Brown to Vote Against Reciprocity Bill

[bolt]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/15/369205/brown-insider-trading-law/ Not something the a real Dem would do, considering the ratios of this insider trading being done on the congressional level is about 1 Rep : 3 Dems! Look it up! Prove me wrong. Again, the majority of R candidates are business people, the majority of D's are Attys , skirting, or passing laws in their favor. Not that their not all crooks, its the old adage, looks like a duck, yada,yada,yada

 

[namedpipes]

. . . I think you're underestimating the problem, but I'm willing to hear ideas for alternative solutions. Frankly I don't think anything short of federal action is going to convince the handful of states who fail to recognize the 2nd to do so. Recent SCOTUS cases seem to support my theory. Put another way, it seems unlikely for IL, NY, MA, etc to come to some sort of epiphany on their own, unless you know something that I don't.

Creating a new law that forces states to reciprocate is adding more layers of crap on top of old, to hopefully make it work better.

Finding that it is unconstitutional for local, state and federal authority to collectively limit firearms rights and requiring the repeal of laws / regulations that do so, simplifies it and makes the system work the way it should.

This would prevent any state from imposing (or retaining) a licensing scheme because that would be (IS) unconstitutional. It would eliminate the useless bans, the tiresome interstate regulations and even the laws that make giggle switches illegal.

Yes, I do realize that it is quite unlikely that any such thing will ever happen.

 

[jasons]

Creating a new law that forces states to reciprocate is adding more layers of crap on top of old, to hopefully make it work better.

Well, yeah... It's unfortunate that we've gotten to this point, but the reality of the situation is that we have. It's an imperfect world.

Finding that it is unconstitutional for local, state and federal authority to collectively limit firearms rights and requiring the repeal of laws / regulations that do so, simplifies it and makes the system work the way it should.

This would prevent any state from imposing (or retaining) a licensing scheme because that would be (IS) unconstitutional. It would eliminate the useless bans, the tiresome interstate regulations and even the laws that make giggle switches illegal.

Yes, I do realize that it is quite unlikely that any such thing will ever happen.

Ideally (and perhaps eventually,) yes. In the meantime HR822 does nothing that would sabotage that objective.

 

[cekim]

Well, yeah... It's unfortunate that we've gotten to this point, but the reality of the situation is that we have. It's an imperfect world.

Ideally (and perhaps eventually,) yes. In the meantime HR822 does nothing that would sabotage that objective.

Agreed on both fronts, so often people are debating the "it's not perfect, but..." point. The point on the spectrum this particular legislation represents in that debate, really isn't one that is of great concern.

Again, as it passed in the house, this doesn't step on anyone's toes or close any doors. We may have to have the debate again, but this frankly doesn't cost anything as it is and does in fact not only force the issue in bad states as well clarify states in the middle so that travel/carry around the country is easier.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Either the senate version of this bill (if any) will be defeated, or it will be vetoed. BUT... the good thing about the bill is (a) It gets us a bit closer for next time [look at all the "shall issue" states where the bills did not pass first time out the gate, and (b) If a bill does get introduced in the senate, it will force some people who pretend to be our friends to take a stand and show their true colors.

 

[jasons]

.....it will force some people who pretend to be our friends to take a stand and show their true colors.

It's already doing that.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It's already doing that.

You mean he had you fooled ?

 

[lupis42]

It's already doing that.

Quite spectacularly.

 

[jasons]

You mean he had you fooled ?

Nah. I sort of expected him to go this way but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

 

[TomH]

Any laws regulating the right to bear arms are unconstitutional, as is this one.

 

[jasons]

Any laws regulating the right to bear arms are unconstitutional, as is this one.

Not trying to be argumentative, but can you quote the specific section of this bill that regulates the right to bear arms?

 

[namedpipes]

Not trying to be argumentative, but can you quote the specific section of this bill that regulates the right to bear arms?

I can. The first line in the bill:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/text

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

What exactly do you you think "regulate" and "standard" mean?

 

[jasons]

I can. The first line in the bill:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/text


What exactly do you you think "regulate" and "standard" mean?

If you read the whole thing you'll see that it regulates STATES (not individuals or the individual right to bear arms) by forcing THE STATES to recognize the rights of people who have already met whatever standards their home states have forced on them. Individuals lose nothing with this bill - if you never leave your state nothing at all changes one bit. Things only change (for the better) when you go to another state, which would now be forced by law to recognize your individual rights. (And yeah, in a perfect world they shouldn't have to be forced by law to do that. We've been over that.)

(By the way, you're not reading the version of the bill that was actually passed in the house or that was introduced to the Senate. There are a few differences between the different versions. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.822:)

 

[mbz4ever]

Scott Brown just another politician

 

[cekim]

Scott Brown just another politician

The campaign is over...

Oh really?

 

[namedpipes]

If you read the whole thing you'll see that it regulates STATES (not individuals or the individual right to bear arms) by forcing THE STATES to recognize the rights of people who have already met whatever standards their home states have forced on them. Individuals lose nothing with this bill - if you never leave your state nothing at all changes one bit. Things only change (for the better) when you go to another state, which would now be forced by law to recognize your individual rights. (And yeah, in a perfect world they shouldn't have to be forced by law to do that. We've been over that.)

(By the way, you're not reading the version of the bill that was actually passed in the house or that was introduced to the Senate. There are a few differences between the different versions. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.822:)

Your link has the same opening. Looking further:

The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations . . .

Words mean what words mean.

We can debate whether this particular piece of regulation is good or bad, or less bad or more good and so on than doing nothing, but what can't really be debated is; this is another layer of control.

 

[jasons]

Your link has the same opening. Looking further:



Words mean what words mean.

We can debate whether this particular piece of regulation is good or bad, or less bad or more good and so on than doing nothing, but what can't really be debated is; this is another layer of control.

Why not quote the whole thing?

The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.

Meaning we still have to follow all of the state restrictions that we already have to follow "except as to eligibility to possess or carry." Words do have meaning, and N minus 1 is always less than N....

 

[namedpipes]

Why not quote the whole thing? ...

Because my point was completed with what I quoted. You appear to be arguing a different point.

EVERY law limits, defines or otherwise regulates what we can or can't do or how we can do and who we have to seek permission to do it or even IF we have to seek permission.

 

[cekim]

EVERY law limits, defines or otherwise regulates what we can or can't do or how we can do and who we have to seek permission to do it or even IF we have to seek permission.

No, some laws limit the power of government - state, federal or local.

Unfortunately, while this should be the majority of laws they are the exception.

 

[jasons]

Because my point was completed with what I quoted. You appear to be arguing a different point.

EVERY law limits, defines or otherwise regulates what we can or can't do or how we can do and who we have to seek permission to do it or even IF we have to seek permission.

That's simply wrong, and this bill is a perfect example of that. It doesn't further limit or regulate what we as individuals do, rather it limits what regulations states can force on us. The net is an increase in individual liberty, which is the point I've been trying to make.

To restate, HR822 does not "regulate the right to bear arms." It regulates (by removing) the ability of the states to deny individuals that right for the sole reason that they happen to live in another state.

 

[JimB]

That's simply wrong, and this bill is a perfect example of that. It doesn't further limit or regulate what we as individuals do, rather it limits what regulations states can force on us. The net is an increase in individual liberty, which is the point I've been trying to make.

To restate, HR822 does not "regulate the right to bear arms." It regulates (by removing) the ability of the states to deny individuals that right for the sole reason that they happen to live in another state.

this is my understanding as well

 

[drgrant]

ISOTOX, enough with the bullshit. If you don't like this thread, then unsub from it and let the adults talk.

-Mike