• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Brown to Vote Against Reciprocity Bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
The bottom line is that Scott Brown's refusal to support the bill has nothing to do with a legitimate concern for state sovereignty and everything to do with a concern about the next election.
 
Nictrolis said:
I want to preface this by saying I'm not trying to start an argument, because I know this is a touchy subject. I'm looking for information, not a flame war. :)

Anybody have info on what state has the most lax concealed carry requirements? I'm all for a person's right to protection, but there are some people who probably shouldn't be allowed to carry (I'm thinking ex convicts, people with severe psychological issues, etc). Perhaps in some states they can get a license easily, thus leading states like MA to feel the need to "protect" themselves from states with particularly lax requirements. I don't really know the facts, which is why I'm asking.

Maybe the better way to go about this would be to have a country-wide CCW license, so there's no issue with one state being more lax than another?
Click to expand...

Shall not be infringed, except for who Nictrolis deems unworthy of this basic right.
Click to expand...

This is why we are even discussing it at all, everyone has an interpretation of what is supposed to be an absolute right of any free man. As soon as you do that, you've killed it.

I'm not sure I'd vote for it either. Voting for it justifies the existence of a permitting or license process to begin with, and gives the feds something else to "regulate". You shouldn't need anything, in all 50 states.
 
Last edited:
Dench said:
They are giving us a privilege that we don't have.

I don't understand why people keep saying what they give they can take away. We cant carry out of state in most states with a MA license, so it cant get any worse.
Click to expand...

The government can't give away rights, it can only try to take them away.

dixidawg said:
I don't understand that at all.

The "states" don't have a right to restrict the 1st amendment, why should they (or the feds) be allowed to restrict the 2nd?
Click to expand...

My line of thinking is that licensing/permitting is a restriction already, and thus MORE laws enabling or recognizing the practice of right licensing is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated. It has NOTHING to do with states rights IMO, because NO state should be able to restrict it in the manner they have been.
 
Last edited:
TomH said:
The government can't give away rights, it can only try to take them away.
My line of thinking is that licensing/permitting is a restriction already, and thus MORE laws enabling or recognizing the practice of right licensing is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated. It has NOTHING to do with states rights IMO, because NO state should be able to restrict it in the manner they have been.
Click to expand...

my moonbatty aunt posted this on facebook, i'm just going to put it here.....
283512_274447325904406_100000174237267_1408571_4908362_n.jpg
 
Lots of good points (a lot better than "it'll upset the moonbats.") For what its worth I don't see this as a bill that "gives" us a right, but rather as a bill that forces states to recognize our preexisting right. It's not perfect but if we keep waiting for perfect we'll never get anywhere.
 
I think we can all agree on a couple of things: (1) Brown sucks, and (2) The bill has philosophical and pragmatic flaws. EC did a solid job of listing the pragmatic problems, and did it well enough to show, as a practical matter, this bill probably isn't a net positive. As I mentioned earlier, the philosophical problems bother me a lot less given the nature of politics. Overall, I think the bill should be opposed. Brown just did it for the worst possible reasons.
 
Jbarila said:
Ok the smoke has cleared ive calmed down a touch. This bill would never become law because of a Potus veto. But we need to shake up Brown and let him know we are watching and pissed. We are a big reason he got elected and no matter how mad I am I could never vote for the likes of Liz. So keep calling Scott, he cant change position now anyway and keep him honest for upcoming votes.
Click to expand...
******
Ditto. Remember, Scott Brown holding Teddy`s old seat makes the left crazy. He is their number one target and they are pouring big money into Lizzie`s campaign. The Hollyweird celebrities and mega-rich libs are backing her. She is raising more money from out of State than in State. Brown`s re-election would put a damper on their agenda of taking back the govt. Brown is far from perfect but he is far from the enemy. Big picture here folks.
 
rwl1955 said:
Ditto. Remember, Scott Brown holding Teddy`s old seat makes the left crazy.
Click to expand...

"The left" doesn't care that it's Teddy's old seat. They don't like him because of the "R". I've got a lot of wayward leftist friends, and I've never once heard anyone bitch about Brown having Kennedy's seat. They bitch about his policies.
 
milktree said:
"The left" doesn't care that it's Teddy's old seat. They don't like him because of the "R". I've got a lot of wayward leftist friends, and I've never once heard anyone bitch about Brown having Kennedy's seat. They bitch about his policies.
Click to expand...
*******
They hate him because he`s a Republican who defeated their girl, Martha, and embarrassed the the Democratic party. Teddy`s old seat is "theirs", and having a R in the seat is a slap in the face to them and a repudiation of their agenda. Brown`s election scared the hell out of them because it was the beginning of the end of their control of the govt. Scott Brown could vote with them 99% of the time and they`d still be trying to destroy him.
 
rwl1955 said:
*******
They hate him because he`s a Republican who defeated their girl, Martha, and embarrassed the the Democratic party. Teddy`s old seat is "theirs", and having a R in the seat is a slap in the face to them and a repudiation of their agenda. Brown`s election scared the hell out of them because it was the beginning of the end of their control of the govt. Scott Brown could vote with them 99% of the time and they`d still be trying to destroy him.
Click to expand...

I'd say he's closer to 100% on the important votes.

http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/18919/
 
jasons said:
So it's bad because the moonbats might get upset and punish us for standing up for our rights? Sorry, but you guys are way off base on this one.
Click to expand...

My reason for disliking this law is that it sets the precedent for the feds meddling (for good or bad) with the states' CCW laws. Until now, they've had no part in non-LEO licensing non-NFA firearms. What part of the phrase 'new federal gun law' doesn't scare you? The feds love 'reasonable' restrictions. This is how it starts.

I included the other stuff for the short-sighted MA residents that don't care about laws they don't think will affect them to point out the likely consequences.


jasons said:
.....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

Too late. The fact that some of us need permits at all is an infringement. This new federal law legitimizes that fact, and you're for it.
 
Last edited:
I'll be lmao when lizzie wins. Hey if you want an extra R seat in the Senate send money to an out of state candidate that has a chance.
 
EddieCoyle said:
My reason for disliking this law is that it sets the precedent for the feds meddling (for good or bad) with the states' CCW laws. Until now, they've had no part in licensing non-NFA firearms. What part of the phrase 'new federal gun law' doesn't scare you? The feds love 'reasonable' restrictions. This is how it starts.

I included the other stuff for the short-sighted MA residents that don't care about laws they don't think will affect them to point out the likely consequences.




Too late. The fact that some of us need permits at all is an infringement. This new federal law legitimizes that fact, and you're for it.
Click to expand...


Maybe I'm reading a different version of the bill but I don't see where anything indicates that the feds would take over licensing. On the contrary I see this:
‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’.
Click to expand...

Nor so I see anything that gives the feds any more power than they already have. They already have the power to compel the states to recognize individual rights and have done so many times. We can argue about whether or not that's "right" from an intellectual standpoint but we have well over 100 years of precedent in this area so this is not likely to change any time soon.

I get it, you're coming from the "any federal law is a bad law" perspective. For what it's worth I agree up to the point that a state decides that it can ignore our individual rights. Once a state (or states) crosses that line the feds have a responsibility to step in. That's what I see here.
 
Just discovered a new past time...trolling Scotty's FB page! Oh man...so much material there!!!!
 
EddieCoyle said:
My reason for disliking this law is that it sets the precedent for the feds meddling (for good or bad) with the states' CCW laws. Until now, they've had no part in non-LEO licensing non-NFA firearms. What part of the phrase 'new federal gun law' doesn't scare you? The feds love 'reasonable' restrictions. This is how it starts.

I included the other stuff for the short-sighted MA residents that don't care about laws they don't think will affect them to point out the likely consequences.




Too late. The fact that some of us need permits at all is an infringement. This new federal law legitimizes that fact, and you're for it.
Click to expand...

Another page in the "under the radar" playbook? If it passes, and there is no veto....watch out!!!
 
jasons said:
Maybe I'm reading a different version of the bill but I don't see where anything indicates that the feds would take over licensing. On the contrary I see this:


Nor so I see anything that gives the feds any more power than they already have. They already have the power to compel the states to recognize individual rights and have done so many times. We can argue about whether or not that's "right" from an intellectual standpoint but we have well over 100 years of precedent in this area so this is not likely to change any time soon.

I get it, you're coming from the "any federal law is a bad law" perspective. For what it's worth I agree up to the point that a state decides that it can ignore our individual rights. Once a state (or states) crosses that line the feds have a responsibility to step in. That's what I see here.
Click to expand...



i agree with you on this, my understanding is simply you can carry

in other states, but must comply with their laws. its very similar to

your drivers license, you can drive in other states but must abide by

their traffic laws. so whats the issue.. its not written to have the fed

decide what each state has for laws.

the letter Brown wrote to Menino concerns me no matter what the content.
 
I've been sitting on an envelope. His maiden run for the so-called "Kennedy seat", I sent them $200.
I'm glad I sat on this donation for as long as I did. Not another nickel,..... ever. F@@k him! I'll vote for
the a@@hole for Cambridge!! GC
 
They (Scott Brown campaign) just called me. I told him the situation. The guy on the phone said he is a gun owner, too. I told him that he used to have the support of all the gun owners in Mass until the HuffPo article came out. The guy said he will pass that along and I said that I hope Scott changes his mind. They guy agreed and did NOT ask for a donation.
 
They must have the boiler room cooking, because I got the same call. He wanted to know if they could count on me to help again this time around (I volunteered and sent a few bucks last time.) I explained that I couldn't in good conscience support him after that letter to Menino and to please pass that message along. I hope he does.

("He" being the kid on the phone, not Scott himself obviously.)
 
So is scott hunkering down in his warroom 'but but but they have to support me I'm the slightly lessor evil'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Maine: Only One Vote Needed to Kill Waiting Periods
Replies
2
Views
235
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
43
Reptile
Reptile
Florida House Passes Bill to Lower Legal Gun Purchase Age to 18
Replies
0
Views
85
Reptile
Reptile
Back
Top Bottom