Brown to Vote Against Reciprocity Bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
If it's so important that MA determine who can and can't carry guns here, I wonder if Brown supports repealing LEOSA.
 
jar said:
If it's so important that MA determine who can and can't carry guns here, I wonder if Brown supports repealing LEOSA.
Click to expand...
He's trying to follow Romney's lead and make up a "state's rights" argument to support his democrat pleasing stance...

In other words, this has nothing to do with "state's rights."
 
jar said:
If it's so important that MA determine who can and can't carry guns here, I wonder if Brown supports repealing LEOSA.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. My guess is he would embrace authority, a stance that routinely appeals to both parties.
 
Dench said:
whats the alternative? praying to God that 30-40% of the population that does not like guns changes their minds magically?
Click to expand...

Where did you get 30 to 40%? I would say it is much less then that but most don't know about guns and could care less so they don't take a position.
The alternative is for us to hold them to the COTUS but unfortunatly there are too many gun owners that think so called reasonable restrictions actually do something to prevent crime when in reality all it does is benefit tyrants and criminals by shifting the balance of power in their favor.
Supporting this bill means that we agree with getting permission to exercise a right and this is wrong so I don't support this bill and I don't support RINO's so I don't support Brown. His reasons for voting no on this were not based on what is right or wrong but were instead self serving.
 
inerlogic said:
my moonbatty aunt posted this on facebook, i'm just going to put it here.....
283512_274447325904406_100000174237267_1408571_4908362_n.jpg
Click to expand...
Yeah, because the entire Bill of Rights has no democratic foundation. Ratification occurs by magic.
 
I also voiced my thoughts to Mr. Brown. I doubt he will change his mind but he will erode a lot of his initial support by going against this.
 
OfficerObie59 said:
Yeah, because the entire Bill of Rights has no democratic foundation. Ratification occurs by magic.
Click to expand...
Fundamental rights described in the Constitution exist whether or not we vote to ratify them (and even whether or not the Constitution mentioned them)... The only question is if or how much the government formed by that process infringes on those rights?

The criticism here is a valid one which says that pure democracy cannot work. Government must be limited and the first such limitation is the basic foundation of prohibiting government, majority vote or not, ratification or not, from infringing on fundamental rights. The second such limitation is enumerating its powers and stating explicitly by charter that it shall do no more than enumerated.
 
jar said:
Would you not support a shall issue bill in MA for the same reason?
Click to expand...
This would be a matter of the state govt. rather then the federal and I would support that everyone in this state be treated fairly and equally when applying for their license, but personally I support the 2A which states the RKBA shall not be infringed therefore I don't support licensing/permitting of an inalienable right. We should be removing all infringements to the RKBA.
Sadly IMO we will never fully regain our rights through the courts or govt. because they are corrupt and want control and it benefits them to have many laws and many of those laws raise confusion on what and what is not allowed and this confusion keeps many people from exercising their rights for fear of prosecution.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."-Tacitus (A.D. 55?-130?)
 
wahsben said:
This would be a matter of the state govt. rather then the federal and I would support that everyone in this state be treated fairly and equally when applying for their license, but personally I support the 2A which states the RKBA shall not be infringed therefore I don't support licensing/permitting of an inalienable right. We should be removing all infringements to the RKBA.
Sadly IMO we will never fully regain our rights through the courts or govt. because they are corrupt and want control and it benefits them to have many laws and many of those laws raise confusion on what and what is not allowed and this confusion keeps many people from exercising their rights for fear of prosecution.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."-Tacitus (A.D. 55?-130?)
Click to expand...
The legal issues here from my perspective are:
- Is the Federal Law Constitutional?
a. Does is infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?
b. Does it exceed the authority of the Federal government described in the enumerated powers clause and defined (in some aspects) further by commerce clause?

If the Federal law does not infringe on the RKBA, then it would seem the only issue is "b" - do the Feds have the authority to regulate this.

As it relates to the treatment of one state's citizens exercising their civil liberties in another state, this would seem like a home-run based on centuries of legal interpretation.

I don't particularly care for the Federal Government meddling, but I have hard time finding any Constitutional flaw with this law. Particularly in the context of precedent set by numerous other decisions.

I am concerned that it is solving a problem the wrong way, but as this relates to the free movement and exercise of civil rights across state-lines, this seems like it falls firmly in the Fed's court. The "state's rights" argument, legally speaking falls on its face and frankly, it is clear that Romney and Brown are using this excuse to side with Democrats and independents they hope to woo...
 
Last edited:
cekim said:
The legal issues here from my perspective are:
- Is the Federal Law Cosntitutional?
a. Does is infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?
b. Does it exceed the authority of the Federal government described in the enumerated powers clause and defined (in some aspects) further by commerce clause?

If the Federal law does not infringe on the RKBA, then it would seem the only issue is "b" - do the Feds have the authority to regulate this.

As it relates to the treatment of one state's citizens exercising their civil liberties in another state, this would seem like a home-run based on centuries of legal interpretation.

I don't particularly care for the Federal Government meddling, but I have hard time finding any Constitutional flaw with this law. Particularly in the context of precedent set by numerous other decisions.

I am concerned that it is solving a problem the wrong way, but as this relates to the free movement and exercise of civil rights across state-lines, this seems like it falls firmly in the Fed's court. The "state's rights" argument, legally speaking falls on its face and frankly, it is clear that Romney and Brown are using this excuse to side with Democrats and independents they hope to woo...
Click to expand...
The courts tend to make up what they believe is constitutional and what is not. That is why different courts make different rulings. The courts and govt. have put themselves above the Constitution.
 
Brown could have been honest with:

"Look, this thing will never pass, so my vote would only make a symbolic difference. There will be enough back room dealing to make sure that Republicans in pro-gun districts are allowed to vote for it, but without enough votes to even get it to Obama for a certain veto. If I were to vote for it, the liberal MA media would be all over that like a cheap suit and there isn't a chance in hell I would be able to beat Elizabeth Warren with the Globe telling the moonbattery that I am voting to put armed out of staters onto the mean streets of Massachusetts".
 
wahsben said:
The courts tend to make up what they believe is constitutional and what is not. That is why different courts make different rulings. The courts and govt. have put themselves above the Constitution.
Click to expand...
The courts have always had the power to "interpret" the Constitution. WE are the final arbiter of their correctness. That inconvenient fact is one that many legal scholars (and non-scholars) ignore that the final word on Constitutionality is what we will tolerate, so its not just a question of following the process and "that's that."

That said, what I am saying (and will tolerate) is that I can find no indication that the proposed law (thus far) violates 2A and I can find indication that, as I understand/accept the enumerated powers and commerce clauses, that the idea that the Fed's can write a law governing the exercise of civil rights of a citizen of one state while traveling to or through another.

My stance on this law is that it _should_ not be required as the "several states" should not be permitted by their own courts or the Supreme Court to violate 2A - but clearly they have. As such, this law represent remediation of the State's failure to avoid infringement on the civil rights of non-residents of their state.
 
cekim said:
The courts have always had the power to "interpret" the Constitution. WE are the final arbiter of their correctness. That inconvenient fact is one that many legal scholars (and non-scholars) ignore that the final word on Constitutionality is what we will tolerate, so its not just a question of following the process and "that's that."

That said, what I am saying (and will tolerate) is that I can find no indication that the proposed law (thus far) violates 2A and I can find indication that, as I understand/accept the enumerated powers and commerce clauses, that the idea that the Fed's can write a law governing the exercise of civil rights of a citizen of one state while traveling to or through another.

My stance on this law is that it _should_ not be required as the "several states" should not be permitted by their own courts or the Supreme Court to violate 2A - but clearly they have. As such, this law represent remediation of the State's failure to avoid infringement on the civil rights of non-residents of their state.
Click to expand...

Well stated. Had I been a bit more articulate I would have said the same thing. [grin]

For those following along at home, note that Cekim actually read the bill.....
 
I can't believe you folks would see this any differently with this guy. He apparently sold you all a bill of goods and essentially turned his back when he got elected. Main reason why I don't vote because it doesn't matter who is in there they do what they want. Not what you want!
 
sig2009 said:
I can't believe you folks would see this any differently with this guy. He apparently sold you all a bill of goods and essentially turned his back when he got elected. Main reason why I don't vote because it doesn't matter who is in there they do what they want. Not what you want!
Click to expand...

Maybe you should just go crawl into a hole then. You're useless!
 
Supposedly, Reid supports this measure and plans to push it through by attaching it to something that has to pass.
 
sig2009 said:
Supposedly, Reid supports this measure and plans to push it through by attaching it to something that has to pass.
Click to expand...

I find that extremely hard to believe.
 
I am going to call tomorrow and let loose. I will also definitely vote third party. This is what George Washington meant when he said a two party system would be the downfall of this country.
 
Nana the Great said:
Elizabeth Warren will be very appreciative.
Click to expand...
Sam Stein said:
“Regardless of who emerges as the Democratic nominee," read the rest of Franck's statement, "Scott Brown’s major opponent will be his own voting record in the Senate, where he has gone along to get along with D.C. Republicans nearly 90 percent of the time...
Click to expand...

We really need to reconsider our logic here, it is failing us...
 
cekim said:
The courts have always had the power to "interpret" the Constitution. WE are the final arbiter of their correctness. That inconvenient fact is one that many legal scholars (and non-scholars) ignore that the final word on Constitutionality is what we will tolerate, so its not just a question of following the process and "that's that."

That said, what I am saying (and will tolerate) is that I can find no indication that the proposed law (thus far) violates 2A and I can find indication that, as I understand/accept the enumerated powers and commerce clauses, that the idea that the Fed's can write a law governing the exercise of civil rights of a citizen of one state while traveling to or through another.

My stance on this law is that it _should_ not be required as the "several states" should not be permitted by their own courts or the Supreme Court to violate 2A - but clearly they have. As such, this law represent remediation of the State's failure to avoid infringement on the civil rights of non-residents of their state.
Click to expand...
The founders told us what they wanted and that the right shall not be infringed so there is no need for the court to interpret anything. That is just an excuse the courts and govt. use to exert more power over we the people.
 
Climbnsink said:
I ain't calling, but Elizabeth Warren will be pleased when I vote for her. Rinos are traitors and should punished even if there is cost to do so. We need a PSA: Don't be a rino hugging fag.
Click to expand...
*******
Not in Ma. you won`t. I will vote for Brown so I can stick it to the moonbats.
 
SO because of this you're going to vote for UBER MOONBAT WARREN, that's really SMART! 1 line item voters are really the bomb! [rolleyes]
 
bolt said:
SO because of this you're going to vote for UBER MOONBAT WARREN, that's really SMART! 1 line item voters are really the bomb! [rolleyes]
Click to expand...
Seriously though, if Brown is voting with the dems 90% of the time - what are we getting for our party loyalty?

10% of a Republican (that's assuming that those 10% were all hot-button issues - my guess is less than half were). So, 5% of a Republican?

What's the point? Might as well play the long game and find a real Republican.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Maine: Only One Vote Needed to Kill Waiting Periods
Replies
2
Views
256
dfritz
D
Kennedy is a no vote.
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
2K
HARRYM
H
Bill H.4139
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Ron Jablonski
R
Nebraska lawmakers pass bill that would allow smaller school districts to arm staff members
Replies
0
Views
53
Reptile
Reptile
Florida House Passes Bill to Lower Legal Gun Purchase Age to 18
Replies
0
Views
94
Reptile
Reptile
Back
Top Bottom