human events..." Of course, that means it had better be "We, virtually all of the People" severing the ties. There are a few extremists who forgot their tinfoil and think that we are at that point in the course of human events, but we clearly are not. Our nation is not perfect, but it is currently the most perfect governmental set-up in the world today, and (at one point in our history) was the most perfect ever in the history of the world.

We need to work toward full realization of the remarkable ideal that the Founders and Framers envisioned. This law is a small step in the wrong direction, away from Federalism, which is one of those remarkable ideals.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

We should be able to carry without a permit or license.

Agreed 1000%