national concealed carry in the news again.

[BluesStringer]

Not a thing wrong with national reciprocity. It makes your carry permit the same as ur drivers license. Learn the rulesof your state that ur visiting just like u have to with ur car. As soon as states like MD. And NJ. Allows people from other states to carry there they will have to offer the same for their residents. The states will still have their reciprocity agreements on the books so if for some reason it did not work out. U just go back to what we have now. It is not a national license. Nothing to lose but all to gain. Almost passed last time hope it floats now.

Please answer the constitutional issues raised in Post #9 above and then tell us why, on a constitutional basis, there's "not a thing wrong with national reciprocity." Good luck with that.

Blues

 

[ezkl2230]

Not a thing wrong with national reciprocity. It makes your carry permit the same as ur drivers license. Learn the rulesof your state that ur visiting just like u have to with ur car. As soon as states like MD. And NJ. Allows people from other states to carry there they will have to offer the same for their residents. The states will still have their reciprocity agreements on the books so if for some reason it did not work out. U just go back to what we have now. It is not a national license. Nothing to lose but all to gain. Almost passed last time hope it floats now.

So you approve of unConstitutional federal mandates as long as they benefit you.

As a matter of course, assuming something like this even passed the legislature, Obama would certainly veto it. There is no way this would pass with a veto-proof majority.

 

[BluesStringer]

So you approve of unConstitutional federal mandates as long as they benefit you.

As a matter of course, assuming something like this even passed the legislature, Obama would certainly veto it. There is no way this would pass with a veto-proof majority.

I'd say there is a way - as long as it is worded such that passive and uninformed gun owners (and/or congressional 2A "proponents") think it is only what we're talking about here - national reciprocity - but in reality is nothing more than an avenue for the .fedgov to get its hooks deeper into gun issues, it would pass with ease. Just look at how many on this site think national reciprocity is a great idea. It's an issue that's pretty easy to fool even well-intentioned people on.

Blues

 

[domscarangella]

I totally agree with Wolf_Fire the Government, both state and federal, are way too involved. These rights are not "theirs" to give. We need to look at these "gifts" from our Government as what they are opportunities to gain control of our rights and liberties.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Link Removed

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Not a thing wrong with national reciprocity. It makes your carry permit the same as ur drivers license. Learn the rulesof your state that ur visiting just like u have to with ur car. As soon as states like MD. And NJ. Allows people from other states to carry there they will have to offer the same for their residents. The states will still have their reciprocity agreements on the books so if for some reason it did not work out. U just go back to what we have now. It is not a national license. Nothing to lose but all to gain. Almost passed last time hope it floats now.

This post is SOOOO wrong on so many levels..
You can sell out YOUR 2A rights but mine are non negotiable..


Sent from behind enemy lines.

 

[SR9]

Obummer will kill any attempts to get a National C/C law through. He has his PEN and PHONE ready, don't forget. Does the word "VETO" mean anything to you?

 

[ezkl2230]

I'd say there is a way - as long as it is worded such that passive and uninformed gun owners (and/or congressional 2A "proponents") think it is only what we're talking about here - national reciprocity - but in reality is nothing more than an avenue for the .fedgov to get its hooks deeper into gun issues, it would pass with ease. Just look at how many on this site think national reciprocity is a great idea. It's an issue that's pretty easy to fool even well-intentioned people on.

Blues

I have to confess, when it went through the first time I contacted Rep. Amash and urged him to support it. He sent me a response reminding me that such legislation would trample States' Tenth Amendment rights. He was right, of course.

 

[Seeya]

Let' not forget the 9th admendment!


U.S. Constitution › Ninth Amendment
NINTH AMENDMENT

AMENDMENT IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Link Removed

Link Removed

Link Removed

 

[wolf_fire]

Let' not forget the 9th admendment!


U.S. Constitution › Ninth Amendment
NINTH AMENDMENT

AMENDMENT IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Link Removed

The 'Silent' Ninth Amendment Gives Americans Rights They Don't ...
www.alternet.org/.../the_'silent'_ninth_amendment_gives_america

Your second link doesn't work and I'm assuming that's the link that makes the point you are trying to make here. Specifically when clicked upon, I get this screen:

[h=1]Forbidden[/h]You don't have permission to access /.../the_'silent'_ninth_amendment_gives_america on this server.

 

[Seeya]

Thanks I will try to find another link

 

[ezkl2230]

Your second link doesn't work and I'm assuming that's the link that makes the point you are trying to make here. Specifically when clicked upon, I get this screen:

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /.../the_'silent'_ninth_amendment_gives_america on this server.

They must have been having an issue when you clicked on it; I just clicked on it (0937, 02.02.2014) and it took me to the referenced page.

 

[Seeya]

They must have been having an issue when you clicked on it; I just clicked on it (0937, 02.02.2014) and it took me to the referenced page.

I fixed the link and added 1

 

[Gatherer]

Is it my imagination or was one of my posts deleted? Did I post something wrong or offensive? I so, none intended.

 

[Seeya]

It sounds good and would make things a whole lot easier but.........States rights would be in jeopardy. The Fed has no right to tell States what to do. Sets another dangerous precedent.

federal and State Rights end when they interfer with individual rights. Think about it.

 

[BluesStringer]

federal and State Rights end when they interfer with individual rights. Think about it.

Are you saying that a federal law mandating national reciprocity is not a violation of both states' and individuals' rights?

 

[Gatherer]

Is it my imagination or was one of my posts deleted? Did I post something wrong or offensive? I so, none intended.

Whoops....wrong thread. Sorry.

 

[wolf_fire]

How about the end of the article when it says a woman has a right to an abortion but apparently the baby doesn't have a right to life.

 

[Seeya]

We as indivduals have rights that differ with other's views of what rights are. I do not agree with many things that are. At the same time I have not come to terms with many issues. As most of us are still proccessing and reevaluating what is right for us at any given time and upon reflection we change our thoughts concerning the issue. We evolve in our own way and time. That is what makes this the Republic of the United States of America free.

 

[BluesStringer]

federal and State Rights end when they interfer with individual rights. Think about it.

Are you saying that a federal law mandating national reciprocity is not a violation of both states' and individuals' rights?

We as indivduals have rights that differ with other's views of what rights are. I do not agree with many things that are. At the same time I have not come to terms with many issues. As most of us are still proccessing and reevaluating what is right for us at any given time and upon reflection we change our thoughts concerning the issue. We evolve in our own way and time. That is what makes this the Republic of the United States of America free.

Is this in reply to my question? If so, please just answer the question. The above just avoids answering the question. I would say that ever-shifting definitions of what the Constitution provides for and protects is what's killing our freedom, not what makes us free.

Blues