Senator Tomorrow

[NCIC105]

I have an audience with a US Senator tomorrow and plan to talk about US Constitutional Right To Carry...


I'm sure he supports it as he talks about his AR-15 as a sporting weapon........Just wondering if this has a chance if we take the House and Senate...Oh and get a NEW PRESIDENT.

 

[sdprof]

Even with Rs in charge of the House, the Senate and the White House, I doubt we'd see nationwide Constitutional Carry for a long, long time. Too many of the states will still be firmly in the anti fold, and will resist with all the taxpayers' money they can muster.

With a situation you posit, I would hope that some significant progress could be made in other areas. Things I'd like to see:
1 repeal of GFSZA (or at minimum, remove the restriction on permit holders from other states)
2 repeal Brady Bill
3 repeal of Lautenberg Amendment (or at a a minimum, provide means for restoration of rights after some time period or evaluation)
4 removal of suppressors from NFA
5 revision/deletion of U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 93018 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
federal properties are the Peoples' properties, we should be able to carry there. Of course, some exceptions would be "reasonable" - courthouses, places of incarceration, maybe a couple others. But any place the public normally accesses should be free of restrictions.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

I'm sure he supports it as he talks about his AR-15 as a sporting weapon.....

I don't know about you and the others here on this forum but.....

Weapons only became "sporting arms", because man decided to turn it into sport.

Weapons were(?) created for only two major uses as I see it;
Procurement of food and for defending yourself from vicious predatory animals.
AND;
Self defense against those who might try to usurp your "clans" authority and against those who just want your things.

The "sporting aspect" came about as man was idle.
With no conflicts, man devised a way to keep his/her skills sharp by holding competitions.
Thus the "age" of shooting for fun, not just for food or enemies began.
(I am aware that the situation is more complex than my tiny entry).

I guess I'm saying that my handguns and Rifles are not owned by me for sport. I don't hunt as I can buy what I need from the store.
So that only leads to one conclusion then. My "Arms" have been designed and perfected over the eons for a single purpose.
To kill...

Now we all hope that we never find ourselves in a situation that would force us to take a human life.
The simple fact of the matter is that that is exactly what weapons have been designed to do, period.
It doesn't matter if it is man or beast, thousands of years of weapon evolution have created the very thing we all strap onto our hip each day.

My "Arms" are weapons, plain and simple. Deadly and Efficient in that single role and I do not shy away from that fact.
Our guns have been made to kill, not for sport, (though they may be used as such today).
I will not pander to any group by calling my weapon a "sporting arm" like it has been done with the AR15.
All to make our Arms sound less scary...


Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

 

[ezkl2230]

Even with Rs in charge of the House, the Senate and the White House, I doubt we'd see nationwide Constitutional Carry for a long, long time. Too many of the states will still be firmly in the anti fold, and will resist with all the taxpayers' money they can muster.

With a situation you posit, I would hope that some significant progress could be made in other areas. Things I'd like to see:
1 repeal of GFSZA (or at minimum, remove the restriction on permit holders from other states)
2 repeal Brady Bill
3 repeal of Lautenberg Amendment (or at a a minimum, provide means for restoration of rights after some time period or evaluation)
4 removal of suppressors from NFA
5 revision/deletion of U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 93018 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
federal properties are the Peoples' properties, we should be able to carry there. Of course, some exceptions would be "reasonable" - courthouses, places of incarceration, maybe a couple others. But any place the public normally accesses should be free of restrictions.

Just my 2 cents.

Why only remove suppressors from the NFA and not a full repeal of the NFA?

 

[sdprof]

Why only remove suppressors from the NFA and not a full repeal of the NFA?

While total repeal of GCA and NFA et al would be wonderful, I focused on particular things that are more germane to the keeping an bearing for self protection. That's the argument that's winning a lot.

 

[BluesStringer]

I have an audience with a US Senator tomorrow and plan to talk about US Constitutional Right To Carry...


I'm sure he supports it as he talks about his AR-15 as a sporting weapon........Just wondering if this has a chance if we take the House and Senate...Oh and get a NEW PRESIDENT.

NCIC, I am not sure I understand the subject you wish to discuss with your Senator. Is it a law that would mandate Vermont-style constitutional carry across the nation, or are you talking about the John Cornyn bill that will supposedly mandate nationwide reciprocity? I would ask you to think about a couple of things before broaching the subject with the Good Senator, and maybe even change your mind and ask him to oppose the national reciprocity bill if that's what you have in mind.

If it's Vermont-style constitutional carry you're talking about, may I suggest you just remind him that the "Full Faith & Credit Clause" contained in Article IV, Section 1 already mandates, well, full faith & credit must be recognized for all interstate licenses, among other things? It says:

Article IV, Section 1
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

That is the entirety of Article IV, Section 1. There are no caveats, and yes, Congress does have the constitutional authority to force states to abide by it according to the non-bold rest of the text within it, so if that's what you're going to talk to him about, then Bravo! VERY well done!

But this idea of national reciprocity is nothing but a big-and-centralized-government Trojan Horse. It will allow the .fedgov to get their hooks deeper in gun issues, and result not only in further usurping our individual rights, but our respective states' rights too. It codifies and entrenches this usurping notion that government, state or federal, has the constitutional authority to demand of free citizens that they beg and pay their government(s) for permission to exercise their God-given rights in the first place, which following simple logic, all of us who claim to support the 2nd Amendment, can't possibly likewise support such a notion. Please don't encourage a federal legislator to such treachery!

Thanks for considering what I had to say.

Blues

 

[BC1]

I'll save you a trip. He'll be receptive, but then again always was. He'll be unable to convince anyone across the isle.

 

[NCIC105]

He totally supports Constitutional Carry but doubt it will pass anytime soon. He stated he would support a bill that makes every state recognize a CWP from other states.