The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: ericire12 on June 23, 2008, 01:49:27 PM
-
http://newsblaze.com/story/20080622184453zzzz.nb/topstory.html
After working closely with Gun Owners of America (GOA), Louisiana Republican Senator, David Vitter, is planning to introduce a concealed carry reciprocity bill in Congress next week.
The Vitter bill treats concealed carry permits much the same as drivers' licenses, where one state's license is recognized in all other states.
Unlike another senate reciprocity measure, S. 388, Vitter's bill does not establish "national standards" for concealed carry. It simply says that states allowing concealed carry must recognize the CCW permits of other states.
-
no they are not going federal( that would actually violate the USCONS)... If that bill were to pass, it will be struck down. This bill does more damage to the CCW cuase then any other bill I've ever seen. He is doing it just to get the "gun vote"
-
no they are not going federal( that would actually violate the USCONS)... If that bill were to pass, it will be struck down. This bill does more damage to the CCW cuase then any other bill I've ever seen. He is doing it just to get the "gun vote"
Tab,
How is the bill bad for the CCW cause? Do you think it will lessen the likelihood that states will pass CCW legislation because they don't want to automatically honor CCW permits from other states?
-
Tab,
How is the bill bad for the CCW cause? Do you think it will lessen the likelihood that states will pass CCW legislation because they don't want to automatically honor CCW permits from other states?
That will happen... I would also not put it past a couple of states to get rid of thier CCW laws, but thats not the reasons why I think its bad. I think its bad for 2 reasons:
1 If passed it will be struck down, which will shine a bad light on CCW and will become case law for any other bills that come later.
2 The guy is doing this strickly to get votes. Which should piss off all CCW holders. I know he has people on his staff that told him, this bill is crap.
This is not like a DL where there is a nat'l standard every one must meet in order to get one. Some states have training, other its just pass the back ground check and pay the fee. Even what they look for in the back ground check varries from state to state.
-
That will happen... I would also not put it past a couple of states to get rid of thier CCW laws, but thats not the reasons why I think its bad. I think its bad for 2 reasons:
1 If passed it will be struck down, which will shine a bad light on CCW and will become case law for any other bills that come later.
2 The guy is doing this strickly to get votes. Which should piss off all CCW holders. I know he has people on his staff that told him, this bill is crap.
This is not like a DL where there is a nat'l standard every one must meet in order to get one. Some states have training, other its just pass the back ground check and pay the fee. Even what they look for in the back ground check varries from state to state.
I was not aware there was a Federal Driver License standard everyone was required to meet, and would have said there was not.
Do you know this guy? What makes you think he is doing it on the advice of folks and to just get votes?
I'm also not sure on what grounds it is unconstitutional? Except maybe because it is a infringement of the 2A even though it is "reducing" the infringement of the States?
-
CDL [truckers]
-
Seems like another unfunded Federal mandate on the States, and a States' rights issue to boot. As it now stands, Fed law does not deal with how you carry, concealed or not, just if you can legally carry (not a felon,etc) in an unrestricted location (ie. not on planes).
Don't think it will even get noticed in Congress.
Mac.
-
I was not aware there was a Federal Driver License standard everyone was required to meet, and would have said there was not.
Do you know this guy? What makes you think he is doing it on the advice of folks and to just get votes?
I'm also not sure on what grounds it is unconstitutional? Except maybe because it is a infringement of the 2A even though it is "reducing" the infringement of the States?
Lets see,
we will start with artical 4. Then move onto the 10th amendment. Then there is the stack of laws on interstate commerce that would apply.
I'm sure a legal egale could find dozens of laws on the books and case law that would make this law void....
your right, I don't know if he is doing it to get the "gun vote", he could just be an idiot. ( he is doing it for the gun vote)
-
Here is the text from GOA's website:
"Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Senator David Vitter (R-LA) is planning to introduce a concealed carry reciprocity bill next week.
Senator Vitter had been working closely with Gun Owners of America to draft and file a reciprocity amendment a few weeks ago, but that amendment, unfortunately, never saw the light of day -- thanks to powerful opponents inside the Senate.
However, Sen. Vitter has continued undaunted and last week sent a Dear Colleague letter to his fellow senators, asking them to cosponsor his forthcoming bill, the "Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act."
The Vitter bill treats concealed carry permits much the same as drivers' licenses, where one state's license is recognized in all other states.
In addressing the matter of reciprocity, the first concern of GOA and Sen. Vitter is that it be done constitutionally and that it respects states' rights.
Unlike another senate reciprocity measure, S. 388, Vitter’s bill does not establish "national standards" for concealed carry. It simply says that states that allow concealed carry must recognize the CCW permits of other states.
Vitter's bill also respects the rights of states that allow concealed carry without a permit. Citizens of Vermont and non-license holders in Alaska are allowed to carry concealed without a permit. Under the Vitter bill, these states would be recognized in the same manner as states that do issue permits.
States that do not allow concealed carry at all are not forced, under the Vitter bill, to recognize out-of-state permits. There are currently two such states, Illinois and Wisconsin. While it is deplorable that these states refuse to trust their citizens with firearms, this is an issue that has to be dealt with at the state level.
Citizens should not be forced to sacrifice their right to self-defense at the state line. The Vitter bill will allow more Americans to defend themselves away from their home state."
Sounds reasonable to me. States rights are respected, and I would have the ability to protect myself wherever I traveled. If I am a law abiding citizen in SC then I will be wherever I go. I am not interested in a national license though, too close to registration!
Wheelgun
-
Sounds reasonable to me. States rights are respected, and I would have the ability to protect myself wherever I traveled. If I am a law abiding citizen in SC then I will be wherever I go. I am not interested in a national license though, too close to registration!
Wheelgun
But the states are not respected. That bill would allow one states law to superseed anothers state law outside the bounds of said state.
Lets replace CCW with something else. Say Contracting lic. Would you hire an out of state contractor that does not meet your states reqs to be come a contractor? For example, in some states felons can be contractors, In others they can't. Some states require X number of years in a trade, others its just a test. Some states don't even have tests, just fill out the paper work, pay the fee.
I have GC in 4 states, CA, OR, NV and AZ. All of them have drasticly differnt reqs. The codes in diffrent states also varrys drasticly, hell even one building department to another has diffrent regs.
-
I have only lived in five States since being licensed to drive. The examinations, licensing, violations, and regulations all seemed similar if not the same to me. Reciprocity seems to be reliant on mutually agreed upon education, rules and responses to violations. There is an obvious disparity among States as to use of force law, the need for safety training, how much or no safety training at all. And then there are States that will have none of it anyway. Just does not seem to be a Federal issue.
Mac.
-
TAB your points are well made and you clearly have a well though out perspective on the subject. Do you believe that states have the power to regulate federal Rights? I am by no means an advanced scholar on the subject so interpretations would be appreciated, though it seems to me 'shall not be infringed' is a directive to all federal and state government bodies. Perhaps that's just wishful thinking on my part?
-
TAB your points are well made and you clearly have a well though out perspective on the subject. Do you believe that states have the power to regulate federal Rights? I am by no means an advanced scholar on the subject so interpretations would be appreciated, though it seems to me 'shall not be infringed' is a directive to all federal and state government bodies. Perhaps that's just wishful thinking on my part?
States already can regulate your "federal rights" They just can not deny them.
Example:
you can have that million man march if you want too, but you have to get a permit for it. ( time and time again courts at all levels and form every time peroid have ruled this way)
There is a great debate on what the 2nd ammendment actually means. "keep and bare arms" could mean posses and carry, but it could also mean keep and bring to bare. There are many historic documents that would give credence to both of those. Arms can also be taken more then one way, It could mean firearms or it could mean weapons of war, once again there is documents that support both of them.
-
Oh geezz, here we go again! I think I am goign to stay out of this 2nd amendment argument.
-
Some states simply won't acknowledge a federal law and fight until it dies in committee. Mass. CA. MD, NJ, and some on the fence that will never allow a federal law to interrupt a state wide liberal agenda, Nancy Pelosi will not approve.
-
First it was a bad thing for cops to be able to carry nation wide, Now it's a bad thing for Every law abiding citizen to be able to carry nation wide. TAB, you should stick to dumb commercials that post was funny.
-
That will happen... I would also not put it past a couple of states to get rid of thier CCW laws, but thats not the reasons why I think its bad. I think its bad for 2 reasons:
1 If passed it will be struck down, which will shine a bad light on CCW and will become case law for any other bills that come later.
2 The guy is doing this strickly to get votes. Which should piss off all CCW holders. I know he has people on his staff that told him, this bill is crap.
This is not like a DL where there is a nat'l standard every one must meet in order to get one. Some states have training, other its just pass the back ground check and pay the fee. Even what they look for in the back ground check varries from state to state.
Tab,
In the above quote, you say you "KNOW he has people on his staff"
But in your next response to me you say you do not know this guy and don't know he is doing it just for votes
You blowing a lot of smoke there, Tab.
Next, you say this is the worst bill for CCW you have ever seen..
Your reasons are 1. it will be struck down and that will look bad for the CCW cause and 2> because this guy is just doing it for votes (which you then invalidate)
So, the worst bill for the CCW cause you have ever seen is such because it might get struck down. Maybe this is the only CCW bill you have seen...and yes, they it would be the worst.
But this argument just seems like a bunch more smoke to me Tab.
And a federal drivers license standard??? I have searched for one and can find no refference to one, which does not surprise me.
With the states havening so many different traffic laws, Interstate Speed Limits vary from state to state, residential, school zone, 4 lane non-restricted access, all these speed limits vary state to state,. Some states have had Right-Turn-On-Red long before other states. Mandatory seat belt usage laws do not exist in all states. Since states test on their laws, I seriously doubt if the test is a federal standard. Some of the driving tests might require parallel parking, sone don't.
Tab, untill you can provide a reference to a federal driving license standard, I am going to rule your statement on such is just another great big cloud of smoke you are blowing.
And, Tab, your analogy using Licensed Contractors hired to do a job is so weak, I wonder if you aren't inhaling a bit to much of your own smoke.
-
Tab,
In the above quote, you say you "KNOW he has people on his staff"
But in your next response to me you say you do not know this guy and don't know he is doing it just for votes
You blowing a lot of smoke there, Tab.
Its called sarcism, he is doing it to get votes.
Next, you say this is the worst bill for CCW you have ever seen..
Your reasons are 1. it will be struck down and that will look bad for the CCW cause and 2> because this guy is just doing it for votes (which you then invalidate)
So, the worst bill for the CCW cause you have ever seen is such because it might get struck down. Maybe this is the only CCW bill you have seen...and yes, they it would be the worst.
But this argument just seems like a bunch more smoke to me Tab.
So its ok to support one section of the US cons( CC has never been a right, check your history) by throwing several other sections under the bus?
And a federal drivers license standard??? I have searched for one and can find no refference to one, which does not surprise me.
With the states havening so many different traffic laws, Interstate Speed Limits vary from state to state, residential, school zone, 4 lane non-restricted access, all these speed limits vary state to state,. Some states have had Right-Turn-On-Red long before other states. Mandatory seat belt usage laws do not exist in all states. Since states test on their laws, I seriously doubt if the test is a federal standard. Some of the driving tests might require parallel parking, sone don't.
I currently don't have time to find it as I need to goto work... It was not a bill passed by congress, but an agreement made by the states to set a standard. Basicly what it said was you need to be 16, pass a test on your states laws, latter it was expand to inculde a driving test... I really wish I could have saved the books I had access too in the USCG...
Tab, untill you can provide a reference to a federal driving license standard, I am going to rule your statement on such is just another great big cloud of smoke you are blowing.
And, Tab, your analogy using Licensed Contractors hired to do a job is so weak, I wonder if you aren't inhaling a bit to much of your own smoke.
Explain to me how its weak? Its an just about perfect. Being a contractor is a privlage, just as CC is a privlage not a right.
-
Proves Ca. is right about one thing, Paint fumes cause brain damage. TAB was so unpopular as a kid he wouldn't even play with himself. ;D
-
David Vitter (R-LA) on gun control:
* Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
* Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
* Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
Source: http://www.issues2000.org/House/David_Vitter.htm
-
Quote from: Solus on Today at 08:36:39 AM
Tab,
In the above quote, you say you "KNOW he has people on his staff"
But in your next response to me you say you do not know this guy and don't know he is doing it just for votes
You blowing a lot of smoke there, Tab.
Its called sarcism, he is doing it to get votes.
Again, you later say you don't know if he is doing this to get votes...now you are saying he is again..more sarcasm?
<Sarcasm(A) is stating the opposite of an intended meaning especially in order to sneeringly, slyly, jest or mock a person, situation or thing. It is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a type of verbal irony intended to insult or wound. Sarcasm can also be used in a humorous or jesting way depending on the intent of the person speaking.>
Using this definition of sarcasm, you would be saying he really isn't in this for the votes?
Next, you say this is the worst bill for CCW you have ever seen..
Your reasons are 1. it will be struck down and that will look bad for the CCW cause and 2> because this guy is just doing it for votes (which you then invalidate)
So, the worst bill for the CCW cause you have ever seen is such because it might get struck down. Maybe this is the only CCW bill you have seen...and yes, they it would be the worst.
But this argument just seems like a bunch more smoke to me Tab.
So its ok to support one section of the US cons( CC has never been a right, check your history) by throwing several other sections under the bus?
Tab, Keep and Bear Arms has always been a right, the current CCW movement is a struggle to restore that right.
And a federal drivers license standard??? I have searched for one and can find no refference to one, which does not surprise me.
With the states havening so many different traffic laws, Interstate Speed Limits vary from state to state, residential, school zone, 4 lane non-restricted access, all these speed limits vary state to state,. Some states have had Right-Turn-On-Red long before other states. Mandatory seat belt usage laws do not exist in all states. Since states test on their laws, I seriously doubt if the test is a federal standard. Some of the driving tests might require parallel parking, sone don't.
I currently don't have time to find it as I need to goto work... It was not a bill passed by congress, but an agreement made by the states to set a standard. Basicly what it said was you need to be 16, pass a test on your states laws, latter it was expand to inculde a driving test... I really wish I could have saved the books I had access too in the USCG...
So, an agreement between the states that basically you need to be a certain age, pass a background check, take a safety course and pass a competency test and we're good to go...very much like a DL..no federal involvement required
Tab, untill you can provide a reference to a federal driving license standard, I am going to rule your statement on such is just another great big cloud of smoke you are blowing.
And, Tab, your analogy using Licensed Contractors hired to do a job is so weak, I wonder if you aren't inhaling a bit to much of your own smoke.
Explain to me how its weak? Its an just about perfect. Being a contractor is a privlage, just as CC is a privlage not a right.
well, for one, no one is going to be paying a CCW holder to do CCW work. You seem to want to mix private concerns with commercial concerns often.
And don't worry to much about the books you read in the USCG. If they taught you that the Bearing Arms is, in some manner, a privilege,I don't think they were worth keeping.
-
Never gonna happen in the present Congress. It especially won't happen if Obama gets elected.
-
solus show me where it says carrying a weapon concealed in a right.
Hell show me one case that says owning a gun a right.
What you think the 2a means is not law.
So if we replace CCW with GC, would you still support this bill?
Replacing one thing with something simlar is the best acid test there is.
If your for it for one thing, but not for it for the other... then its not the law your for.
-
TAB,
I have a question that has to be in the minds of several people here in light of this and other threads. There is a bur in your saddle in regards to CCW. There has to be a specific example in your life that has"poisoned the well". I think it would go a long way here to explain what it is so there would be a better understanding of your viewpoint.
This law does a couple of things, especially in an election year. First, its the practical. I have a CCW here in FL. I want to visit, say my aunt in TN or my folks cabin in NC. As is stands now, my CCW in reciprocated in any of the states I would have to travel through, however I would need to check each state's website and possibly contact the Att. Gen. of each state to see if there are any changes recently due to court cases, injuctions etc. This law would eliminate a lot of homework for me for a simple trip (someone earlier mention CDLs and over the road truckers). As written it would not infringe on other states rights just simplify travel between states. The GC example is close but different. Regardless of were I travel, once I am gone nothing will remain. With the GC example there would be some remaining structure or remnat that would remain in that state and have to hold up to said state's unique metorlogical and geological conditions (My folks NC cabin in South FL would not fare well). Second, it is a shrewd political move. If, in fact, it can be voted upon, it will be a litmus test for "gun rights". It may not affect a Nacy Pelosi, but in a close race elsewhere it could me the difference between a pro gun or an anit gun legistator. It a big picture thing. Define your opponent in an election year. In '06 there were several close races that went to conservative Democrats. With legislation like this, it keeps their feet to the fire.
All this aside, TAB, let us know what the deal is with you and CCW.
-
I don't have a prob with CCWs...
I have a prob with some one trying to get around several parts of the US cons.( which this bill would do...)
It would stamp all over states rights, lets use the GC angle again. In CA if your a convicted felon you can not get a CL, In OR you can.
Its the same thing with CCW, in some states any crime( some states even infractions will DQ you) on your record will make it so you can not get a permit by law, others you can have misdeaners on your record. So why should you be alowed to carry in another state where if you were a resident you would be bared from it? This bill would allow that. If thats not ignoreing states rights, I don't know what is.
I find that there are 2 types of gun people...
the 1st type reads the USCONS:
blah, blah blah
2nd amendment
blah blah blah.
and the other actually reads the entire text.
Beleave it or not I am very strong beleaver in the USCONS.
As I said I would be fighting this bill if it was about Any lic/permit. It just happends to be CCW.
-
I don't have a prob with CCWs...
I have a prob with some one trying to get around several parts of the US cons.( which this bill would do...)
It would stamp all over states rights, lets use the GC angle again. In CA if your a convicted felon you can not get a CL, In OR you can.
Its the same thing with CCW, in some states any crime( some states even infractions will DQ you) on your record will make it so you can not get a permit by law, others you can have misdeaners on your record. So why should you be alowed to carry in another state where if you were a resident you would be bared from it? This bill would allow that. If thats not ignoreing states rights, I don't know what is.
I find that there are 2 types of gun people...
the 1st type reads the USCONS:
blah, blah blah
2nd amendment
blah blah blah.
and the other actually reads the entire text.
Beleave it or not I am very strong beleaver in the USCONS.
As I said I would be fighting this bill if it was about Any lic/permit. It just happends to be CCW.
If you use that for DL's then in some states you lose it for number of tickets you get, in other states its a point based system. How is that different?
-
If you use that for DL's then in some states you lose it for number of tickets you get, in other states its a point based system. How is that different?
becuase you lost your DL in your state. You were not prevented from getting a DL, you fooked up and lost it.
Same thing goes for marrage lic... if you legally get married in 1 state your legally married in all states. Why that works is marrage is an act preformed in a state. There is no permit to stay married.
-
See here is the deal with marrage... its not a lic to stay married, its a lic to get married. You go to any state in the US to get married you have to get a marrage lic from THAT state. Don't worry I'm sure this will be taken to court very shortly. I personally could careless... I also could careless what they deside to call it... civil union, civil commitment, marrage, pair bonding, butt buddy...
They want to spend the rest of thier lives with some, more power too them. The people of CA voted against gay marrage, it was only a small crack in that bill that allowed it to be struct down... not to worry there is a CA cons amendment on the ballot come november. The only thing that has pissed me off is that the will of the people of CA was not honored.
Some states have common law marrages, others don't. Whats the diffrence between common law and other "types" of marrage?
The federal goverment still does not reconise same sex marrages when it comes to tax purposes... some states do. And yes the US CONS gives them that right to do so...
-
All this aside, TAB, let us know what the deal is with you and CCW.
It's simple enough, He loves Big Brother and hates personal liberty. Misguided asses like this are the enemies with in that are meant by phrases like "All enemies, foreign and domestic", "5th column", quisling,and collaborator. TAB is probably a screen name for Rosie O'Doughnut or Paul Helmke. Lenin had a name for people like TAB, he called them useful fools. I call them mindless pinheads spouting party rhetoric because they lack the capacity to actually think for themselves. (Actually I call them shit heads, but this is a family site ;D ) As many of you know on another thread, after 19 pages of arguments and state laws he came up with the brilliant comment that "No one had shown him a single fact" Then in the thread about CCW helping police, which starts with statistics, someone made the comment that "Numbers don't lie" TAB's reply (predictably ) was "YES THEY DO, I can juggle those statistics to say anything". This tells us 2 things about TAB 1) He's a liar 2) He's not very good at it.
Open minded people like this show how the left embraces "Diversity".
-
solus show me where it says carrying a weapon concealed in a right.
Tab, you have a lack of understanding of the intent and purpose of the US Constitution.
It DOES NOT list what is legal for citizens to do. It DOES list the limited powers given to the Government by the people. It does not list any rights given to the people by the government. Remember NO RIGHTS are granted to the people by the Constit;ution or the Bill of Rights. Instead certain rights are acknowledged by the Bill of Rights. Bacause a right is not listed does not mean it does not exist (see the 9th Ammendment)
So, Tab, I don't need to show you where it says CCW is a right. As long as it does not do actual damage to another, it is a right.
Please remember that the government cannot grant privileges as it has none to grant unless that power was given to it by the people in the constitution.
So, you need to show us where the Constitution says CCW is not a rigth or, by default, it is.
Hell show me one case that says owning a gun a right.
See above
What you think the 2a means is not law.
I guess that is correct. It is inalienable < inalienable right - that by their nature cannot be taken away, violated, or transferred from one person to another>. So yes it is not law. It is not dependent upon law
So if we replace CCW with GC, would you still support this bill?
Since this is not a CG forum or issue I am concerned about, it does not require an answer by me. But see below.
Replacing one thing with something simlar is the best acid test there is.
Tab, your statement is correct. The key word is similar. Since licensing CG involves a contract for services to be performed to certain standards in a commercial environment, it is simply foolish to keep repeating that it somehow is similar to an act by an individual that is not bound in any way by contract of any kind to anyone else.
If your for it for one thing, but not for it for the other... then its not the law your for.
Tab, I don't believe we should have to even need this law. But we do to undo the effects of other infringement the 2a.
But again, they just are not the same. If I put up a deck for my buddy for free, and there was some law meant to regulate this, I might be against this law. But if there was the same law pertaining me changing someone to put up a deck for them, I might be for the law. These are two different cases. Just like CCW and GC are even more different.
-
But you forget CCW can damage others... I know its hard for you to see that, but many liablity and/or comp policy strickly forbid it, several I have seen over the years state that if one of your employees brings a gun into the work place and there is an accident you are not coverd, but you are still liable for it. That seems like alot of damage to me. Also what about places that are metal senative? You bring a large metal object in there and you could do ungodly sums of damage.
No where in the us cons does it say CCW is a right nor does it say its not... that does not mean its by defualt a right. That means for something to be determend rather or not its a right.
Since you don't like my argument about GC... you replace it with something you deam simlar... see if it still passes the sniff test.
I don't know how many times I must say this.. what you or I beleave what the 2a means does not matter. What matters is what the SCOTUS thinks it mean. Now if we don't agree with what they think it means, we are well with in our rights to amend the USCONS to change it. Thats the great part about the USCONS, is the people can change it.
BTW in the 4 states I have CL in... it does not matter if your doing something for free or not, they are all based on a dallor ammount of combined materail and labor. So if the materail cost is over that limit, you would be illegal. You are allowed to help them, but you can't just do it for them.( in fact in 2, even offering is a crime.) I know dumb law and its rarly enforced, but still does not make it any less of a law.
-
Tab, you have a lack of understanding of the intent and purpose of the US Constitution.
It DOES NOT list what is legal for citizens to do. It DOES list the limited powers given to the Government by the people. It does not list any rights given to the people by the government. Remember NO RIGHTS are granted to the people by the Constit;ution or the Bill of Rights. Instead certain rights are acknowledged by the Bill of Rights. Bacause a right is not listed does not mean it does not exist (see the 9th Ammendment)
So, Tab, I don't need to show you where it says CCW is a right. As long as it does not do actual damage to another, it is a right.
Please remember that the government cannot grant privileges as it has none to grant unless that power was given to it by the people in the constitution.
Exaclty, the consent of those governed.
We live in a Republic (a democratic republic more specifically) and thankfully not a social democracy (which is vastly more statist). Statism has always lead down dark roads. Statism bred Mussolini's fascism and Nazi eugenics and Stalin's mass starvations and Wilson's League of Nations and FDR's New Deal and Mao's cultural revolution and Castro's dungeons and even (gulp) TR's progressivist distaste for large corporations. Big government is dangerous in all it's forms, period.
But you forget CCW can damage others...
So because the potential for liability exists, CCW is damaging?
There's an implied liability in getting out of bed in the morning...
-
I don't know how many times I must say this.. what you or I beleave what the 2a means does not matter. What matters is what the SCOTUS thinks it mean.
First off, we are NOT a judicial monarchy! And we should NOT view a supreme court ruling as the end all be all of our rights as citizens.
2nd, Justices are appointed to the Supreme Court by an elected official - So yes, it does matter what I and all other Americans think the 2nd Amendment means. The 2nd amendment is a major litmus test for many Americans (both pro gun and anti gun people) in who they will vote for in a presidential election. Who a president will appoint as a justice is a huge deciding factor for many voters.
-
I don't know how many times I must say this.. what you or I beleave what the 2a means does not matter. What matters is what the SCOTUS thinks it mean. Now if we don't agree with what they think it means, we are well with in our rights to amend the USCONS to change it. Thats the great part about the USCONS, is the people can change it.
In the legal sense, I believe, you are correct, it's what the SCOTUS says that matters but what we or any US Citizen thinks means a great deal. The Federal and State Governments have been somewhat unchecked in their ability to control what, I would argue, was clearly established in the US Constitution. Just because there is case law that supports something or it has been done for years doesn't make it right. In the end, the people are the arbiters or what's right. Or at least that's how it worked in the late 1700's.
Exaclty, the consent of those governed.
We live in a Republic (a democratic republic more specifically) and thankfully not a social democracy (which is vastly more statist). Statism has always lead down dark roads. Statism bred Mussolini's fascism and Nazi eugenics and Stalin's mass starvations and Wilson's League of Nations and FDR's New Deal and Mao's cultural revolution and Castro's dungeons and even (gulp) TR's progressivist distaste for large corporations. Big government is dangerous in all it's forms, period.
So because the potential for liability exists, CCW is damaging?
There's an implied liability in getting out of bed in the morning...
+1 MiddleMan
-
First off, we are NOT a judicial monarchy! And we should NOT view a supreme court ruling as the end all be all of our rights as citizens.
2nd, Justices are appointed to the Supreme Court by an elected official - So yes, it does matter what I and all other Americans think the 2nd Amendment means. The 2nd amendment is a major litmus test for many Americans (both pro gun and anti gun people) in who they will vote for in a presidential election. Who a president will appoint as a justice is a huge deciding factor for many voters.
Citizens may also bring suit(s) against the government that can turn laws, codes, precedence, and case law on it's ear. Heller is but one example, as well as, an example that the path may be slow.
-
But you forget CCW can damage others... I know its hard for you to see that, but many liablity and/or comp policy strickly forbid it, several I have seen over the years state that if one of your employees brings a gun into the work place and there is an accident you are not coverd, but you are still liable for it. That seems like alot of damage to me. Also what about places that are metal senative? You bring a large metal object in there and you could do ungodly sums of damage.
I have agreed with you on your right to limit whomever you wish from your property..for whatever reason....having fish for lunch, as an example you might remember. What I said is that them violating your wish did not constitute a crime until you asked them to leave and they did not. Also remember I differentiated commercial property from your private property. Folks can't have a Klan rally on your front but, again, you have to ask them to leave before and they refuse before a crime is commited.
I also said that an employee should have the right to fire an employee if they have forbidden firearms in the workplace..for what ever reason. But I still don't think not complying with that wish is a crime. Coke can fire employees for bringing Pepsi to work if they wish...but that should not be a crime.
I do not think an employer should be able to forbid employees from keeping a firearm in their locked vehicle. That would be denying them there right to bear at least to and from work. At least the firearm would not be a danger to metal sensitive areas with cars all around.
How do folks prevent workers from bringing a 12lb keyring into a metal sensitive area?
No where in the us cons does it say CCW is a right nor does it say its not... that does not mean its by defualt a right. That means for something to be determend rather or not its a right.
Saying CCW is not a right because it is not specifically mentioned in the constitution is like saying carrying in a shoulder holster, belt holster or openly any place but in your hands is also not a right.
Since you don't like my argument about GC... you replace it with something you deam simlar... see if it still passes the sniff test.
Actually I don't think this law should be necessary because I don't think there should be a restriction on how you bear arms, but since there is, this law becomes necessary.
To find an example I like will require finding a similar situation..or making one up...let me postpone this until I can find something other than the Driver License issue we have already discussed.
I don't know how many times I must say this.. what you or I beleave what the 2a means does not matter. What matters is what the SCOTUS thinks it mean. Now if we don't agree with what they think it means, we are well with in our rights to amend the USCONS to change it. Thats the great part about the USCONS, is the people can change it.
I see Big Saucy has answered this portion as I was thinking ...and I'll go with his answer
BTW in the 4 states I have CL in... it does not matter if your doing something for free or not, they are all based on a dallor ammount of combined materail and labor. So if the materail cost is over that limit, you would be illegal. You are allowed to help them, but you can't just do it for them.( in fact in 2, even offering is a crime.) I know dumb law and its rarly enforced, but still does not make it any less of a law.
I am assuming that the laws you mentioned apply to you as a CL holder and would not apply to me as a non construction industry worker?
-
I just recalled that what we think the 2a means, or what any law means for that matter, is more important and powerful than we usually know.
Look into discussions on the Fully Informed Jury movement and Jury Nulification.
Info can be found here http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/juries.htm
and here http://www.fija.org/
Basically, if Jurors feel a law is wrong or that it has been applied wrong in a particular case, they can vote to acquit based on that alone.
You might spend time in jail (contempt of court) for telling other jurists about this.
-
Hell show me one case that says owning a gun a right.
This was posted only two days before the Heller decision.
Neville Chamberlain? Paging Neville Chamberlain.....Mr. Chamberlain, are you there?
-
Well here i go again . here in minnesota the state says you can carry openly, but it is the local pd that do not allow this . Idon't understand I thought the state had jurisdiction the local law but I was wrong acording to a local chief witch used to be a friend. I called the state police here to verify and they said the same. so my question is WHATS UP WITH THAT ?????????????
-
Well here i go again . here in minnesota the state says you can carry openly, but it is the local pd that do not allow this . Idon't understand I thought the state had jurisdiction the local law but I was wrong acording to a local chief witch used to be a friend. I called the state police here to verify and they said the same. so my question is WHATS UP WITH THAT ?????????????
Thats what these "Preemption laws" are about Without them the the State will enforce thier law, but towns and Counties are free to enact and enforce stricter laws. With preemption the State says We make the laws on this subject, as in the cases of San Francisco and Philidelphia gun laws that violate the States preemption laws.
-
I don't have a prob with CCWs...
I have a prob with some one trying to get around several parts of the US cons.( which this bill would do...)
It would stamp all over states rights,
Do you also object to the Dept. of Education? Department of Health? Dept. of the Interior? et al?
All of these are not stipulated in the US Constitution and clearly violate the 10th Amendment. So is it guns or is it states' rights? Or something else?
-
Do you also object to the Dept. of Education? Department of Health? Dept. of the Interior? et al?
All of these are not stipulated in the US Constitution and clearly violate the 10th Amendment. So is it guns or is it states' rights? Or something else?
Artical 1 section 8 covers those...
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
-
TAB,
I didn't see anything about health or education in there. Not to mention environment, occupational safety, and on and on.
-
TAB,
I didn't see anything about health or education in there. Not to mention environment, occupational safety, and on and on.
provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
-
That 'general welfare' is quite a strecth. You could use that to cover pretty much anything if you want.
-
That 'general welfare' is quite a strecth. You could use that to cover pretty much anything if you want.
Hit.
-
It clearly covers the important part. Welfare.
Mac.
-
That 'general welfare' is quite a strecth. You could use that to cover pretty much anything if you want.
not near as far as some other things.
-
TAB,
I think what drives some of us crazy about you is you come up with crap like the 'welfare clause' and tell us such and such is covered under it then when told that that is BS you agree.
Well which is it? Is the general welfare clause being misused or not? Do YOU think health and education should be covered under it (or any other clause) or should those (as the most of us believe) be at the local or even individual level?
-
its not the welfare cluase... its the general welfare cluase.
I think most of us would agree its in the best intrest of the country to have things like: safe drinking water, safe food, schools, mangment of natureal resources and etc.
-
Yes we would agree with those things. What we are talking about is the WHO not the WHAT.
-
its not the welfare cluase... its the general welfare cluase.
I think most of us would agree its in the best intrest of the country to have things like: safe drinking water, safe food, schools, mangment of natureal resources and etc.
I think I echo others here with the frustration on the interpretation: Sometimes liberal sometimes conservative. (I understand you aren't a "liberal") The general welfare is a broad brush encompassing anything that needs to be for the "general good" in direct conflict with the singular interpretation on the 2nd (militia only not necessarily yours). You have to pick one and stick with it. As for the Constitution itself... Do you enjoy your right to vote? Not in the document. Here is a web site with several more (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#elec (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#elec)).
Just for the record, on other threads the second amendment is referred to as the teeth for the rest. That being the case. How much teeth is it really in its present form? Let's say there is a Civil War II. In homage to the '80's icon... "Where's the teeth?" If you read it how the founders intended, there are several more unconstitutional laws that need to be overturned, and the whole donnybrook on "concealed means concealed" is the least of your worries.
I look forward to a convoluted response.
-
They are WRONG about "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" not being in the Constitution, I can't find my copy , but I THINK it's the 4rth or 14th amendment.
-
They are WRONG about "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" not being in the Constitution, I can't find my copy , but I THINK it's the 4rth or 14th amendment.
It is in the Declaration of Independence.
-
Found what I was looking for. the 14th amendment section 1 does NOT mention "pursuit of happiness" but DOES say,
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.