• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Support H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

xd shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
333
Location
usa
Started in July 1989, all local governments including States are prohibition to rules and regulations the Interstate, intrastate, vehicles, highway, road, taxes and fees without an approved from Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). In May 1995, ICC had been abolished and it is transfers half to U.S. DOT and other half to Surface Transportation Broad (STB) included ships for both taxes and fees. Once again, nothings by the States, counties and cities without approved from Federal preemption laws.

Reason, due to undue burden from State to State, or counties and/or cities.

For example, your vehicle can't have four head lights when cross the State line, must have three mirrors, wrong color of school bus is on field trips may also need to be cover the School Bus signs, etc, etc and etc. Think about it, trucker from NYC to LA... how many States road taxes, counties, cities tags fees and how many paper works for driver before crossing? Plus! How many books of rules and regulations the driver have to carry it or how much minds can you remember it???

If I understand WC correctly, he's going on about how this gibberish he wrote removed all the different driving laws that a trucker (or anyone driving) across the states would have to worry about. It made a consistent set of rules for every state.

Unfortunately he doesn't realize that this "National Reciprocity Bill" would NOT make the laws all the same, there still would NOT be one standard. You STILL will need to know the different laws of EVERY state that you find yourself in.
 

Wc

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
329
Location
, ,
One step at the time

The second Amendment has nothing to do with permits or licensing. Permits and licenses are for privileges, not rights. Keeping and bearing arms is not a privilege, it is a right. Any involvement of the federal government in such a right would be detrimental right now because it is not well established that the feds can not infringe upon such a right. This bill is like trying to hire someone who is mugging you to be your body guard when you go to dinner later.

I agreed, as I wrote it above before:

"Of course I don't like this (H.R.822) because of our 2A rights is under the 14A and which is NO different than our 1A."

Wrong about "any involvement of the federal government" on 2A.

The Bill H.R.822 is about respecting the CCW holder from State is allow at any States without a Feds permits or licenses.

How many States is allow under the listed and how many States' dosen't and why not?

Then why the H.R.822?

Please, one step at a time to gateway for our 2A rights!
 

Wc

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
329
Location
, ,
Un huh

(1)If I understand WC correctly, he's going on about how this gibberish he wrote removed all the different driving laws that a trucker (or anyone driving) across the states would have to worry about. It made a consistent set of rules for every state.

(2)Unfortunately he doesn't realize that this "National Reciprocity Bill" would NOT make the laws all the same, there still would NOT be one standard. You STILL will need to know the different laws of EVERY state that you find yourself in.

First you are correct.

And second, you're wrongs.

H.R. 822, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes. A state`s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. The bill applies to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. It would not create a federal licensing system; rather, it would require the states to recognize each others` carry permits, just as they recognize drivers` licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.

More information: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7106
 

xd shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
333
Location
usa
I agree, THIS Bill would not create it, but the NEXT one WOULD!!

in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes. A state`s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders.

The first part means that State the do NOT allow concealed carry wold still not allow concealed carry, the second part states that the individual states laws would still apply.

What is feared is that this hodgepodge of rules would and DOES create many problems, that would then be the call for a National Standard for the carrying of weapons, and I think you may agree, THAT would be a bad thing. THAT would "replace" the 2nd amendment.
 

Wc

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
329
Location
, ,
Fear?

I agree, THIS Bill would not create it, but the NEXT one WOULD!!

The first part means that State the do NOT allow concealed carry wold still not allow concealed carry, the second part states that the individual states laws would still apply.

What is feared is that this hodgepodge of rules would and DOES create many problems, that would then be the call for a National Standard for the carrying of weapons, and I think you may agree, THAT would be a bad thing. THAT would "replace" the 2nd amendment.

I disagreed of your fearing.

14A protects the "Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States," which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include a right to travel freely throughout the country. As the court said in the 1989 case of Saenz v. Roe, that includes the "right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State."

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce the provisions of that amendment. Not only does the history of the amendment show that it was also intended to protect a right to travel, but the Supreme Court held in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the 14th Amendment also protects the right to keep and bear arms against state infringement. "Bear" clearly means "carry."

Consider National Standard is like as 14th Amendment. Please reread the 14A and understanding in history of why this Amendment is so important.
 

Wc

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
329
Location
, ,
I agree strongly with xdshooter. Let's keep trying to bring the states together with more and more reciprocity or recognition agreements. At some point, the crazyquilt can be fixed by the states, just like drivers licences were. I agee we HAVE to keep the feds out of this. They cannot be trusted with such an important freedom. History has shown that it only takes one really anti administration, and the "National Standards" quickly can become "National Millstones". Sorry, not for me!

Wrongs, in 1989, ICC did it when some States didn't getting along with it.

Just like IL State won't allow the 2A and is not getting along with others States.

Then who willing?
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
First you are correct.

And second, you're wrongs.

H.R. 822, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes. A state`s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. The bill applies to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. It would not create a federal licensing system; rather, it would require the states to recognize each others` carry permits, just as they recognize drivers` licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.

More information: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7106

Quit confusing the privileges, drivers’ licenses, with one's rights. Your whole discussion on the drivers’ license issues just re-enforces my concern....look at the federal gubbermint involvement in it. HOLY COW!!
:eek:

The bill, from my reading, does nothing to make states equal. All it does is forces them to recognize a CCW from another state; however, the individual still has to become aware of the rules and no-no's for that state. So, it is back to square one.....so the analogy of the drivers’ license, as you explain, is of no comparison to this bill.

The more you espouse your comparison, the more I do dislike this bill. I don't want it to be like a drivers’ license as you explain.....I don't want more fed involvement...again, the states are better to resolve this issue, instead of the feds.

As I have said before, the fed getting involved in regulating CCW is like the camel getting thier nose in the crack of the tent. It aint good!
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
Quit confusing the privileges, drivers’ licenses, with one's rights. Your whole discussion on the drivers’ license issues just re-enforces my concern....look at the federal gubbermint involvement in it. HOLY COW!!
:eek:

The bill, from my reading, does nothing to make states equal. All it does is forces them to recognize a CCW from another state; however, the individual still has to become aware of the rules and no-no's for that state. So, it is back to square one.....so the analogy of the drivers’ license, as you explain, is of no comparison to this bill.

The more you espouse your comparison, the more I do dislike this bill. I don't want it to be like a drivers’ license as you explain.....I don't want more fed involvement...again, the states are better to resolve this issue, instead of the feds.

As I have said before, the fed getting involved in regulating CCW is like the camel getting thier nose in the crack of the tent. It aint good!

The feds are not getting involved in regulating CC. All it is doing is saying that state X has to honor state Y's permit. It does absolutely nothing else. If that's all they do, then I'm OK with it.

You are right, they could attempt to take it further. But if we get a Congress and administration hell bent on new gun regulations, why would they need this bill as a precursor? Seems to me they could just enact the law directly.

On another subject, I keep reading people say that CC is a right, not a privilege. I'm not sure that I'm down with that presumption. From what I've understood, it has never been a right to conceal a weapon. When the Constitution was written, only the bad guys concealed their weapons, and good men wore their firearms openly. As a matter of fact, the MO Constitution affirms the 2A rights, but then goes on to say that this does not necessarily endorse CC.

I know the first response will be that the 2A does not discuss method of carry, so any method should be fair. I understand that. If that is the case, should I be able to carry my firearm in my hand whenever I want? (that's obviously rhetorical, not every possible method of carry should be allowed.)
 

mrjam2jab

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
769
Location
Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
The bill, from my reading, does nothing to make states equal. All it does is forces them to recognize a CCW from another state; however, the individual still has to become aware of the rules and no-no's for that state. So, it is back to square one.....so the analogy of the drivers’ license, as you explain, is of no comparison to this bill.
The more you espouse your comparison, the more I do dislike this bill. I don't want it to be like a drivers’ license as you explain.....I don't want more fed involvement...again, the states are better to resolve this issue, instead of the feds.

As I have said before, the fed getting involved in regulating CCW is like the camel getting thier nose in the crack of the tent. It aint good!

Not really square one. With reciprocity now, you need to know the laws of each state you visit...this bill is a step forward in that we could then carry in all but 1 state.


Fed will not be regulating ccw. They will say...you must honor this...and that's it. That's all the bill allows. If they try to add more to it later down the road THEN fight that.
 
Last edited:

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
The feds are not getting involved in regulating CC. All it is doing is saying that state X has to honor state Y's permit. It does absolutely nothing else. If that's all they do, then I'm OK with it.

You are right, they could attempt to take it further. But if we get a Congress and administration hell bent on new gun regulations, why would they need this bill as a precursor? Seems to me they could just enact the law directly.

On another subject, I keep reading people say that CC is a right, not a privilege. I'm not sure that I'm down with that presumption. From what I've understood, it has never been a right to conceal a weapon. When the Constitution was written, only the bad guys concealed their weapons, and good men wore their firearms openly. As a matter of fact, the MO Constitution affirms the 2A rights, but then goes on to say that this does not necessarily endorse CC.

I know the first response will be that the 2A does not discuss method of carry, so any method should be fair. I understand that. If that is the case, should I be able to carry my firearm in my hand whenever I want? (that's obviously rhetorical, not every possible method of carry should be allowed.)

If the feds are telling states what to do, they are getting involved. The problem, I see, with a bill like this is it now opens that door for a liberal congress to further restrict the 'established' law. For them to enact new legislation to restrict firearms/carry etc, is more difficult; not to say it can't be done. Look at the work they had to do to get ObamaCare passed. If they already had some portions of the law already passed, the incremental passing of additional regulations/laws is less noticeable. Give an inch, they will take a mile.

The 2A says '...bear arms'. Your interpretation and mine may differ, although they may be the same. My point is, let the states continue to work this out.

Question, what are the repercussions for a state that has total disregard for this bill, if it becomes law? There are none, according to the bill, which can be located here. This bill seems more to be a resolution being passed than a law with consequences. JMHO

I'm open for correction.
 

xd shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
333
Location
usa
14A protects the "Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States,"

Yep, and the 2nd Amendment protects my right to Keep and Bear arms. Why are we having this discussion?
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
Yes, the federal government is getting involved. But, they have no more involvement than saying "Children, since you have failed to play nicely together, I'm going to force you to play nicely together". And they have the authority to do so under the 14th Amendment, section 1. And no, I don't think the states are the children of the federal government. They are not regulating, in the sense of saying "Here is what you need to get a CCW endorsement" or "I don't find you worthy of a CCW endorsement." It's a matter of degrees, and the second is several magnitudes more troubling than the first.

I'm not sure how it follows that it "opens the door" for future regulation. It doesn't change the number of votes required, or anything procedurally. If you're assuming that because this has to do with CC, it makes further regulation more palatable (creeping incrementalism), then I would say let's fight against that when it comes. Right now, this gives me more square miles where I can legally carry my concealed firearm, which I consider a good thing (especially for me, since I travel to CA frequently.)

As far as my interp of the 2A goes, I'm saying that it was not the intention of the framers to permit concealed bearing, nor to permit bearing arms in your hands. I'm perfectly willing to consider evidence to the contrary. Do you have any?

I'm curious about your "let the states continue to work it out" comment. Do you think that NY, NJ, MA, HI, CA, and MD have made any steps towards reciprocity with MO (or for that matter any other state) since CC was legalized? If not, when do you expect that to start? I guess I'm not quite Pollyanna enough to see this happening in my lifetime. This right here is why I think this bill is a good one.

Unlike criminal laws, there are no penalties for states that misbehave. You can't put a state in jail. And I'm sure that some states will misbehave. The path that it takes will likely be circuitous the first few times. But it will eventually be clear after a few federal cases smack states down for 14th Amendment violations.

If the feds are telling states what to do, they are getting involved. The problem, I see, with a bill like this is it now opens that door for a liberal congress to further restrict the 'established' law. For them to enact new legislation to restrict firearms/carry etc, is more difficult; not to say it can't be done. Look at the work they had to do to get ObamaCare passed. If they already had some portions of the law already passed, the incremental passing of additional regulations/laws is less noticeable. Give an inch, they will take a mile.

The 2A says '...bear arms'. Your interpretation and mine may differ, although they may be the same. My point is, let the states continue to work this out.

Question, what are the repercussions for a state that has total disregard for this bill, if it becomes law? There are none, according to the bill, which can be located here. This bill seems more to be a resolution being passed than a law with consequences. JMHO

I'm open for correction.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Why again are we required to have a DL? Because the state can not help itself and must interject itself into our affairs.

If you buy fuel, you are contributing to the upkeep of the roads.
If you buy vehicle insurance you are trying to mitigate any potential financial liability of not driving responsibly.
If you maintain a mechanically sound and safe machine you are trying to mitigate mechanical failure as a cuase of accidents.
You follow the traffic laws and drive responsibly to avoid accidents.

Folks who drive without a DL can do all of the above and nobody would ever know they do not have a DL.

Accidents happen and a DL does not prevent them.

Why have a title for a vehicle and not just a simple bill of sale hand written with the pertinent vehicle information. Because the state says so....money.

So, why do we have a DL requirement? Because the state says so....money.

Why have a CCW permit? Because the state says so.....money.

The feds getting involved....money.

No, I do not support this. And have contacted my reps asking them to not vote for this.

No they like licenses because of the control and power it gives the state, not money. It would be basically impossible to ask for ID at any time if not for DL. So when police decide they want to ID everyone (reminds me of the behavior of dogs, where they smell anyone for a bit and if you don't let the dog smell you there will be barking and maybe biting) because they don't know who everyone is the DL makes this possible.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
Can you please explain exactly how you see the federal government making money from H.R. 822?

Why again are we required to have a DL? Because the state can not help itself and must interject itself into our affairs.

If you buy fuel, you are contributing to the upkeep of the roads.
If you buy vehicle insurance you are trying to mitigate any potential financial liability of not driving responsibly.
If you maintain a mechanically sound and safe machine you are trying to mitigate mechanical failure as a cuase of accidents.
You follow the traffic laws and drive responsibly to avoid accidents.

Folks who drive without a DL can do all of the above and nobody would ever know they do not have a DL.

Accidents happen and a DL does not prevent them.

Why have a title for a vehicle and not just a simple bill of sale hand written with the pertinent vehicle information. Because the state says so....money.

So, why do we have a DL requirement? Because the state says so....money.

Why have a CCW permit? Because the state says so.....money.

The feds getting involved....money.

No, I do not support this. And have contacted my reps asking them to not vote for this.
 

xd shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
333
Location
usa
I'm curious about your "let the states continue to work it out" comment. Do you think that NY, NJ, MA, HI, CA, and MD have made any steps towards reciprocity with MO (or for that matter any other state) since CC was legalized? If not, when do you expect that to start? I guess I'm not quite Pollyanna enough to see this happening in my lifetime. This right here is why I think this bill is a good one.

And yet many OTHER states have made steps forward (uh Wisconsin!). How many other states have reduced gun laws, or voted in preemption? As these changes continue to occur, the PEOPLE in the states that still have restrictive Gun Laws will see the truth and will have to work on THEIR states laws to effect changes.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
Yes, the federal government is getting involved. But, they have no more involvement than saying "Children, since you have failed to play nicely together, I'm going to force you to play nicely together". And they have the authority to do so under the 14th Amendment, section 1. And no, I don't think the states are the children of the federal government. They are not regulating, in the sense of saying "Here is what you need to get a CCW endorsement" or "I don't find you worthy of a CCW endorsement." It's a matter of degrees, and the second is several magnitudes more troubling than the first.

I'm not sure how it follows that it "opens the door" for future regulation. It doesn't change the number of votes required, or anything procedurally. If you're assuming that because this has to do with CC, it makes further regulation more palatable (creeping incrementalism), then I would say let's fight against that when it comes. Right now, this gives me more square miles where I can legally carry my concealed firearm, which I consider a good thing (especially for me, since I travel to CA frequently.)

As far as my interp of the 2A goes, I'm saying that it was not the intention of the framers to permit concealed bearing, nor to permit bearing arms in your hands. I'm perfectly willing to consider evidence to the contrary. Do you have any?

I'm curious about your "let the states continue to work it out" comment. Do you think that NY, NJ, MA, HI, CA, and MD have made any steps towards reciprocity with MO (or for that matter any other state) since CC was legalized? If not, when do you expect that to start? I guess I'm not quite Pollyanna enough to see this happening in my lifetime. This right here is why I think this bill is a good one.

Unlike criminal laws, there are no penalties for states that misbehave. You can't put a state in jail. And I'm sure that some states will misbehave. The path that it takes will likely be circuitous the first few times. But it will eventually be clear after a few federal cases smack states down for 14th Amendment violations.

Thanks for your rebuttal. I appreciate your civility.

Paragraph #1....I do agree, the Feds are saying they to the states, play fair. This is what they did with the drivers’ license issue too. Now look at the regulations; they now tie federal funds to force a state to follow their guidelines; i.e. setting speed limits and if you don't follow our guidelines we will withhold federal funds (Montana [I think it was them] changing some highways to an unlimited speed limit). I use it because many that are pro HB822 like to draw the correlation. You are correct they are not regulating the CCW issue, just, at this point, leveling the playing field from each state. On the surface seems fine; but once again, how far can they take the 14th amendment?

Paragraph #2....It doesn't change the number of votes or procedures; but it does provide the avenue for incrementalism. It is much less painful to provide/attach it to another bill to get it passed. A bill restricting CCW could easily attached to another bill and because of politics get passes. Example...a bill to help create jobs in the private sector that the majority of politicians on both isles would approve; a liberal gets it attached to the bill, then how does your rep vote??? And I will admit to simplifying the process but it does occur this way. So to say, I don't want to fight the incrementalism. How are you going to stay informed on this potential bill? The NRA? SAF? etc.....I don't want to completely rely on these organizations, as much as I support them to 'police' all the activities.

Paragraph #3.....As for what the interpretation of the RKBA, it is being reviewed for it's meaning. Stephen P Halbrook in his book, 'The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms' goes through the history, going through their grammar and syntax to provide an idea of what they meant. I have spoken with several local historians (as liberal as they may be) who themselves are more curious to the meaning. The idea of it meaning we could just only own guns is being challenged. The NY case will be interesting; although I don't think it will be overturned.

Paragraph #4....It was less than 20 years that only a few states reciprocated with each other. I didn't say it needed to be done within the next 6 mos. But MO didn't reciprocate until 2004/5. It takes time. And I have come to the resolution it may not happen in our lifetime. I'm sorry you have to travel to CA. I do let states know, that don't reciprocate with MO, I did not travel to their state because of their restrictions. WI was my latest one this past winter. Did it help? Not sure.

Paragraph #5....The 14th amendment is very complicated; too many try to simplify, but when in contrast with the Feds power over the states it is delicate; there are many discussions that think the 14th has been implemented further than originally thought. The states won't get hit. Generally, an individual has to go through the courts to show the states have violated the law that was in place because of the 14th. Obamacare is now testing the limits of the 14th amendment. The states are fighting because they don't want the mandates. Although, HB822 doesn't have any financial mandates for the states, is it too far?

I don't discount your arguments. In fact, I was originally in full support of it; but when does the 14th amendment stop? That is my concern. As a NRA member and fully support their activities,
I am not 100% against it, but the arguments so far, do not push me to support it. After listening to the NRA-ILRA radio show, it wasn’t encouraging. I and several other NRA supporters, without discussing it initially, came away with the sense they were implying those who opposed were not ‘with them’.
Please feel free to ‘convince’ me otherwise. I’m not closed on the matter.

Thx!
 

Wc

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
329
Location
, ,
Hmmm...

From H.R. 822 Using the interstate commerce....err, I mean travel phrase gets my Spidey sense to kicks in.

I did not know that the constitution provides a individual right to interstate travel. skip...

Riiiiiight
 

Wc

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
329
Location
, ,
Without the 14A?

Thanks for your rebuttal. I appreciate your civility.

skip... I will admit to simplifying the process but it does occur this way. So to say, I don't want to fight the incrementalism. How are you going to stay informed on this potential bill? The NRA? SAF? etc.....I don't want to completely rely on these organizations, as much as I support them to 'police' all the activities.

...skip ...

I don't discount your arguments. In fact, I was originally in full support of it; but when does the 14th amendment stop? That is my concern. As a NRA member and fully support their activities, I am not 100% against it, but the arguments so far, do not push me to support it. After listening to the NRA-ILRA radio show, it wasn’t encouraging. I and several other NRA supporters, without discussing it initially, came away with the sense they were implying those who opposed were not ‘with them’. (Good for them!)

Please feel free to ‘convince’ me otherwise. I’m not closed on the matter.

Thx!

Submitted by NRA on Sep 26, 2011: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/separating-fact-fiction-national-right-carry-bill

Rep. John Bingham (R-Ohio), who was called by Justice Hugo Black "the Madison of the Fourteenth Amendment," stated that the amendment was intended to overturn Barron v. Baltimore (1833), in which the Supreme Court had held that the federal courts did not have jurisdiction to apply the Bill of Rights in cases between a citizen and his state. :uhoh:
 
Last edited:

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
Submitted by NRA on Sep 26, 2011: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/separating-fact-fiction-national-right-carry-bill

Rep. John Bingham (R-Ohio), who was called by Justice Hugo Black "the Madison of the Fourteenth Amendment," stated that the amendment was intended to overturn Barron v. Baltimore (1833), in which the Supreme Court had held that the federal courts did not have jurisdiction to apply the Bill of Rights in cases between a citizen and his state. :uhoh:

Uhhhhhhh..........where does it stop? Thanks for reporting the NRA talking points.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
Uhhhhhhh..........where does it stop? Thanks for reporting the NRA talking points.

Those bastards stole one of my points, that this legislation is no more subject to amendments than any other piece.

Seriously though, where has the NRA gone wrong, and why?
 
Top