National concealed carry?


doublenutz

New member
Wow doublenutz, you're going to make me blush! :eek: Thanks for the kudos though, and thanks for *getting it*.

Blues


Bro I like the way you put that so much, I actually thought of using it as my signature line.

Respect where Respect is due... and that was very well put.
 

Bohemian

New member
Federalization is a bad thing as far as I'm concerned. The founding fathers intended this county to be run mostly by the states. I'm a big 10th amendment supporter and don't like the idea of federalizing anything.

In short, I don't think we have a 'problem' at all.

I am not only for a Nation-Wide Concealed Carry Law I am also for a Nation-Wide Preemption law that prevents states, counties, cities and other municipalities from enacting gun laws more restrictive then at the national level; moreover, such a preemption law would not allow a grandfather clause; in other words those already on the books would be reversed...

There is no way the founding fathers meant for people in New York and California to have less rights then the rest of the country...

This is further supported by their placing it only 2nd to freedom of speech...

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

If we do nothing we will only be able to say that we did nothing...

Write your representatives in Washington:
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/

Write the Media:
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/media/

Write GOA - the Gun Owners of America:
http://www.gunowners.org/

Write the Second Amendment Foundation:
http://saf.org/

Write the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action:
http://www.nraila.org/

Write the NRA News:
Link Removed

Read The Unabridged Second Amendment:
Link Removed

Semper Fidelis
 

SnowCajun

New member
My Views

I also believe reciprocity should be left to the states, but Legislatures must make it easier for agreements to be worked out.
I find it odd living in Washington state that our neighbor state to the east, Idaho, gives Washington residents reciprocity, yet Washington doesn't give Idaho the same back.

I also found Washington's issuance of my Concealed Pistol License less than expected, there were no courses, nothing! I just went into the local police station and filled out an application, they did an FBI background check and shortly afterwards I had my license. Though I've dealt with handguns all my life, hunted and fished all my life, I'm 55 now and I very well know gun safety, but when I think that they'd just hand over a license to some youngster who just turned 21 and may never have shot much, or maybe not even any at all, and there's no safety courses or shooting courses period, it just doesn't make sense to me. I value my Concealed Pistol License, but I guess I want to be as sure as anyone else would that the people they issue them to have enough sense to handle theirs correctly. Lack of gun safety seems to me it could risk the entire program, I'm not sure why they don't require more.

One other point I noted last night, the lady I've lived with for 13 years had to go to the hospital ER with a bad eye infection, I had to check my firearm, a S&W Model 36, at the security checkpoint inside, which is fine with me, but they stuck it in a firearms locker and didn't lock it. As I sat in the emergency room I watched their security people leave the room numerous times to assist people into the building who were arriving at the hospital, so the room would be empty for a few minutes now and then. I was very uncomfortable with the knowledge that my weapon was in that room unsecured. What's the point of a firearms locker if you're not going to lock the door? I'd have felt more comfortable having had control of it myself than knowing it was sitting in there unlocked and knowing they were leaving the room now and then even if it wasn't for very long! Just my two cents on the matter, but it stood out never the less.

SnowCajun
 

napolifred

New member
I for one am against a National CCW. It seems to that the magority of the gun bans, anti-gunners and anti-gun laws aor coming from the "National" level not the state level. I for one do not like the idea of them controlling any more of what I can and can't do in my life than they already do. It is easier to fight a state law than it is a Federal law.

The federal lawmakers would rather for us to give up our right to bear arms BUT I do not ever see any of them offering to give up their bodyguards or Secret service agents to prove their point. Why is it okay for them to protect their families but I can not protect mine.
 

ishi

New member
I am not only for a Nation-Wide Concealed Carry Law I am also for a Nation-Wide Preemption law that prevents states, counties, cities and other municipalities from enacting gun laws more restrictive then at the national level
- my emphasis


This already exists. It is called the 2nd amendment of the constitution. What you're really talking about is enacting a federal law called the "The 2nd Amendment: We Really Mean It Act".

As far as I know of, enacting legislation that simply reiterates an existing fundamental right of the constitution is unprecedented, although I won't say that it's a bad idea...

As long as the language of the law is careful not to acknowledge the legitimacy of any firearm restriction laws, state or federal.

But what we're talking about here is a total rollback of gun control, all the way back to the National Firearms Act. It's going to take a tiny bit of convincing, to say the least. Nice dream though.
 
Last edited:

ElZorro

New member
Alright already! Enough about nonexistant "states' rights"

According to Constitutional delineation, states have powers and authorities; only people have rights! Even the Federal government does not have rights!

"States' rights" is a Mainstream Media invention and can nowhere be found in Constitutional law, notwithstanding the questionable 10th amendment.

I'm really disappointed to see so many presumed constitutionalists espousing this ridiculous notion.

I'd especially expect the likes of BluesStringer to know better. Let's talk about states' powers and authorities (or lack thereof) and lay off "states' rights".

Woody (aka constitution cowboy, nee' woodcdi), you can chime in anytime now. Where's my backup when I need him?

ElZorro
 

doublenutz

New member
I'm really disappointed to see so many presumed constitutionalists espousing this ridiculous notion.

I'd especially expect the likes of BluesStringer to know better. Let's talk about states' powers and authorities (or lack thereof) and lay off "states' rights".

ElZorro


HUH???? Wow, that was harsh!

I believe this was already said and undertood by several here at least by myself and Blues Stringer.

...the 2nd Amendment did not give States the authority to infringe upon the rights of citizens.

Nothing said about "States rights " there
 

swifteagle

New member
Thanks for all the viewpoints. I definitely believe in the authority of the States to do whatever they want as long as the following thing is true:

They don't in so doing violate any citizen rights as stated in the US Bill of Rights.

All city & state laws that tell me I can't bear my weapon which is a right guaranteed me by the bill of rights are unconstitutional & step on my individual constitutional rights. Same thing with laws that tell me I need to ask permission to either buy or carry a weapon or ammunition. Can you imagine a new law that prohibits people from carrying laptops without a permit to make sure they don't post anything on the internet? That is no more an infringement of the 1st Amendment than we currently deal with on the 2nd.

As we all know, there are many local politicians & courts that currently follow the illogical belief that the 2nd Amendment is a "State Right" to keep a militia with arms - ignoring the fact that the bill of rights is for the people, not the states.

I therefore think that the passage of federal legislation clarifying that could be helpful, even if only in the form of a very simple law:

"The 2nd amendment is an individual right you thick headed numbskull left wing activist judges & politicians - ANY STATE OR LOCAL LAW THAT INFRINGES ON THE RIGHTS OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS TO BEAR ARMS IN EITHER OPEN OR CONCEALED CARRY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL"

Of course the repeal of federal laws that prohibit weapons on federal property would be a good idea as well, would be a bit hypocritical to say it’s ok for the federal government to ignore the 2nd Amendment & tell the States that they can’t.

Probably would not be clear enough for most of the anti gun folks, but you have to start somewhere right?
 
Last edited:

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
I'm with BluesStringer. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the Supreme Law of the United States, and the individual States can (should?) only be permitted to enact laws which are not in conflict with those. If the finding that "any law abhorrent to the Constitution is invalid on it's face" (Marbury v Madison) has any value, it should be applied here. There is no Constitutional Right to drive a car . . . there is to keep and bear.
 

doublenutz

New member
I'm with BluesStringer. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the Supreme Law of the United States, and the individual States can (should?) only be permitted to enact laws which are not in conflict with those. If the finding that "any law abhorrent to the Constitution is invalid on it's face" (Marbury v Madison) has any value, it should be applied here. There is no Constitutional Right to drive a car . . . there is to keep and bear.
I agree wholly...
 

ishi

New member
+1, nail on the head.

As for remedies, the correct remedy is a supreme court ruling demanding that the 2nd amendment be given the same respect as the rest of the bill of rights. More legislation seems to weaken the constitutional legitimacy although it does give temporary relief.

It's hard to be against legislation that would have good short-term consequences, but there's no doubt that it's just another band-aid when we need intravenous antibiotics. (hope my medical analogy isn't too obtuse)

ishi
 
States Rights Powers

Since the issue of "States Rights" has been mentioned here, I'd like to point out that state governments only have powers that have been granted by the people of a state in the constitution of their state, and those powers cannot be any power prohibited to the states by the Constitution for the United States, nor any power delegated to the Union exclusively such as the judicial power(State court systems are ordained into the judiciary). When you keep this in mind, it's easy to see where those people running state governments run amok - or actually do things properly. The same concept applies to the Union, of course.


Next, you have to look at your rights in the proper perspective, or rather how those running government are instructed to operate when approaching your rights. Let's look at the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.


As for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, it isn't a matter of you being able to exercise the right. You don't even have to if you don't want to. The proper perspective to use is that those of us in our government are forbidden to infringe upon the right. The Second Amendment instructs those of us in our government not to infringe upon the right. It doesn't much matter to those running our government to whom the right belongs, they are prohibited to infringe upon it. We all know that it is a right of the people for only people have rights.


A system of government doesn't even exist until people create it. People come into this world with rights. Those rights all come with attendant powers of which people will choose to grant portions of to a body of people, chosen from among themselves, to use those combined powers in defense of the whole of the people, to provide for roads, a system of fair justice, etc. But, none of these rights are relinquished, nor is all of the attendant powers. From our right to defend ourselves, we grant power to our Union to defend us and our land, but we still have the right and power to defend ourselves to no less a degree than before we appointed some from among us to stand on the wall or walk that fence line.


I have pointed this out many times: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is absolute, and the actual keeping and bearing of arms is completely benign and innocuous.


... As for remedies, the correct remedy is a supreme court ruling demanding that the 2nd amendment be given the same respect as the rest of the bill of rights. More legislation seems to weaken the constitutional legitimacy although it does give temporary relief.

It's hard to be against legislation that would have good short-term consequences, but there's no doubt that it's just another band-aid when we need intravenous antibiotics. ...

I second the motion!

Woody

If you want security, buy a gun. If you want longevity, learn how to use it. If you want freedom, carry it. There is nothing worth more than freedom you win for yourself. There is nothing more valuable to that end than the tools of the right that make it possible. B.E.Wood
 

doublenutz

New member
Since the issue of "States Rights" has been mentioned here, I'd like to point out that state governments only have powers that have been granted by the people of a state in the constitution of their state, and those powers cannot be any power prohibited to the states by the Constitution for the United States, nor any power delegated to the Union exclusively such as the judicial power(State court systems are ordained into the judiciary). When you keep this in mind, it's easy to see where those people running state governments run amok - or actually do things properly. The same concept applies to the Union, of course.


Next, you have to look at your rights in the proper perspective, or rather how those running government are instructed to operate when approaching your rights. Let's look at the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.


As for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, it isn't a matter of you being able to exercise the right. You don't even have to if you don't want to. The proper perspective to use is that those of us in our government are forbidden to infringe upon the right. The Second Amendment instructs those of us in our government not to infringe upon the right. It doesn't much matter to those running our government to whom the right belongs, they are prohibited to infringe upon it. We all know that it is a right of the people for only people have rights.


A system of government doesn't even exist until people create it. People come into this world with rights. Those rights all come with attendant powers of which people will choose to grant portions of to a body of people, chosen from among themselves, to use those combined powers in defense of the whole of the people, to provide for roads, a system of fair justice, etc. But, none of these rights are relinquished, nor is all of the attendant powers. From our right to defend ourselves, we grant power to our Union to defend us and our land, but we still have the right and power to defend ourselves to no less a degree than before we appointed some from among us to stand on the wall or walk that fence line.


I have pointed this out many times: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is absolute, and the actual keeping and bearing of arms is completely benign and innocuous.

Very well said,

Now if only the Supreme Court would acknowledge this in cases brought before them and tear down laws and legislation in those states that are blatent infringements of the 2A.

Any chance you are particpating taking this arugement where it really needs to be heard?
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
I'd especially expect the likes of BluesStringer to know better. Let's talk about states' powers and authorities (or lack thereof) and lay off "states' rights".

Woody (aka constitution cowboy, nee' woodcdi), you can chime in anytime now. Where's my backup when I need him?


I don't need any backup to say you're out of line here hotrod. You have replied to me three times now and called me out each time, the two previous times being the product of your lack of understanding of what I was even saying before going off half-cocked. Your air of intellectual superiority is annoying as all get out, but I patiently and politely clarified my position so you could understand, both publicly and privately, without so much as an "Oops, sorry" coming from you.

Now you come here chiding me and lecturing most in this thread for having the audacity to count on the "questionable 10th Amendment" in recognizing the long-standing concept of states' rights. Excuse me, but is the 10th Amendment part of The Constitution or not? What the heck is so "questionable" about states having the right to set standards for themselves as long as no federal restriction is delineated within the rest of The Constitution? If you want to split that hair, fine, call it "authority" to do such, or "power," whatever but drop the superiority complex and just state whatever your beliefs are without going out of your way to insult people "the likes of" me. And what does that mean anyway? What do you think you know about the "likes of someone" like me? I've got 20-some-odd posts on this site, and that's all you know about me pal, so I'd say it's the likes of you who doesn't know squat about what he's talking about.

Have a Great Day!

Blues
 

rabywk

New member
OK guys take it private and stop the flaming. I really don't care who is right or wrong in this discussion, but it doesn't need to be aired in the forum. Luke has given us the ability to IM each other and please use it.

If you want to keep a board that is not over MODed, then stuff like this needs to be kept in check. Everyone has an opinion, you can disagree with a stance, but try to keep it polite and not call someone out on it. We are all adults and should act as such!
 

ElZorro

New member
Zingo, BluesStringer

I though we had our previous misunderstanding settled (only my wife is allowed to keep bringing up the past).

However, I'll agree that you're perfectly right in berating me for mentioning names. Apologize. Shouldn't have; won't in future.

Ready and willing to bury the hatchet.

Look forward to your future posts (I think).

ElZorro
 

HK4U

New member
The real problem in this country is that most polititions and judges fall into two camps. Those that have no idea what the Constitution says and means and those that don't care. The average American does not know or understand the constitution and the "origonal intent" of the Bill of Rights. AS long as most of the sheeple beleave that our rights come from the government rather than from our creator there is little hope. The New World Order crowd that would like to see our sovrenty replaced by a global government has us right where they want us.
 
Several National Reciprocity bills have been introduced and either ignored or allowed to die. While I'm not for a federal CCW (or federalization) passing one of these bills to force states to recognize a CCW from any state, just like a driver's license, would be a good thing. It would not harm any states economy and would make it much easier on travelers, thereby enhancing income from tourists.
 
Last edited:

rabywk

New member
Several National Reciprocity bills have been introduced and either ignored or allowed to die. While I'm not for a federal CCW (or federalization) passing one of these bills to force states to recognize a CCW from any state, just like a driver's license, would be a good thing. It would not harm any states economy and would make it much easier on travelers, thereby enhancing income from turists.

Not to mention forcing the Red states to start allowing CCW. In Illinois we have no chance until the Mayor of Chicago looses his office. The Mayor of the largest city in Illinois controls the Speaker's seat in the State Senate and also controls who gets put up for election of Gov. He and his father have held office now for over 50 years. Chicago is one of the last large cities that does not have term limits on their Mayor.

It really stinks that downstate Illinois cannot really do anything to get him out of office. Every time a downstate Senator sponsors something useful, it gets stuck in sub-committees and never sees the light of day again.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,435
Messages
623,607
Members
74,269
Latest member
NearshoreRnD
Top