Help needed with National Reciprocity

[Bikenut]

I disagree with the notion that this is somehow "handing over authority to carry guns to congress."

The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect our God-given rights EVERYWHERE in the nation, in EVERY STATE. It is the ABSOLUTE BASELINE of our rights/freedoms/liberties.

The Founders never dreamed that courts would one day interpret Second Amendment rights (or ANY RIGHT, for that matter) so narrowly that some states would be able to, practically speaking, legislate the right to bear arms into oblivion.

The movement to establish national reciprocity has nothing to do with the government GIVING US anything; rather, this as a LEGISLATIVE CORRECTION to all the wrong-headed court decisions that brought us to this point in the first place - RESTORING the status quo ante, our uninfringed right to bear arms.

There are two solutions to judicial overreach: first, you wait for the opinion to be challenged, work its way through the court systems, and hope it is overturned - a process that can take years. Second, the legislature writes a law that renders the court opinion moot, a law that clarifies legislative intent. The national reciprocity act is just such a correction.

In other words, national reciprocity legislation is an example of our system of checks and balances in action - something we rarely get to see where the Second Amendment is concerned.

If you have to ask permission, whether it be from the State government for it's permission in the form of a permit or the Federal government for it's permission in the form of national reciprocity, then it is not a right but a privilege granted by the government in charge of giving that permission.

These 4 words..... "shall not be infringed" ....mean no government, whether it be State of Federal, has the authority or the power to regulate the right to bear arms by requiring permission be granted.

 

[Kasper]

If you have to ask permission, whether it be from the State government for it's permission in the form of a permit or the Federal government for it's permission in the form of national reciprocity, then it is not a right but a privilege granted by the government in charge of giving that permission.

These 4 words..... "shall not be infringed" ....mean no government, whether it be State of Federal, has the authority or the power to regulate the right to bear arms by requiring permission be granted.

I agree with you on that BUT it is already too late. Go ahead and carry a gun in a state where you have not be given permission to do so and try arguing that the 2nd Amendment give you the right to do so. It will just be a waist of your time and money to do so.

 

[XD40scinNC]

I agree with you on that BUT it is already too late. Go ahead and carry a gun in a state where you have not be given permission to do so and try arguing that the 2nd Amendment give you the right to do so. It will just be a waist of your time and money to do so.

Won't be a 'waist', but a waste of time as you cool you jets in a local lockup. But bubby thug may hold you by the 'waist' while he 'wastes' your bunghole.

 

[mikestone967]

I agree with you on that BUT it is already too late. Go ahead and carry a gun in a state where you have not be given permission to do so and try arguing that the 2nd Amendment give you the right to do so. It will just be a waist of your time and money to do so.

I do so daily. Constitutional Carry. Period.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
If you have to ask permission, whether it be from the State government for it's permission in the form of a permit or the Federal government for it's permission in the form of national reciprocity, then it is not a right but a privilege granted by the government in charge of giving that permission.

These 4 words..... "shall not be infringed" ....mean no government, whether it be State of Federal, has the authority or the power to regulate the right to bear arms by requiring permission be granted.

I agree with you on that BUT it is already too late. Go ahead and carry a gun in a state where you have not be given permission to do so and try arguing that the 2nd Amendment give you the right to do so. It will just be a waist of your time and money to do so.

I understand what you are saying yet it is only too late if folks don't fight to change it. Or worse yet, support increasing the infringement of government requiring and controlling permission to bear arms through permits by supporting national reciprocity just because it is "too late".

 

[mikestone967]

I agree with you on that BUT it is already too late. Go ahead and carry a gun in a state where you have not be given permission to do so and try arguing that the 2nd Amendment give you the right to do so. It will just be a waist of your time and money to do so.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”

Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”

Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.

Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”

Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”

Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”

S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”

 

[XD40scinNC]

I do so daily. Constitutional Carry. Period.

You just haven't been caught..... yet

 

[BluesStringer]

I disagree with the notion that this is somehow "handing over authority to carry guns to congress."

First, it is quite obvious that you cut and pasted all but the first sentence of that post, and didn't bother giving attribution to whoever wrote it. Bad form.

Second, you can disagree all you want, but the indisputable fact is that national reciprocity is based in Commerce Clause law. The Commerce Clause is one that authorizes regulation by the federal government over innumerable unspecified freedoms just as soon as the feds get away with attaching those freedoms to some interstate commercial consideration. The overwhelming majority of those regulated-out-of-existence freedoms are then routinely codified into settled law by the 9 black-robed oligarchs of the Supreme Court. How the idiots in Congress or the SCOTUS oligarchs think that exercising an unqualified right to bear arms should ever be thrown under the auspices of a regulatory authority granted to Congress by We, The People is certainly a mystery to me, but there you have it, it has happened dozens of times over the last two+ centuries in this country.

Whoever wrote that crap above is a constitutional illiterate. You can't take a right from The People, hand it over to the regulatory authorities of Congress under the Commerce Clause, and still claim with a straight face that, "The movement to establish national reciprocity has nothing to do with the government GIVING US anything; rather, this as a LEGISLATIVE CORRECTION to all the wrong-headed court decisions that brought us to this point in the first place - RESTORING the status quo ante, our uninfringed right to bear arms."

Did you really post that with a straight face?

Blues